THE
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES,
New Series,
VOL. IX.
*
*
*
Of the same Proprietors may be had, in Thirty-six Volumes,
THE
PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY
OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD
TO THE YEAR 1803.
The Editor is preparing for the Press, to be comprised in Two Volumes,
I. A GENERAL INDEX to the Parliamentary History of England from the earliest Period to the Year 1803: and
II. A GENERAL INDEX to the Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Accession of GEORGE THE FOURTH, in 1820.
The two Volumes will form a complete Parliamentary Dictionary, or ready Book of Reference, to every recorded Proceeding of importance that may, at any time, have come before the two Houses of Parliament.
THE
PARLIAMENTARY
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.
VOL. IX.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE FIRST DAY OF MAY,
TO
THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY, 1823.
LONDON:
Printed by C. C. Hansard at the Pater-noster-Row Press,
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, AND CO.;
J. M. RICHARDSON; KINGSBURY AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON; J. RIDGWAY
AND SONS; E. JEFFERY AND SON; RODWELL AND MARTIN; R. H. EVANS;
BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1824.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES 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.
1823.
Page
May 1. Equitable Adjustment of Contracts—Petition of Mr. Thomson
1
May 12. Negotiations relative to France and Spain—Foreign Policy of Great Britain
170
May 22. Austria and Switzerland
435
May 27. Commutation of Tithes in Ireland
538
Marriage Act Amendment Bill
540
June 3. Foreign Wool
648
Marriage Act Amendment Bill
649
June 12. Dissenters' Marriages Bill
967
June 16. Silk Manufacture Bill
985
June 19. The Duke of Devonshire's Motion on the State of Ireland
1033
June 26. Appellate Jurisdiction
1246
June 30. Marriages in Foreign Countries
1319
Appellate Jurisdiction
1321
July 1. Appellate Jurisdiction
1348
July 4. Beer Bill
1432
July 7. Irish Insurrection Bill
1439
July 8. Irish Tithes Commutation Bill
1452
July 9. English Catholics Elective Franchise Bill
1476
Irish Tithes Composition Bill
1490
July 16. Silk Manufacture Bill
1529
July 17. Silk Manufacture Bill
1533
July 18. Roman Catholic Establishments
1534
July 19. King's Speech at the Close of the Session
1543
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
May 2. Negotiations relative to Spain—King's Answer to Address
8
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
8
May 5. Reform of Parliament—Petition from Edinburgh
31
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
34
May 6. Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
69
May 7. Sale of Game Bill—Petition of Mr. Cobbett against it
79
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
83
May 8. Petition of Richard Carlile, complaining of the Seizure of his Property
114
Breach of Privilege—Complaint against "The British Press"
117
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
119
May 9. Spital-Fields Silk Manufacture Acts—Petition for the Repeal thereof
143
Scotch Linen Manufacture
150
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
151
May 12. Law of Principal and Factor—Petition for an Alteration thereof
211
Importation of Tallow—Petition for an Additional Duty on
213
Beer Duties Bill
214
Spital-Fields Silk Manufacture
217
Irish Insurrection Act
218
May 14. Foreign Wool Tax—Sir J. Sinclair's Petition against the Repeal of
239
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
239
State of Newfoundland
245
May 15. Slavery—Petitions for the Abolition of
255
Slavery—Mr. Fowell Buxton's Motion for the Abolition of
257
May 16. Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
360
Irish Tithes Composition Bill
365
May 21. Insolvent Debtors Act—Petition from Westminster for the Repeal of
376
Silk Manufacture Bill
377
Pretensions of Russia—North West Coast of America
387
Irish Trading Vessels—Harbour and Light Dues
388
Mr. Sykes's Motion for the Repeal of the Tax on Tallow Candles
390
Sir James Mackintosh's Motion respecting the Rigour of our Criminal Laws
397
Bull-baiting and Dog-fights
433
May 22. Standing Order respecting Bills of Trade
435
Austria and Switzerland
439
The Greeks and Turks
441
May 22. Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
441
Half-Pay of the Army in Ireland
442
East and West India Sugars
444
May 23. Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
467
May 26. Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
507
May 27. Small Debts Recovery Committee
543
Combination of Workmen Bill
546
Felo de Se Bill
550
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
550
Irish Joint Tenancy Bill
560
May 28. Special Juries—Petition of Mr. John Hunt
563
British Roman Catholics Tests Regulation Bill
574
Collection of the Malt and Beer Tax
592
May 30. Wages of Manufacturers—Use of Machinery
598
Irish Tithes Composition Bill
602
June 2. Agricultural Distress
609
Reform of Parliament—Devon Petition
609
Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion on the State of the Scotch County Representation
611
Sheriff of Dublin—Inquiry into his Conduct
644
Sale of Game Bill
644
June 3. Mr. Abercromby's Motion relative to the Conduct of the Lord Advocate of Scotland in the Case of W. M. Borthwick
664
June 4. Breach of Privilege—Complaint against "The Morning Chronicle" for reflecting on the Members of the House
691
Colonel Wood's Motion respecting the Law of Settlement
693
Mr. J. Williams's Motion relating to Delays in the Court of Chancery
706
Barilla Duties
738
Mr. J. Williams's Motion relating to Delays in the Court of Chancery
739
June 6. Reciprocity of Duties
795
Irish Tithes Composition Bill
802
June 9. Silk Manufacture Bill
810
Leeward Islands—Four and a Half per Cent Duties
819
Expense of the Coronation
828
June 11. Silk Manufacture Bill
831
Mr. Western's Motion respecting the Resumption of Cash Payments and Alterations in the Currency
833
June 12. Mr. Western's Motion respecting the Resumption of Cash Payments and Alterations in the Currency
902
Mode of selecting Grand Juries—Petition from Liverpool
964
Roman Catholic Marriages
965
June 13. Barilla Duties Bill
973
Beer Duties Bill
975
Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
977
June 16. London Bridge Bill
988
Irish Tithes Composition Bill
989
June 17. Beer Duties Bill
992
Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
993
June 17. Usury Laws Repeal Bill
1014
June 18. Burning of Hindoo Widows
1017
Hindoo Infanticide
1021
Employment of the Poor of Ireland—Mr. Owen's Plan
1021
Sir Gerard Noel's Motion relative to Olive (styling herself) Princess of Cumberland
1022
British Roman Catholics Tests Regulation Bill
1031
June 19. Reform of Parliament—Petition from Newcastle-upon-Tyne
1072
Petition of Mr. Butt, complaining of his Confinement
1074
Middlesex County Court
1079
Mr. Hume's Motion relative to Promotions in the Navy
1079
Jurors Qualification Bill
1103
Coronation Expenses
1106
June 20. Library of the late King—British Museum
1112
June 23. British Roman Catholics Tests Regulation Bill
1127
Lottery
1139
June 24. Petition of the Hon. Basil Cochrane, complaining of the Conduct of the Victualling Board in the Examination of his Accounts
1139
Irish Insurrection Bill
1147
June 25. Inequality in the Administration of the Law—Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland
1203
Historical Painting—Petition of B. R. Haydon
1209
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
1212
Education of the Poor in Ireland
1241
Larcenies (Benefit of Clergy) Bill
1244
June 26. Petition of George Rowan—Complaint against Colonel Crosbie, a Member of the House
1253
Mr. Brougham's Motion respecting the Administration of the Law in Ireland
1255
June 27. King's Message respecting Viscount St. Vincent's Annuity
1318
Petition of George Rowan—Complaint ageinst Colonel Crosbie, a Member
1318
Usury Laws Repeal Bill
1319
June 30. Private Mad-houses
1332
Scotch Juries Bill
1334
Scotch Commissaries Courts Bill
1337
Roman Catholics Elective Franchise Bill
1341
July 1. British Museum
1357
Petition of George Rowan—Complaint against Colonel Crosbie, a Member
1361
Religious Opinions—Petition of Ministers of the Christian Religion for Free Discussion
1365
July 2. New South Wales Jurisdiction Bill
1400
Capture of the Ship Requin in the Garonne by Mr. Ogilvie
1405
The Budget
1412
Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
1422
July 3. General Index to Journals—Ingrossing Bills
1428
Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
1429
July 4. Irish Tithes Composition Bill
1434
July 7. Conduct of Baron M'Clelland—Petition of John Quin
1442
Prisons Bill—Flogging
1446
New South Wales Jurisdiction Bill
1447
July 8. New South Wales
1456
Distilleries Bill
1458
Collection and Management of the Land Tax
1461
Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
1471
July 9. Penitentiary at Millbank
1493
Jurors Qualification Bill
1496
Foreign Policy of the Country
1498
Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
1506
July 10. Delays in the Court of Chancery
1511
Scottish Law Commission Bill
1512
Quarantine Regulations at Malta
1526
July 18. Silk Manufacture Bill
1540
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
July 19. King's Speeeh at the Close of the Session
1543
IV. KING'S MESSAGES.
June 27. King's Message respecting Viscount St. Vincent's Annuity
1318
V. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY 1823.
CLASS I. Public Income
Appx.
II. Public Expenditure viii
III. Consolidated Fund xiv
IV. Public Funded Debt xvi
V. Unfunded Debt xix
VI. Disposition of Grants xx
VII. Arrears and Balances xxi
VIII. Trade and Navigation xxii
VI. PETITIONS.
May 7. PETITION of Mr. Cobbett against the Sale of Game Bill
81
9. PETITION of the Silk Manufacturers of London and Westminster, for the Repeal of the Spitalfields Acts
143
28. PETITION of Mr. John Hunt respecting Special Juries
563
June 24. PETITION of the Hon. Basil Cochrane, complaining of the Conduct of the Victualling Board in the Examination of his Accounts
1143
PETITION of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, respecting Inequality in the Administration of the Law
1203
July 1. PETITION of Ministers and Members of Christian Congregations for Free Discussion
1366
VII. LISTS.
May 12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Irish Insurrection Act Renewal Bill
238
May 14. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion for a Committee on the State of Newfoundland
255
May 21. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Sir James Mackintosh's Motion respecting the Rigour of our Criminal Laws
432
May 22. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Whitmore's Motion respecting the Duties on East and West India Sugars
467
May 28. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Maberley's Motion respecting the Malt and Beer Tax
598
June 2. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord A. Hamilton's Motion on the State of the Scotch County Representation
642
June 3. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Abercromby's Motion respecting the Conduct of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, in the Case of W. M. Borthwick
690
June 5. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. J. Williams's Motion relating to Delays in the Court of Chancery
794
June 9. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Fowell Buxton's Motion for recommitting the Silk Manufactures Bill
818
June 12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Western's Motion respecting the Resumption of Cash Payments and the State of the Currency
964
June 13. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Barilla Duties Bill
975
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Beer Duties Bill
977
June 16. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the London Bridge Bill
989
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Irish Tithes Composition Bill
992
June 17. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Beer Duties Bill
993
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Usury Laws Repeal Bill
1017
June 19. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Lords, on the Duke of Devonshire's Motion respecting the State of Ireland
1072
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Lennard's Motion respecting the State of the Middlesex County Court
1079
LIST of the Minority, on Mr. Hume's Motion relative to Promotions in the Navy
1102
June 19. LIST of the Minority, on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Expense of the Coronation
1111
June 24. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Irish Insurrection Bill
1203
June 25. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Larcenies (Benefit of Clergy) Bill
1246
June 26. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Brougham's Motion respecting the Administration of Justice in Ireland
1317
July 1. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on receiving Mr. G. Rowan's Petition, complaining of the Conduct of a Member
1365
During the Fourth Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Fourth Day of February 1823, in the Fourth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth
1823.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 1, 1823.
EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF
Earl Stanhope presented a petition from Charles Andrew Thomson, of Chiswick, in the county of Middlesex. The petition was the same as the one presented from the same gentleman to the House of Commons, a copy of which will be found in our preceding volume, at p. 188. After it had been read,
Earl Stanhope
rose and addressed their lordships nearly as follows:—My lords, the petition which has just been read brings under your consideration a subject of very general interest and extreme importance—it is that subject of equitable adjustment, which has been so much misunderstood by some, and has been by others so much misapplied. An equitable adjustment is a phrase which of itself implies an adjustment upon principles of right, a true, clear, and undeniable consequence of that natural and immutable state of affairs, without which, although obedience to human laws may be enforced, those laws cannot command respect. It is evident, that if the government of a country alter the value of its currency, it ought in the same proportion, to alter the value of contracts made antecedent to such a regulation. By the introduction of the Bank Restriction bill in 1797, the value of the currency was rendered what it was not before; and such has proved to be the case not only with respect to gold, but by that which affords a much more accurate criterion, namely, by the value of manufactures and commerce. With
2
3
4
5
6
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
7
8
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 2, 1823.
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN
Mr. Secretary Canning reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address of the House, as follows:
"I thank you for this loyal and dutiful Address: I receive with satisfaction the expression of your gratitude for my earnest endeavours to preserve the peace of Europe, and the assurances of your ready and affectionate support in any measures which I might find it necessary to adopt for maintaining the honour of my Crown, and the interest of my people."
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
Mr. Spring Rice having moved, "That Dillon, M'Namara, and Terence O'Reilly, attornies of Dublin, do attend this House on the 9th of May,"
9
Mr. Plunkett
said, he would avail himself of the opportunity which the motion afforded him of stating to the House a fact of considerable importance, not only to himself but to the question which had engaged, and was likely to engage still further, the attention of the House. It was in the recollection of the House, that both in the speech and motion of the hon. member for Armagh,
*
ex officio
ex officio
*
10
ex-officio
ex-officio
Mr. Denman
asked if any judgment had been passed in the case mentioned by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Plunkett
replied, that judgment had been signed for want of a plea; but; in consequence of the contrition expressed by the defendant, and of his having lost a valuable appointment, no further punishment had been visited upon him.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he had heard this statement with the greatest astonishment. They had been told, from the beginning to the end of this business, that the imputation upon the character of the attorney-general for Ireland was that of having acted without precedent. The hon. member for Armagh had concluded, his speech by saying, that his conduct had been unprecedented, contrary to the practice of the court, and not congenial to the spirit of the British constitution. If the fact which had been just stated had then been known, it would have made the greatest possible difference in the case. He wished, however, to ask one question, and, if it should be answered in the affirmative, the House would see the
11
ex necessitate rei,
Mr. Plunkett
said, he was bound in justice to the crown solicitor to state, that two gentlemen of the same name had held that office. They were father and son. The father was dead, and the son must have been a very young man at the period to which he had alluded.
Sir J. Newport
said, that however young that person might be, he had, at the period mentioned, acted for his father; and if he was then competent to do so, he must be well acquainted with the facts of the case.
Mr. Grattan
said, that as the gentleman alluded to had acted for his father during a series of years, he thought it advisable, that he should attend at the bar of the House. [Loud cries of "Mr. Saurin also."]
Sir N. Colthurst
thought it very possible that the crown solicitor might have forgotten the matter, as the right hon. gentleman himself had done so.
Colonel Barry
said, he would move that the name of Mr. W. Kemmis the crown solicitor, be added to those of the witnesses already moved for.
Mr. Calcraft
moved, that Mr. Saurin's name should also be added.
Mr. Goulburn
thought it would be a most inconvenient course to enlarge the examination of witnesses, unless in the course of the proceeding, circumstances M should arise of a nature to call for it.
12
Mr. Calcraft
consented to withdraw his motion for the attendance of Mr. Saurin. It was certainly difficult at present to state to what extent the examination would proceed.
Mr. Secretary Peel
wished the House to suspend its judgment with respect to Mr. Kemmis. The fact which had been stated by his right hon. friend was, undoubtedly, very important; but still he thought it possible that it might have been forgotten. Mr. Townsend who had concurred with his right hon. friend, had also been in office in 1811, and yet he did not remember it. The present lord chief justice of Ireland was at the same period the solicitor general, and yet, when the cause was tried before him, and the objection urged by the defendant's counsel, that this was a case without precedent, his own memory did not furnish him with this fact, with which it was almost certain that he must have been acquainted.
Colonel Barry
said, his reason for ordering the attendance of Mr. Kemmis was, because, in the course of the examination, matter might come out which it would be necessary for him to explain. From the number of witnesses summoned, it would appear that the examination was meant to be indefinite. If gentlemen should institute an inquiry into the feuds of unhappy Ireland from the time of Henry 2nd, he could have no objection to it; but he would not, therefore, lose sight of the question then before them; namely, whether the conduct of the sheriff did, or did not deserve the censure of the House? As gentlemen appeared willing to confine their examination to that point, he would withdraw his motion.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that having, brought the proceeding to the present point, and put it in a train of investigation, he would now leave it in the hands of the gentlemen
13
Mr. Benjamin Riky
called in, and examined.
14
15
Plunkett.
Newport.
16
Milton.
Brougham.
Newport.
S. Rice.
17
Phillimore.
S. Rice.
Scarlett.
Barry.
J. Mackintosh.
18
Barry.
Brownlow.
J. Mackintosh.
T. Ellis.
19
S. Rice.
Bright.
Barry.
S. Rice.
20
Hume.
Plunkett.
Brownlow.
F. Lewis.
Stanley.
Bright.
Denman.
21
Martin.
Brownlow.
Ellis.
S. Rice.
22
Plunkett.
J. Newport.
23
Brougham.
ex officio
ex officio
24
Mr. Dawson
rose to order. He said that they had before them the case of the conduct of juries upon criminal matters. The learned member was going into an examination with respect to their conduct as to civil concerns—a course which he submitted was irregular.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had had his misgivings that there was something in the state of Ireland, and in every thing connected with the administration of justice in that country, which would make it a very ticklish thing to ask a single question about it during the inquiry in which the House was engaged. He was not, therefore, much surprised at the interruption which had just been made. The hon. member who had made the objection would only allow the House a farthing candle glimmering before their eyes, instead of a torch, to light them through what he foresaw would be neither a short nor a simple examination. Now that the House had, God be thanked, for the first time, entered into an investigation of the gross and flagrant abuse of the administration of
25
Sir G. Hill
defended Mr. Dawson, from the sarcasms of Mr. Brougham, and said that he was most anxious for the fullest scope of inquiry.
Mr. Brougham
complimented the hon. baronet on his candour and manliness in declaring for an open and fair inquiry. He denied having dealt out any sarcasms. He had no cause for doing so.
[The witness was again called in.]
By Mr.
Brougham.
Do the term grand jury and the sessions grand jury, taken together, levy money for the payment of the salaries of different officers?—They do.
What sort of officers?—Clerks of the crown.
Any other officers?—Clerks of the peace; they are called the town clerks in Dublin; for them a very considerable levy takes place, for a great deal of business is done in the Sheriff's-court; all gaolers and keepers of prisons, sheriff's fees; all demands of that sort.
Any other officers?—There are other minor officers belonging to the court, the officers of the court of King's-bench, and the officers of the Commission court.
All those they levy the money for?—They do.
Are those, or any of those, officers appointed, by the corporation of Dublin?—The town clerk is of their appointment, I apprehend.
The gaoler?—Yes, and the gaoler.
Any of the others?—The sub-sheriff.
Do any other officers appointed by the corporation receive salaries levied by the grand
26
Do you recollect any other purposes for which monies are levied by the term grand jury, besides those you have mentioned?—I cannot charge my memory with any others.
The expenses of the prison, and clothing and providing for the convicts?—Of course, I mentioned the gaol and the penitentiaries.
Who gives the contracts for the clothing of those?—The grand jury appoint. I apprehend, the expense of bread and milk, and all those matters for the gaol, is very considerable.
Who give the contracts for those?—I apprehend the grand jury.
By open bidding?—I do not know.
You do not understand that word?—I understand it perfectly.
Open bidding is when an advertisement is made, and any person tenders, and that person is accepted who offers on the cheapest terms. You do not know whether it is done by open bidding or by close contract?—I do not.
Who are the present sheriffs?—The sheriffs elect, are Mr. Arthur Perrin and Mr. Samuel Lampray.
Mr. Sheriff Thorpe and Mr. Sheriff Cooper are in office at present?—Yes.
When were the sheriffs elect appointed to succeed the others?—Within this month, they come into office in September.
Do you happen to know whether they were on the grand jury which ignored the bills against Handwich and Graham?—They were; both of them.
Do you know any thing respecting the details for the expenses that are submitted to the consideration of the grand juries in the city of Dublin?—I am not acquainted with the entire detail; I have looked: over the presentments, as they have been printed.
Respecting contracts, have you never heard that there is a public competition for supplying the prisons with bread, and. meat and clothes, and so on?—I declare I do not know; it may be so, bat I am not aware of it.
Are you aware, that any person contributing to the payment of the grand jury levies, is able by law to traverse any presentment of a public kind that he thinks unfair and unjust?—I apprehend that all presentments are traversable.
By Mr.
Dawson.
If any improper practices are said to exist in the levying of money upon the citizens of Dublin, do not you think that the Citizens are more to blame than the grand jury, if such practices exist, for not traversing the presentments?—Very likely; I may be erroneous, but I would not come to that conclusion. [The witness was directed to withdraw.]
27
Mr. Goulbum
suggested whether it would not be for the convenience of the House, if the inquiry was to be entered upon to which the question of the hon. member would lead, to examine some witness who was well informed on the subject, which the present witness had acknowledged he was not.
Mr. Grattan
thought it was impossible that the witness could answer the question.
Mr. S. Rice
approved of the course of examination which had been proceeded in by Mr. Brougham.
Mr. Wynn
asked whether it was proper that the House should examine a witness as to inferences? The witnesses ought to be called upon to state facts, and members might then make their own inferences.
Mr. Brougham
imagined, from the question which had been proposed by the hon. member, that his questions must have been misunderstood. He had never charged the jury with malversation.
Colonel Barry
thought the House ought to dispose of the case of the high sheriff in the first instance. He would then support an inquiry into the mode in which grand juries were constituted in Ireland.
Sir J. Newport
thought it was impossible to disconnect the case of the high sheriff from the question of the constitution of grand juries.
Mr. Dawson
said, he had only endeavoured to follow up the line of examination marked out by the learned gentleman. The learned gentleman had talked of the flagrant abuse of the administration of justice in Ireland. He (Mr. D.) wished to show that the people of that country, if they were improperly treated, had the means of redress in their own hands. He would not, however, press the question.
[The witness was again called in.]
By Mr.
Dawson.
As clerk of the crown, you can, perhaps, give a more decisive answer than, that you always understood so?—In the counties on the home circuit, I know the fact; with respect to Dublin, I believe it to be so.
By Mr.
Brougham.
28
By Sir
G. Hill.
Has it not been called to your recollection before this day?—No, it has not.
You have referred to documents this day, which prove a perfect accuracy of knowledge of the period, and the particulars, and the result of that ex-officio information, so filed in 1811?—I have.
Will you explain to the House, how you happened to be in possession of those peculiar documents?—With respect to the indictments, I was informed by letter from the clerk of the crown, under whom I hold a deputation, that he was applied to, for copies of indictments; they were in the commission court, of which I am an officer; they came over; he informed me that they were transmitted to London, and that he had examined them, that they were correct, and he called upon me to countersign them; I examined them, I compared them with an attested copy of the ex-officio information, of which attestation I know the officer and the signature, and upon that comparison I ascertain the fact.
You have not stated from what date those indictments were sent from Ireland to you?—I have the letter in my pocket; it is dated "Tuesday, 29th April."
Of what period were those indictments?—Of October, 1811.
Did the present crown solicitor in Ireland act in that capacity in October, 1811?—The crown solicitors at that time were Messrs. Thomas and William Kemmis, of which the elder of that firm is dead.
Mr. William Kemmis is the present crown solicitor?—He is.
By Sir
J. Mackintosh.
Have you an equal knowledge with him of those records in the office?—I have no knowledge of the ex-officio information that did not remain in my care; I have knowledge of the indictments in my court; but of the ex-officio information I have none.
By Mr.
Bennet.
Who is Mr. Blake?—A gentleman at the bar, I believe.
Was that sent to you, or was it sent to Mr. Blake to be given to you?—I apprehend it was sent to Mr. Blake; it was shown to me there.
Was it sent to Mr. Blake, or was it sent to the attorney-general?—I do not know; I did not see the envelope. The attested copy of the information was exhibited to me; I compared it with the indictment, and found, the offence to be the same accurately; the same
29
By Mr.
Plunkett.
By Mr.
Bennet.
Was the attorney-general present?—I think it was the attorney-general presented them to me.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
You hold a public situation under the crown?—I cannot say that it is.
You are clerk of the crown?—I am only deputy.
By what tenure do you hold that situation?—I may be removed to-morrow; I have no certainty of the tenure under which I hold; the gentleman who holds the patent has it for his own life, and his son's; but, I believe, I may be removed at any moment.
By whom?—By the gentleman who has the patent, under whom I hold the deputation.
You are removeable at his pleasure?—I apprehend so.
You are not certain of the fact?—I have heard it stated by gentlemen of great eminence at the Irish bar.
By Mr.
W. Courtenay.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
You stated, that you were shown the ex-officio information by the attorney-general; was that for the purpose of comparing it with the indictment?—It was; and I did compare it with the attorney-general.
Was that indictment in your possession?—I was informed of its arrival, but it came under cover, I believe from the post-office or the castle to come free; it did not come tome, but I was informed of its arrival by the letter in my pocket.
Were you the person to whose custody it ought to have come?—I do not think that was material.
Was it directed to you?—No.
To whom was it directed?—The letter was probably directed to the attorney-general; but in
the
By Mr.
Plunkett.—The
And it was for the sole purpose of comparing
30
You know the hand-writing of the: person who has attested it—Perfectly.
It was for the sole purpose of your knowing that it was the hand-writing of that person, and of comparing it with the indictment, that it Was shown to you by; the attorney-general?—Exactly.
The panels have been in your possession? They have been; I brought them over with me in my trunk.
Have you had any other communication with the attorney-general, except on the subject of this inquiry?—Not the least.
By Mr. H.
Gurney.
Is it in your knowledge, whether the corporators of Dublin have, or have not, generally, a precedence on those panels?—I do not think they have, because on looking at the sworn grand jury, in now no less than nineteen instances, I find that upon many of those grand juries, there were none; no corporators; on some, one; on some, two., Now for example; in a panel amounting to a hundred and seven, of which a hundred and five were called, there were but two common-council-men sworn on the grand jury.
Was it usual that those who were corporators of Dublin, stood at the head of the list?—I believe that is a matter into which I am to make an inquiry; I have not taken any account of the order in which corporators attend. [The witness was directed to withdraw.]
The chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The House then resumed. The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.
QUAKERS AFFIRMATIONS Bill.
Mr. John Williams moved for leave to bring in a bill "to render the Affirmations of Quakers admissible in Criminal Cases."
Mr. H. Gurney
he believed he was warranted in stating, that the bill proposed to be brought in by the hon. and learned gentleman was by no means desired by the members of that body, who were perfectly satisfied with the law as it stood.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 5, 1823.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.—PETITION FROM EDINBURGH.
31
Mr. Abercromby
rose to present a petition from 7,000 house holders Edinburgh; The petitioners laid most representation the peculiar state of the representation of their great city before the House. They offered he opinion on the great question of parliamentary reform, but confined their statement and their prayer to their own peculiar situation, asking that relief which the justice of the case should point out to the wisdom of the legislature. The number of the inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh exceeded 100,000. Since the union of the two kingdoms, Edinburgh possessed the privilege of nominally electing a representative in parliament: but who were the real electors? Thirty three individuals sent to that House, the representative, as he was called of the city of Edinburgh; and even out of those thirty-three, nineteen elected their successors. In that dumber the privilege granted to the city of Edinburgh positively and substantially existed. What was the amount of property possessed by the thirty-three electors, compared with the property of the population, who possessed no voice? The property of the thirty-three electors did not exceed 2,800
l.
l.
32
Mr. W. Dundas
said, it had always been the wise custom of the House to strike at the root of abuses, when they were once exposed; but, in this case, no abuse was alleged to exist by the petitioners themselves. They, nevertheless, asked the House to do that which could not be done without the greatest injustice; they asked the House to infringe upon the chartered rights of the electors of Edinburgh—rights which, by the most solemn compact had been secured to them. He was satisfied that the House would not depart from their usual custom in this instance, nor proceed upon the allegations of a petition signed by persons who, though he did hot know them, in point of numbers bore no proportion to the inhabitants of Edinburgh.
Mr. Kennedy
was rejoiced to see this petition before the House, not only be cause, coming from so important a place as Edinburgh, it must command consider able attention, but because it would bring to the test the sincerity of those persons who said they would favour reform upon, a special case being shown. The statement of his hon. friend had fully made out such a case: thy result of his intended motion would prove the sincerity of the friends of reform. The right hon. gentleman had opposed the petition, and in doing so he had acted with perfect consistency: this was the petition of 7,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh—he was the representative of only 33 of them. Many persons in Edinburgh had refrained from signing the petition, from the ill-success of their previous attempts for a reform of the burghs.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he believed He House were never before aware of the real state of the representation of the city of Edinburgh. It appeared that in a population of above 100,000 persons, the right hon. gentleman opposite was the representative of only 33, which number was in fact reduced to 14, by the circumstance of 19 electing their successors. The right hon. gentleman had lately finished his political career in a manner
33
l.
LORD Binning
was at a loss to understand with what grace a sarcasm upon close representation could proceed from the hon. member for Wareham. After all he had heard of the meeting at Edinburgh, of the stage effect (for it was held in the theatre), of the exertions used, &c he was astonished that out of a population of above 140,000, it was signed by only 7,000 persons. Every one who knew the facility with which all manner of men, women, and children, were got to sign petitions in large towns, and more particularly those who knew the extraordinary efforts which had been used to procure signatures to the petition before the House, must be surprised that they were not more numerous. Those persons who professed themselves friends to partial reform, had been called upon to support this petition. It was not in answer to that call that the rose; for he was no friend to partial, or temperate, or moderate, or any other kind of reform: but he thought this was not the case even for those gentlemen to support. No case had been made out which possessed peculiar claims. The case of Glasgow, for example, was much stronger. He considered this as an attempt to introduce parliamentary reform by piece-meal, and he trusted the House would, resist it,
Mr. J. P. Grant
said that to what had just been dropped by the noble lord, coming, as it did from a professed enemy to
34
Sir R. Fergusson
said, that so far, was the petition from being signed by woman or children, that of the 7,000 signatures there was not one of any person who did not reside in a house of 5
l.
Mr. Hume
believed that there were not more than 10,168 houses in Edinburgh pf more than5
l.
l
Mr. H. Drummond
denied that the petition expressed the sense of the population of Edinburgh. If there had been a strong feeling on the subject, it would have been signed by 40,000 persons.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, sir Robert Heron in the chair,
Mr. Benjamin Riky was called in, and farther examined
By the
Chairman.
By Col.
Barry.—In
Do you know what became of bills of indictment 'between the two days?—They were delivered to me.
Were they returned to the grand jury on the second day, in the same state that they were the first day?—Not exactly.
What difference was made in them?—There
35
The bill of indictment was altered?—It was.
Who altered it?—The crown solicitor.
Do you conceive that any person has a right to alter a record of the court; have you ever known an instance of a bill of indictment being altered while wider the consideration of the grand jury?—I have.
State the instance?—Frequently at the suggestion of the grand jury themselves.
With or without the leave of the court?—Without the leave of the court.
Did you ever know it at the suggestion of a prosecutor?—Tn some degree it is at the suggestion of the prosecutor, for he is under examination in the grand jury room, and if it appear that a matter of fact is erroneously stated in the indictment, it is returned to the officer to correct it: the clerk of the crown, if it is a government prosecution.
Was this alteration by the desire or with the cognizance of the grand jury?—The alteration took place at my own suggestion.
Was it at the desire or the suggestion of the grand jury, that the alteration was made?—It was not.
At whose suggestion or desire was it made?—I believe at mine.
You mentioned that it was by the counsel of the crown?—I discovered the error in the course of the evening, when I came to enter the indictments, that is, to form an abstract for the judges, and the next morning I suggested that the indictment contained that error to, I think, the solicitor-general.
What was the error?—The error was merely this: the offence took place on the 14th Dec; the indictment stated that it was in the fourth year of the king's reign; I knew that it was in the third; and I suggested the alteration from the fourth to the third.
Did you hold yourself authorized to make that alteration without the leave of the court?—I did not make it.
Who did make it?—I made the suggestion to the solicitor-general; Mr. Townsend was also in court; he was disposed to think the indictment was right; however, on examination, the indictment was found to be wrong, and it was amended by the crown solicitor.
With his own hand?—He took the indictment into the chamber; I suppose he did not wish to be seen doing any act with respect to it in the court; he took it into the chamber, and it was there done.
Why do you think he did not wish to be seen doing any act with respect to it in open court?—The court was very crowded.
Why should he not wish to be seen doing any act with respect to it in open court?—I declare I do not know; it was an awkward place to engross or do any thing to an indictment there.
Why should he be ashamed?—I. do not know that he was ashamed.
36
Why should he wish not to do it in open court?—I declare I do not know; I state the fact; he withdrew to the chamber, which was just in the rear of the court, it occurred in twelve or fourteen places, the fourth year of the king's reign.
If that bill of indictment had been found by the jury in the state in which it was originally presented, could the persons, if found guilty, ever have been brought up for judgment?—I think it ought to have been quashed.
It was the crown solicitor that made the alteration in it?—Yes, from the fourth to the third; I believe so; it was to him I gave it, and he withdrew with it.
Were there any other alterations made but that in it?—None that I know of.
The alteration was a mere matter of form, and not of substance?—Exactly so; the bill of indictment was not acted upon by the grand jury at that time.
There was no indorsement upon the indictment by the grand jury before the alteration was made?—None.
That indictment might have been withdrawn, and another more accurately drawn presented?—Exactly so.
By Mr.
Scarlett.
Returned found?—No, nothing was done upon it.
It was before the indictment was found that the alteration was made?—Yes, certainly; I could not have suffered an alteration to be made in the indictment after the grand jury had acted upon it.
By Sir
J. Stewart.
Was there any interlineation of a name after that indictment had gone up to the grand jury?—None that I know of.
Was there any interlineations at all in it?—I believe there are interlineations in the indictment.
Of names?—Of names.
That indictment charged certain persons with a riot and a conspiracy?—It did; there were two bills.
How did those persons appear to you, from the gaoler's calendar, committed; under what charges?—Their cases were distinguished upon the calendar.
How many were committed under a charge of conspiracy to murder?—I believe three; James Forbes was one; one of the Handwiches was the second; one of the Grahams was the third. There were two Handwiches and two Grahams.
Perhaps you can state the person they were charged with a conspiracy to murder?—Perfectly: His excellency the Lord Lieutenant.
They had lain in gaol under this charge a considerable time?—Persome days.
Without bail?—Three of them appeared in
37
You probably recollect the time that those persons were committed; did it not make a very serious and very awful sensation in all Dublin? [The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Goulburn
said, they were assembled to inquire into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, and he could not see how such a question was at all referable to his conduct. The inquiry would be interminable, if they did not adhere to that which was alone the subject of inquiry.
Sir J. Stewart
defended the relevancy of the question he had put, and denied that the examination could be narrowed in the way recommended by his hon. friend.
The Chairman
thought it was utterly impossible to lay down any strict line as to the nature of the questions that should or should not be put. A question which did not at first appear relevant, might lead to very important inferences.
Mr. J. Williams
argued, that a parliamentary inquiry demanded a greater latitude than an inquiry in a court of justice.
Colonel Barry
contended, that they would do nothing if they confined the inquiry to the conduct of the sheriff. He bad put questions which did not go to that point, but which he could not consider as irrelevant. One learned member (Mr. Brougham) had declared his intention to conduct the committee into an inquiry with respect to the whole state of the administration of justice in Ireland. With such a declaration as this before them, how could an extended examination be Avoided?
Mr. J. Graltan
observed, that if they were to go into an inquiry into the conduct of the guild of merchants, and of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the investigation would he without end.
The Chairman
strongly recommended that hon. members would, in their questions, as far as possible, limit their inquiry to matters of strict fact.
Sir J. Mackintosh
wished the recommendation, as far as practicable, to be adopted. Still he thought that acts of the grand jury might eventually affect and involve the conduct of the sheriff.
[The witness was again called in.]
By Sir
J. Stewart
38
Have you any recollection of the gentlemen who signed the requisition, or any of them, for calling that meeting?—It was signed by a great number, and amongst the rest by myself.
Do you recollect being asked the other day, about a Mr. Moore, who was one of the grand jury?—I do.
Was not he one of those who signed that requisition, and one of the first?—I do not know; there were a great number, and I signed my name, and the names of two others who directed me to do so. I did not see his name, but I think it is very likely that he did.
Do you know whether any of the grand jury, and if so, how many, signed that requisition?—I cannot charge my memory with that.
Do you know Mr. Chambers, a solicitor of Dublin?—I do.
He was the solicitor for Mr. Forbes, one of the persons indicted?—He was.
Is that the gentleman who now sits at the side of the sheriff, as his confidential adviser?—That is the gentleman.
By Mr.
Nolan.
Is it considered as a favour for a common-council-man to be put upon a commission grand jury?—I had rather understood it to be a favour to be off of it.
Do you know, whether the usual practice is, for the sheriff to return an open panel, or a. signed one, for the grand jury?—A signed panel.
Do you mean that the panel is signed in the first instance, or that it is first returned, without signature, and afterwards signed in court?—Signed in the first instance.
Were you present at the time that this grand jury was returned?—The sheriff handed me the panel.
Were you in court at the time, and did he hand it to the proper officer?—The sheriff handed it to me as the proper officer.
Do you recollect any observation made by the court considering the number of traversers, as to the propriety or impropriety of returning so small a panel?—I do not.
According to the practice in Dublin, after a grand jury panel is signed by the sheriff, can any be added to it?—If there is not a sufficient number on the panel as returned, the sheriff frequently adds to it.
With reference to the common jury panel, the jury to try, is that returned as a signed panel?—It most usually is.
After it is signed, can any persons be added: to it regularly?—I have known the sheriff directed to take his name from the panel, in order that he might have an opportunity, of enlarging it.
39
By Colonel Barry.—Wete you by at the time the petit jury were; called before the court?—I was in the court of King's-bench when the Jury were called over to try the ex-officio information.
Do you recollect any observation being made by the court at that time, as to the smallness of the panel returned?—I cannot distinctly bring it to my recollection.
Any thing said as to the number of traversers?—At some period or other I remember the observation falling from the court, but when, distinctly, I cannot bring to my recollection,
What was that observation?—It was with reference to; the small number of jurors returned.
Was it stating that they were too small?—Yes, with reference to the smallness of the number.
Finding fault with the smallness of the number?—That was the impression that it made upon me.
Was not that at a subsequent commission?—It was not at a commission at all.
It was not at the commission where this grand jury was impanelled?—It was at the trial of the ex-officio information.
It had nothing to do with the grand jury with reference to which you have been examined?—No.
Who was the presiding sheriff to that commission?—It was a trial at bar, in the court of King's-bench; the same sheriff who returned the grand jury.
If the panel had been double the number that it was, would it have made any alteration in the persons who were sworn on the grand jury at the commission?—of course those that followed afterwards, would not have been called, when the first six-and-twenty of the grand jury appeared.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
You stated that you were in the court of King's-bench when the jury were impanelled to try the ex-officio inforniation?—When the jury were called over; I was brought there as a witness.
Did his majesty's attorney general challenge a great number upon that panel?—There were a number set by on the part of the crown.
pp, not you believe that 29 were the number?—There were a good many, but I cannot speak, to the number.
Do you know who was the foreman of that jury?—I do not recollect
Do you think; Mr. Francis Mills was the foreman?—I believe he was.
Was Mr. Francis Mills upon the commission; grand jury. panel in January—I do not Know.
Will, you, have the goodness to see, whether, Mr. Francis Mills was upon that panel?—
40
Then the foreman of the. jury, to try the ex-officio informations, was one of the grand panel of January 1823?—He was.
Do you not recollect, that many were called before his name was called?—I do not.
You were understood to say you were there; but you do not recollect that circumstance?—rl do not.
Do you know whether Thomas Fry was on both juries?—[The witness referred to the panel] I find that he is.
Do you know whether Mr. Moore is not brother-in-law to the provost of Trinity, college in Dublin?—I do not know.
Do you know Mr. Moore, the solicitor, in Dublin; a neighbour of yours?—Yes, perfectly well.
Do you not know that he is brother to the gentleman on the panel?—I really do not know, but I always understood he was a most respectable gentleman.
By Sir
N. Colthurst.
Then, in point of fact, the law officer of the crown felt it incumbent upon him to object to a greater number upon this panel than on usual occasions?—Yes, it appeared so.
By Mr. J.
Williams.
What was Mr. Fry's number upon that panel?—No. 37.
Do you recollect the number specified in the precept?—The precept, I think, mentions twenty-four.
Do you know, whether the two jurors who served upon the
ex officio
Within these few years, has it not been usual to call Roman Catholics on grand juries?—I have known it occur frequently, latterly.
You act as clerk of the Crown in a great many counties, and in a great many of those counties do you not recollect Roman Catholics being called upon the grand panel promiscuously with others?—I have; and sworn.
Were you present when the result of the trial of the ex-officio information was announced in the court, by the withdrawal of a juror?—I Was not.
You have no knowledge of any ulterior proceedings being intimated by any person, to be taken after the result of a juror being with drawn?—I have not.
Mr. Terence O'Relity
called in and examined
By Mr. J.
Williams.
41
Where have yon resided carrying on that profession?—In the city of Dublin.
Were yon residing in Dublin at the time that the commission jury was sworn in January last?—I was.
Do you remember when the bills went before the grand jury?—Perfectly.
Were you in the court, or in the neighbourhood of the court at that time, when the bills were before the jury?—Alternately in the court and in the neighbourhood of the court during the first and second days of the commission.
On either of those days did you see Mr. sheriff'Thorpe?—Frequently.
Were you present when it was announced that the bills were ignored?—I was.
To whom was that announced?—In the office of the clerk of the crown, Mr. Allen and Green's office in Green-street; in an office adjoining the court-house, in the same building with the court-house in Green-street, Dublin. Were you in that office at that time?—I was. Were any other persons there?—There were.
Can you name any of them?—It was an office of public intercourse, and a great number of persons occasionally go in, and retire at that particular instant I do not recollect that there were many persons; the conversation alluded to, was directed chiefly to a gentleman of the name of Ward, a professional gentleman.
Was sheriff Thorpe in that office?—He was. How near to the time of the news arriving of the bills being ignored?—From an hour to three quarters of an hour previous.
Did you hear Mr. Sheriff Thorpe make any observation to Mr. Ward, or to any other person, at the time you have now alluded to?—He came into the office where I was, and said, "There will be no bills found: have not I managed it well? and my business being done I have no further here."
How was he dressed at that time?—He had his appointments of sheriff', his cocked hat and sword. He took those off; the hat I am not quite positive about; he put on his surtout and immediately went away, as if to communicate the news elsewhere.
Did you hear him say any thing else?—No. Do you know any other person who was present at the time, besides Mr. Ward?—There was Mr. Macnamara an attorney.
Did you mean to say that his had nothing further to do there?—Yes; at that place.
By Col.
Barry.
Do you suppose-there were any others in the room?—I dare say there were, but as to the identity of them, I cannot speak to that.
Were there any clerks in the room?—I am quite sure there were not then; I was standing behind the counter, and there were but three there; and it is the usual place where clerks were, that I was.
42
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe say this in a load tone of voice?—He did in an exulting manner.
Did he speak it was loud as you are speaking now?—I rather think not.
But so that it could be heard by any person who was in the room?—Yes.
Had you any conversation with Mr. Ward about the probable finding of the jury?—I am not quite certain; Mr. Ward will of course tell you if I did. Did you make any observation to Mr. Ward afterwards, respecting the declaration of Mr. Sheriff, Thorpe?—I am not quite sure whether I did.
Have you ever mentioned to any person that you had a conversation with Mr. Ward?—No, never.
When d id you first mention this declaration of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe after you heard it?—Whenever the subject came to be discussed.
When did it come to be discussed?—It occurred very often.
When did you first mention it?—I do not recollect having mentioned it at any particular time so that I could state it exactly, until I was applied to as to giving evidence as to another fact, which I was not competent to do; and I stated my incompetency to do it.
Who applied to you to give evidence as to that fact?—A Mr. Costelow, an attorney.
Was it a fact connected with this inquiry?—It was certainly connected with this inquiry; respecting some juror, or something of that sort.
To whom did you mention this fact first?—To young Mr. Piunket, the attorney general's son.
When?—On Monday or Tuesday last.
Do you remember any particular person to whom you mentioned it previously to Monday last?—I do not.
Do you believe that you mentioned it to any one in the interim?—I did to many.
You do not remember them?—I do not.
But you are clear you had no conversation with Mr. Ward upon the subject?—Perfectly clear.
After Mr. Thorpe left the room?—After Mr. Thorpe left the room.
You did not mention it to him?—I did not.
What induced you to communicate with Mr. Costelow upon the subject?—I never communicated willingly with Mr. Costelow; he stopped me in the hall of the court where we were in the habit of meeting each other, and asked me whether I recollected the circumstance which occurred at the commission.
What circumstance was that?—With respect to a juror that wanted or wished to be on the grand jury of January 1823; and I told him I was quite ignorant on that subject, and could give no evidence whatever of it; that I was most anxious not to give any evidence upon the subject, and that I would feel greatly obliged to him not to press any thing upon me; that I was circumstanced a way now that
43
Was that grand juror's name Poole?—It was.
When had you this conversation with Mr. Costelow?—The same day that I had the communication with the attorney general's son. About Monday or Tuesday last.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
The order of this House never reached you?—It did not.
Then you are a volunteer?—I am, so far.
When did you leave Dublin?—On Friday morning.
Where have you been since your arrival in London?—In one of the hotels.
What hotel is it?—I do not recollect the name precisely.
Is it the Salopian?—That is the name of it.
Have you been talking with any one since you came to London, with reference to the evidence you are to give in this House?—I have.
Is it Mr. Blake?—That is the gentleman.
Were you with him to-day?—I was.
Who told you to go to Mr. Blake?—I called at the attorney-general's this morning, and told him that I had arrived; he was not aware that I had, I believe, until I did come. He felt obliged, he said, for my prompt attendance, and requested I would call on Mr. Blake; which I did.
What did he mean by your prompt attendance?—Coming, probably, without the order of this House.
And he begged you to go to Mr. Blake?—He did.
And you went to Mr. Blake accordingly?—I did.
What conversation had you with Mr. Blake?—I wrote down for him the evidence I could give.
Did he not ask you what you could give, as to such and such questions?—He did not.
What did he do with the written evidence you wrote down?—I do not know.
Did he talk to you at all upon the subject of the evidence you could give?—Yes, he did.
What did he say?—He asked me the evidence I could give; and I said, the shortest way will be, for me to write it down; and he said, it would; and I wrote it down.
And you had no further conversation with him?—No.
By Mr.
Brougham.
Had you any particular acquaintance with young Mr. Plunkett?—No.
Or with Mr. Plunkett, his majesty's attorney-
44
Have you any acquaintance with any member of this House?—I have the honour of knowing many of the members of this House; not intimately.
Are there any you know more than others?—I think I know Mister Ellis more than others.
By Mr.
J. Williams.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe address this conversation to Mr. Ward, as to a person with whom he was intimate?—Yes, I conceived it so.
By Mr.
Scarlett.
By Mr.
Grattan.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
You have said that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe said, the business had been very well managed; was there any allusion to the jury at that time?—I conceive that he alluded to the management of impanelling the jury, by the expressions that he used.
By Mr.
C. Calvert.
And he said that in a loud tone?—Yes.
By a.
Member.
How came it that you never mentioned it to any person until you mentioned it to Mr. Plunkett, jun.?—I have mentioned it frequently; but the particular persons I am not prepared to name.
You have not named any person except Mr. Plunket, jun., to whom you have mentioned it?—There were a great number of persons present besides those: Mr. Macnamaraand Mr. Ward, those can vouch for it.
You cannot name any other individual to whom you mentioned it, except to young Mr. Plunkett?—No.
By Sir
J. Mackintosh.
Are you rightly understood in having begun to say, that you probably had conversed, since the occurrence of that interview, with Mr. Macnamara, the other gentleman present?—That is precisely my evidence.
45
Did you hear the whole of the conversation that passed between the sheriff and Mr. Ward?—I am not quite sure; they seemed to be very intimate, and I would not obtrude myself any thing more than that which was said so loud.
Are you sure there was nothing said previously to that you have repeated?—Certainly not.
By a
Member.
Did you not say that this conversation passed three quarters of an hour before the bills were thrown out?—I do.
How do you reconcile it, that the sheriff should leave the office to carry the news of the bills being thrown out, three quarters of an hour before they had been thrown out?—To communicate to his friends in the city, that the bills had been, or would be, thrown out.
Do you know whether Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had been previously in the grand jury room?—I do not.
Were you in court when the bills were returned?—I was not; but I was so near that I knew it immediately: I was in the office that just the hall divided.
How long was that after Mr. Sheriff Thorpe came into the office?—About three quarters of an hour.
Will you take upon yon to say it was not three o'clock when Mr. Sheriff Thorpe came into the office?—I do not think it was.
Do you know whether Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had been in the habit of employing Mr. Ward as his attorney?—I know nothing about it.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
You have already stated, that you had communicated it to many persons?—I did.
You now tell us you never communicated it to any person?—I say, I do not know any person that I can name at this instant, that I communicated it to.
By Mr.
Denman.
Was there any thing from which you could infer, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had received any particular information with regard to the probability of the bills being thrown out?—Nothing but his coming into the room, and announcing this.
By Mr.
J. Williams.
46
Mr. Dillon Macnamara called in, and examined
By Mr.
Scarlett.
Were you near the court at the time when the commission grand jury, in January last, were sitting upon the bills that were before them?—I was.
Did you, upon that occasion, see Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I did.
Where did you see him?—At various times in court during the day, attending to his duty as sheriff.
Do you remember seeing him at any time in the clerk of the peace's office, adjacent to the court?—I did.
What time of the day might that be?—I think it was between two and three o'clock. I cannot be precise as to the time; about the hour of three I should think.
Do you remember who were present in the room when you saw him there?—No.
Can you name any persons that were present?—Mr. O'Reilly was present; there were several persons in and out of the room that day, all day; whether they were present at that precise period I cannot undertake to say.
Do you recollect Mr. Sheriff Thorpe coming into the room, whilst you and Mr. O'Reilly was there?—I do.
Did he make use of any expression in your hearing?—He did.
State what you recollect him to have said?—He might have said various things; but Relative to the bills, he mentioned, that they were ignored; or, that there were no bills.
To whom did he address that remark?—He expressed it to some friend who was there; Mr. O'Reilly mentioned to me who that gentleman was, but I could not say positively that that was the gentleman; if I was allowed to speak upon my belief, I believe if was.
You believe it was whom?—A Mr. Ward.
Did you hear any question put to him, on any remark made by that gentleman to him?—He asked him, had the bills come down from the grand jury; he said no, but you may make your mind perfectly easy as to the result.
Was there any thing particular in his tone, or manner, when he said that?—He seemed to be well pleased at it.
Did he stay in the office?—No, I think he went away almost immediately after.
Do you remember how he was dressed when he came into the office, or whether he changed his dress before he left it?—I made no remark at the time as to his changing his dress.
Was there any conversation that occurred immediately afterwards between you and other persons, upon the subject?—There was a general conversation in the private room, saying, that they anticipated the result of those bills, inasmuch as there were persons on the jury who would not find true bills against the persons accused.
47
Was there any list of the grand jury in that office?—Yes.
Was that list looked at, at the time, to ascertain the names of the peisons?—Yes.
Did you know the individuals whose names were on the grand jury?—Yes, some of them.
Can yon take upon you to say whether the persons present specified a certain number of grand jurymen that they thought would not find the bills?—There was conversation in the office among the persons that were there, stating that there were persons of a certain—
Mention the word?—That there were fifteen Orangemen upon the grand jury; and other gentlemen said that there, were seventeen.
This was a conversation resulting from what the sheriff had said in the outer office?—It was.
When did you first mention this conversation to any body afterwards?—I do not remember mentioning it till there was a summons from this House for some gentlemen to attend; there were some acquaintances of mine in the courthouse of Dublin, talking of what they could be summoned for, and I mentioned, quite accidentally, what I have just now related, and I immediately got a summons to attend.
Do you know Mr. Costelow?—I do; it was Mr. Costelow I was mentioning it to.
By Colonel
Barry.
How many, do you suppose, were in the room at the time?—I really could not say, with accuracy; there were some of the clerks in the office, I should think; and some five or six other persons.
Where were the clerks standing or sitting?—I took no notice of that whatsoever.
Where were you standing when you heard the words?—I was standing outside the counter. Who was inside the counter?—Mr. O'Reilly, I think, was inside the counter, speaking to a gentleman there; I should rather think it was Mr. Ward.
The conversation you have stated with respect to the gentlemen of the jury, was after the sheriff was gone out?—Yes.
In the same room?—No, in the adjoining room.
Do you recollect hearing from any quarter, or ascertaining before you went away, that the bills had been ignored?—In about an hour afterwards or something better, the bills were then publicly ignored.
What do you mean by that?—That every person in court knew it.
By Mr.
Scarlett.
How long was that, after the conversation which you heard sheriff Thorpe have with a gentleman?—An hour or better.
Do you recollect what those observations
48
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Do you belong to any association in Ireland?—No; some seven or eight years ago I was a freemason; I have been a very bad member, for I have never attended these four years.
Do you know Mr. Mansfield?—I do; he is a clerk in the sheriff's office in the city of Dublin.
Do you recollect having had any conversation with Mr. Mansfield, in order that he might pack a jury for a client of your's?—I certainly do recollect some eight or nine years ago, when I was a very young man in the profession, that there was a person who was a clerk of mine; it was the only criminal case I was ever concerned in in my life; and my client, who was concerned in forging stamps, I believe was afterwards transported; his trial occupied twelve hours; I think he told me that if he could get some friends of his upon the jury, and gave me some friends, if I could prevail upon the sub-sheriff to get his friends upon the panel, he would remunerate the sub-sheriff handsomely. I think it my duty not to conceal any thing, I do not know what the consequences may be; I am perfectly independent of the profession, and I would not conceal any thing which had passed.
Did you communicate those names, with the offer of the bribe, to the sub-sheriff?—I do not think I communicated the names to Mr. Mansfield, but I communicated the substance of my message to him, that if he would put certain persons on the jury, whom my client would wish to be on it, he would be remunerated handsomely.
Do you recollect what Mr. Mansfield's answer to you upon that occasion was?—I think he said, that the jury was out of his power, as it was taken up by the crown; or, that the solicitor of the Stamp-office had ordered the panel to be returned to the castle, or something of that kind; and that he had not an opportunity, even if he wished.
Mr. Mansfield is summoned to the bar of this House?—I heard so this night.
Did not Mr. Mansfield indignantly reject the offer of a bribe?—He said what I have mentioned, that, even if he wished it, it was not in his power; for that the panel was ordered by the crown solicitor, or ordered by the castle; indeed, I think further than that, that the men that were summoned on the panel were not to compose the jury.
Did not he reject the bribe?—He did not get the bribe.
Why did not he get the bribe?—Because he did not do what I wanted.
Was your client tried?—He was; and was transported.
By Lord
Milton.
You said it was a crown prosecution?—It was a prosecution at the suit of the Stamp office.
49
Who conducted it?—The solicitor for the Stamp-office; Mr. Burrow.
Who were the counsel?—I believe Mr. Townsend was one of the counsel on the part of the crown.
Were the attorney or solicitor general employed in the case?—I cannot recollect.
How long ago is it since this case took place?—It was either in 1815 or 1816.
What was the name of your client?—Gallaghan.
You state, that you never thought of this transaction till it was brought to your notice, that you might be questioned upon it; what do you mean by that?—I met Mr. Mansfield, in the lobby of the house, about an hour since; and he told me, that he thought it was fair to mention it; that the party on the opposite side of the court, that he conceived I was summoned for, were aware of the fact; and that he thought it might be asked, that I might be prepared.
By Mr.
Hume.
By a
Member.
By Mr.
W. Williams.
By Mr.
Goulburn.
Have you any doubt of those words having passed?—As to the substance of them, none in the world.
By Mr.
W. Williams.
Were they addressed to a gentleman near Mr. O'Reilly?—Yes.
By Mr.
Denman.
Were you in court when the bills were all ignored?—The bills JL believe were found against two.
The bills were ignored as to some, and found' as to some?—Yes.
Do you remember having said, that Mr.' Mansfield told you he had taken the panel to
50
Did he say the panel was taken to the castle?—Either the castle or the Stamp-office.
By Colonel
Barry.
And he refreshed your memory?—He seemed to recollect it better than I did.
Did he not refresh your memory upon the subject?—No, I do not think he did.
He reminded you of some circumstances you had forgotten?—For instance, he reminded me that it was Mr. Ward the sheriff was speaking to; which I would not certainly take upon myself to state who was the individual that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe addressed himself to.
These written statements that you gave in, did you prepare them at Mr. Blake's office, or send them in afterwards?—No; Mr. Blake asked us one or two words, and then said, "Would you have the goodness to put down in substance what evidence you could give to the House?"
Where did you do it?—In Mr. Blake's office, in his drawing-room.
Were you both together?—Mr. O'Reilly wrote his statement, and I wrote mine.
Did you see his statement?—Yes, I did.
Before you made your own, or after?—Be fore I made my own, and not agreeing exactly in the words; for he mentioned that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe addressed himself to Mr. Ward; and I, not being sure of that, I wrote mine separately.
You stated, that this gentleman, whom you supposed to be Mr. Ward, asked him a question, and that sheriff Thorpe's was a reply to that question?—Yes.
Mr.
Peter Tomlinson
By Mr.
J. Williams.
Were you in Dublin during the trial of the rioters?—I was, occasionally.
Do you know Daniel Smith?—I do. He is a cloth-merchant.
Do you remember going to him about the time of these trials, about some business?—Perfectly, going to take orders for boots. That was two or three days previous' to the trials.
Do you remember your having to wait some time, in order to give the orders to Mr. Smith?—I remember waiting in the outside shop, near the door.
While you were standing there, do you remember any body coming, to whom Mr. Smith spoke?—I recollect a person coming, to whom
51
Who replied "yes?"—The man whom he addressed as sheriff, answered "yes." "Have you made out a list of the jury? "No, I am just going to the office now to make it out." "How many will you impanel?" "I will pick about sixty that we can depend on; they may then challenge as many as they please; they shall have as good a petit jury as they had a grand jury."
Should you know that gentleman, Mr. Sheriff, by sight?—Certainly; though I never saw him before.
Look about you?—[The witness turned round and looked about him.] I do not see him.
Have you seen him since?—I have not. Had you ever seen him before?—Never to my knowledge; and would not have known him then, but that Mr. Smith addressed him as sheriff.
You think you should know him again?—I have not the slightest doubt; I eyed him particularly.
By Mr.
Goulburn.
By Mr.
Denman.
Would you know that other sheriff, the one whom you saw whose name was Cooper?—I do not know that I would, I do not think I would.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
By Mr.
J. Williams.
Mr. Sheriff Thorpe said, that he would give them a good jury of 60 for this second trial?—He said he would pack about 60 that we could depend upon; that they might then challenge as they pleased; that they should have as good a petit jury as they had a grand jury.
Was any one present at this, besides Mr. Daniel Smith and yourself?—One of his young men, a Mr. Peter Alma.
By Colonel
Barry.
To whom?—To several; to Mr. Charles Mageen, to Mrs. Hart.
Do you mean to say that it was Mr. Sheriff Thorpe who made use of this observation?—I do.
By a
Member.
What did he say to you?—He asked me whether I was willing to go to London, and I told him I was.
Did you call upon his majesty's attorney general for Ireland, after you came here?—I went to him the night I came into town, and
52
Mr. John M'Connell called in; and examined
By Mr.
Scarlett.
Do you know Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I do.
Do you recollect seeing him at any time in the house of a Mr. Sibthorpe?—I do.
Was that before or after the trials?—It was before the trials: on the Tuesday after the riot at the theatre.
Do you remember hearing any remark made by sheriff Thorpe there?—Yes; I heard him make use of remarkable expressions.
With whom was he speaking when he made use of those expressions?—Shortly before I heard him make use of a remarkable expression, he was in conversation with William Graham.
What was the remarkable expression to which you alluded?—"I have the Orange panel in my pocket."
Was that addressed to any individual in the room?—It did not appear to me to be addressed to any individual in the room; it was uttered in a low tone of voice.
Who was William Graham?—He was one of the traversers on the business.
Had you been in the room before the sheriff came in, or did you come in and find him there?—When I entered the room the sheriff was in it.
You found the sheriff sitting by Mr. Graham, in the room?—Yes.
Who is Mr. Sibthorpe?—He is a painter and glazier.
Do you know whether Mr. Sibthorpe is a friend of Mr. Thorpe's, the sheriff?—Yes.
You have said that the sheriff was in the room before you entered it?—Yes.
By Colonel
Barry.
Nobody had spoken to him previously upon the subject of the riot at the theatre, or the trial of the prisoners?—I did not hear that any person had spoken to him.
He bolted it out at once without any provocation, "I have an Orange jury in my pocket?"—"An Orange panel."
Without any thing leading to it?—Those were the words he used, "I have the Orange panel in my pocket."
Without any question being addressed to him?—I did not hear any question addressed to him upon the subject.
Whom was he talking to at that time?—Mr. William Graham.
Did you see Mr. Barrett Wadden during the time that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe was remaining at Mr. Sibthorpe's?—No, I did not.
He lives within a door or two, does not he?
53
Has he been in Liverpool lately?—I understand he has.
He is your step-father?—He is.
When is the last time you have seen Mr. Wadden?—I saw him this evening, in the lobby of this House; I saw him a few moments ago.
You are not on terms with him now?—No, I am not.
Whom did you mention this conversation first to?—To a person of the name of Mac Natten.
When were you called upon, or by whom, to give testimony of this?—By Mr. Wadden.
When did you mention that expression of sheriff Thorpe to Mr. Wadden?—The day after I had heard it.
When were you first examined by any officer of the crown, or any professional person, on the subject?—A few days after I had mentioned it to Mr. Wadden.
By whom were you then examined?—The attorney-general for Ireland, at his house in Steven's-green.
Did Mr. Wadden go with you there?—He did.
Will you mention all the persons that were in the room when this expression was supposed to take place?—Mr. and Mrs. Sibthorpe, Miss Sibthorpe, young Mr. Sibthorpe, William Graham, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe.
Could that have been said without any one of them hearing it?—Yes; there were persons in the room that might not have heard it.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Was he the nearest person of the party to him at the time?—Yes, he was.
Then of course that conversation that came to your ears, could not have escaped William Graham's?—I think he could have heard it.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe seem to direct that expression to Graham?—No, he did not appear to direct it to any particular person.
By Mr.
Goulboun.
Have you heard any other remarkable expressions on the part of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I have. He said, "I wish the devil had the marquis Wellesley out of this."
Were there any others that you recollect used by him?—Yes; I cannot repeat his exact words; but the meaning of them was, "he is an annoyance, he is in our way?"
Are you stating the substance of a conversation, or only a particular expression?—I am only stating the substance, the meaning that I attached to what I heard.
At what period did you communicate those
54
By Mr.
Bright.
Were they communicated to the attorney-general before the grand jury was empanelled?—I cannot say.
By a
Member.
Had you, or any of the company present, been talking of the marquis Wellesley, before Mr. Sheriff Thorpe made use of that expression?—I do not think I had been talking of the marquis Wellesley.
Was the marquis Wellesley talked of in that society?—The subject of conversation, at one time, related to the occurrence at the theatre; and I think the marquis Wellesley's name was I mentioned.
Did sheriff Thorpe say any thing about the I marquis Wellesley at that time?—I did not hear any remark from sheriff Thorpe.
That was the circumstance that seemed to lead to the observation?—The act of buttoning I up his coat, you mean; I observed him make use of the expressions when he was buttoning up his coat.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
You have stated, that he was one of the traversers?—Yes.
Was he aware at the time, that he was accused of having conspired to assault and insult the lord lieutenant in the theatre?—I cannot say.
Did you know that he was?—No.
Henry Cooper, esq. called in; and examined
By Sir
G. Hill.
Do you recollect the striking of the panel of the grand jury, that has caused this inquiry?—Yes.
Were you called upon, on that occasion, to I take any part in the striking of that panel?—I was.
By whom?—By the solicitor, Mr. Kemmis; by letter.
Have you that letter in your pocket?—I have not.
Can you state what the purport of that letter was?—It was, that I should take a part in the striking of that jury, to prevent any' observations.
That letter was from whom?—From Mr. Kemmis.
55
The crown solicitor?—Yes; I think it went so far as to say, by desire of the attorney-general.
Would you have interfered with your brother sheriff in the striking of that panel, if you had not received that letter?—I do not think I should.
And why?—I conceived, that the sheriffs acting quarterly had that prerogative of striking their, own juries; he was the elder sheriff.
Is there any etiquette between the sheriffs, with regard to each striking a grand jury at a commission by themselves, without the interference of their brother sheriff?—I conceive it so.
What is the usual arrangement between the sheriffs in that particular?—The usual arrangement is, that the sheriff for the quarter strikes his panel; and that he may or may not communicate with his brother sheriff.
Is it the arrangement, that the senior sheriff strikes the panel of the first grand jury?—It is.
And the junior sheriff the next grand jury?—The next quarter.
What occurred between you and your brother sheriff, when you attended at the striking of this grand jury at the request of the crown solicitor?—He had made his document for the sub-sheriff to strike the panel; I attended, and we concurred on the panel which was struck. I mean, that my brother sheriff and I had agreed upon the gentlemen who were put upon that panel.
Do you mean thereby to say, that you and your brother sheriff went through the list of the proposed grand jurors who were to serve upon it?—Yes.
Did you go through that list, and canvass the names individually?—We did, with the sub-sheriff, Mr. Whistler.
Had you any feeling, that you had a more peculiar duty than on other occasions to perform, when you were so particularly called upon to assist your brother sheriff in striking this panel?—I did, in consequence of the letter I received.
Did you feel any particular responsibility upon yourself upon that occasion, to look to the individuals that were proposed to serve upon that grand jury?—I considered, that those men who were put upon that panel, should be respectable citizens of Dublin.
Did you, as a sheriff, feel yourself personally responsible for the characters of the individuals upon that panel, as far as your intelligence could assist you?—Yes.
Have you a pretty large acquaintance with the citizens of Dublin?—Indeed, pretty generally.
What is your own situation in life?—A coach-maker.
How long have you belonged to the corporation of Dublin?—About 13 years.
Did it occur to you, to offer any objection to your brother sheriff, with respect to any of the Names proposed upon that panel, as in anywise objectionable?—I did.
56
Did you object to any of them in consequence?—I did.
What became of those names that you did object to?—They were struck off the panels.
Do you recollect how many there were?—One particularly, I think.
Did you consider, that that grand jury was as respectable, for all the purposes of discharging their duty, as grand juries usually are?—They were.
To whom was the crown solicitor's note addressed?—The letter I received was directed personally to me.
Did you exercise a more than ordinary scrutiny with regard to that panel, in consequence of that letter, or not?—From the names that appeared to me, I exercised it so far, as I conceived those men who were put on it to be fully responsible for the situation in which they were placed.
Were the names that were struck upon that panel, usually to be found on other grand jury panels in Dublin?—I rather think they were.
Did it appear to you, upon the examination of that panel, that there was any extraordinary number of persons that had not usually been upon the grand jury panels placed upon it?—
Were those individuals that were struck off that panel, objected to upon any political ground?—No.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe represent to you, that a man of the name of Poole had applied to be on that grand jury?—He did.
Mr. Sheriff Thorpe suggested that to you?—No, Mr. Poole applied to me.
Do you recollect Mr. Sheriff Thorpe making any observations on the name of William Poole in that list?—I recollect that a conversation occurred, that Mr. Poole had applied to me; he came to my office to say that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe promised to put him on that panel, and applied to me to (speak to Sheriff Thorpe; I told him that it was his quarter, and I referred it to him.
What passed between you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe upon the subject of Mr. Poole?—In consequence of his application, we mutually agreed that we did not think he should be one on the panel, from his application.
It was by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe your attention was called to the name of Poole upon that list?—I had myself an objection, in consequence of his calling on me.
In which objection Mr. Sheriff Thorpe concurred?—He did.
Have you seen Mr. Sheriff Thorpe in company with the lord lieutenant of Ireland, since the striking of this grand commission panel?—I have, more than once.
57
Did his excellency receive Mr. Sheriff Thorpe as a public delinquent, as a man who had packed the jury to acquit men guilty of an assault upon his person; how did the lord lieutenant receive Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—As far as I perceived, perfectly politely.
Did he receive him cordially?—He appeared to receive him as he received me.
He made no distinction between you?—I perceived none.
Did he shake you by the hand?—The last place I had the honour of being shaken by the hand by his excellency, was at church; he also shook sheriff Thorpe and the lord mayor by the hand there too.
When was that?—I think on yesterday fortnight.
Since a motion of censure was made against the attorney-general for Ireland in this House?—Oh, long since.
By Colonel
Barry.
Did sheriff Thorpe, or you, take the most active part in the formation of that panel?—I did.
If sheriff Thorpe had declared that he would take care to have as good a petit jury for the trial of the ex-officio informations, as he had had a grand jury for the ignoring the bills of indictment, could he have effected it?—Certainly not through me.
If sheriff Thorpe had wished to pack a petit jury for that purpose, could he have effected It?—Certainly not.
If you were told, that sheriff Thorpe said, in a company, that he would do so, would you believe it?—I should not suppose he would be capable of making use of such an expression; if he did, I think he was wrong.
Are you a party man?—No.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Did you give "The glorious memory" at your dinner?—I did not.
You are understood to say, that when you attended Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to strike the panel for the grand jury, there was a list of names prepared?—Yes.
That list was ready when you got there?—It was.
Out of that list you found, who did you object to?—I think there were three that I objected to.
Those names being omitted the remainder stood?—Yes.
Are you acquainted with all or the majority of those names that appeared upon the list?—Pretty generally.
Were you acquainted with their political sentiments?—No, I was not.
Then you and your brother sheriff did not select the names out of the corporators at large, but out of a list of fifty-three ready prepared by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—Yes.
58
If that fifty-three had contained names, or had been composed of those people you thought objectionable, with a view to the end of justice, could you though objectionable, with a view the end of justice, could you not have desired might have been altered.—Yes.
Would you not have: desired that panel should have been increased, if you had thought it right?—I would.
You have stated, you and. you sub-sheriff were chiefly engaged in composing the panel for the petit jury, could that have been described, with any justice, by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, as an Orange panel?—From my feelings, I think not.
Are you an Orangeman?—I am not.
Is sheriff Thorpe, to your knowledge, an Orangeman?—Not to my knowledge: an Orangeman?—Not to my knowledge.
Was not Mr. Sheriff Thorpe the first sheriff who gave that obnoxious toast at the Sheriffs dinner, after the visit of the king to Ireland?—He gave "The Glorious and Immortal Memory."
Who is the person who serves the summonses on the grand jurors?—There are different persons to serve them.
The bailiff?—Yes.
Is he paid by the sheriff?—He is paid by the sheriffs.
He pays nothing to the office?—No, I believe not.
Was there any different mode of delivering the summonses on that occasion, from that usually adopted?—I do not know any thing of the serving of those summonses; the others were in my quarter, and I was particular with the bailiff himself, and I swore him to the service of those summonses.
Are you aware that the same was done on the part of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I am not.
Did you suggest to sheriff Thorpe any names to be added to that grand panel?—I do not recollect that I did.
By Mr.
N. Calvert.
Those objections you state were not at all on account of their political principles?—No, I knew not their politics.
Several persons whose names were upon the panel were canvassed between you and your brother sheriff, as to their fitness or unfitness to remain on the panel; had you conversation about it?—We had.
Was it at all on the ground of the political principles or party feeling of any of those persons, that this canvassing took place between you?—No.
You have stated that in going to communicate with your brother sheriff, respecting this panel, you conceived it your duty to see that it was formed of respectable citizens of Dublin?—I did.
Was that the only consideration?—Nothing more.
You had not any means of judging whether this panel consisted of fewer names than usual,
59
Have you been in the habit of observing what was the usual number of common-council-men on a commission grand jury?—I think they varied frequently.
Have you formed any notion in your own mind, what the usual number of them were upon the panel?—At that period I did not consider it; at this moment I have seen eight, ten, or twelve.
Did it occur to you, on looking over that panel, that there was an unusual number of common-council-men upon that?—It did not, particularly.
Have you since observed that circumstance?—Since, from remarks, I have observed that there were more common-council-men than usual upon it.
Is there one sub-sheriff for both the sheriffs, or have you each one?—One for both.
You spoke of
your
What is the manner in which that is done?—It is formed partly by the sub-sheriff and partly by the high-sheriff.
In what manner was that panel formed?—He submitted the list of respectable citizens to me; with this, and with my own knowledge of the city, I struck that ex-officio jury, and returned it to him.
The body of the list is presented to the sheriff in the usual course, ready formed by the under-sheriff?—No; he submitted a number of names of the respectable merchants and traders of Dublin; with those whom I added myself, we afterwards made a list for the panel, at which sheriff Thorpe was present.
Can you at all state the proportion of names you added to those that he submitted to you?—I dare say there might be one half; those men whom he submitted I very well knew.
Then it was the same person who performed the office you have stated in forming the panel for the petit jury for the ex-officio informations, who had in like manner primarily formed the panel for the grand jury, in January 1823?—No, I cannot say that;
Was not it the same sub-sheriff?—Yes; how far sheriff Thorpe communicated with him I cannot say.
You do not know whether that is the usual course for the sub-sheriff to form this subject to his communication with the high sheriff?—It depends upon the sub-sheriff and the high-sheriff; I have that confidence in the sub-sheriff, to believe that he would not submit any man upon that, that I would not myself think a proper man.
In whose hand-writing was the panel for the grand jury, when it was submitted to you?—I believe it was in sheriff Thorpe's.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
60
Have not you understood what is the usual and ordinary course in the office; is it not the ordinary course for the panel to be returned by the clerk in the office, and not by the high-sheriff—I rather think not.
Is there any difference in the mode of framing the panel of the grand juries and the petty juries?—I always understood the high-sheriff took that prerogative to himself of returning the grand jury.
Always, in ordinary cases, that he took that prerogative to himself?—In all cases, I understood it so.
Do you mean to say, that the usual and ordinary practice in the Sheriffs-office is for the high-sheriff to return the panel of the grand jury, and not to have it return by the clerk in the office?—It is my feeling in the office; that is what has been done since I came into office.
At what time was it that you first interfered with respect to the return of the January grand jury panel?—On receiving the letter from Mr. Kemmis, I communicated to the sub-sheriff and to the high-sheriff; that was my first interference.
A panel was then shown to you, in the handwriting of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I believe it to be so.
Do you not believe that a great proportion of the persons who were returned upon that grand jury panel by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, were persons of very strong political feeling upon the particular question of dressing the statue and drinking the toast?—I conclude, that some were, and some were not if I could form an opinion of the whole I would do so.
Had there not been an election of corporators in December?—There was.
Was not there a very strong agitation in the public mind, at the time of the election of those corporators, particularly on the subject of the dressing of the statue?—Not to my knowledge at that time.
In December had not the dressing of the statue been prevented, by order of the lord mayor, in the month of November?—Yes.
Was not there a censure of the lord mayor, by the corporation, for doing so?—There was.
Was not there a censure of the lord mayor by the guild of merchants, for doing so?—I believe there was.
Was not it in the midst of that agitation, that the new corporators were elected, in the month of December?—It was.
Was not there a very strong political feeling in the minds of a great body of the corporators who were so elected in December, at the very time when those censures were pronounced?—In some guilds there was strong political feelings expressed, I believe.
In the guild of merchants, particularly, was there not a very strong political feeling expressed?—I conceive there was.
61
The guild of merchants elect 31 common-council-men?—Yes.
Will you have the goodness to look at that paper [a paper being handed to the witness]; do not you believe that that printed list was furnished by the persons who are the friends of dressing the statue to the corporators, for the purpose of having a list chosen of common-council-men from the guild of merchants according to it?—I consider this a list for the purpose of returning those men that were in it.
Will you have the goodness to read the title of it?—"Guild of merchants; the glorious and immortal memory list; good men in bad times."
There is a picture at the top, representing king William on horseback?—I believe it does.
He is represented with his horse treading upon the knave of clubs?—I suppose it does.
Do not you understand that, as representing the lord mayor?—I should suppose it was.
Do not you find seven of the names who were returned in that list "as good men in bad times," and for that purpose sworn upon the grand jury in January 1823?—I think there are seven names appear here.
Name the seven persons?—Mr. John Stevens was on it, I think; Mr. Joseph Henry Moore, Christopher Graham, Joseph Lampray, John Davis, Robert Lodge I think was on it, and Samuel Lampray.
Do you, or do you not believe, that those persons who were so named, "as good men in bad times," and who are elected on that recommendation, were persons of strong political bias upon the subject of dressing the statue, and drinking the toast?—As to their strong political feelings I cannot say.
Do you believe they have any political feelings?—I think they have; but as to strong political bias, I cannot form an opinion.
Do you think that those seven persons were fit, fair, and impartial jurors to try a question, for the purpose of finding a bill of indictment upon the subject then pending?—I do.
If the 31 persons, who are named in that list had been returned upon the panel of the grand jury, would you have thought them objectionable, as fair persons, to try that question?—Some I would not have returned; I cannot say that they were unfair, but I would not put them on.
Did you object to any person proposed by sheriff Thorpe, in the panel that he submitted to you, on the ground of their political opinions?—I do not recollect that I did.
All you looked to was, that they were respectable citizens?—Fair and respectable citizens.
Would you have thought yourself at liberty, when sheriff Thorpe returned you the list of fair respectable citizens, to object to any one of them, on account of a political bias?—I think if I had expressed a reason, that he would have struck off any that we would have mutually struck off.
62
Would you have objected to any one respectable citizen returned on sheriff Thorpe's list, merely because you thought he had a bias?—If I did not consider him a violent man, I would not have struck him off.
Were you aware, when sheriff Thorpe submitted that list to your consideration, that there were 27 corporators returned upon that panel, who had been elected in the month of December previously?—I was not aware, exactly, of the number when it was submitted.
Do you believe that there was any one of those 27 corporators so returned, Who was not friendly to the dressing of the statue?—I rather think there were men on that panel that would rather, under the circumstances, that the statue was not dressed.
Can you mention under what circumstances?—That is my feeling of those jurors.
Do you mean, out of the 27 common-council-men?—As to the men who were on that panel, I do consider some of them, men who would not wish to have the statue dressed; some of those men on the grand jury.
Can you explain the circumstance of the entire grand jury being sworn out of the first 26 persons upon the panel?—I really cannot, except their attendance in consequence of being liable to fines; I do not know any other reason.
Had they not, on all former occasions, been liable to fines?—They had, as far as I know.
Have you ever heard of any instance in which a grand jury of 27 was obtained on any former commission, without coming down as low as the 57th man upon the panel?—I cannot answer that question accurately.
When you came to frame your panel of the petit jurors, did you at first frame it in the same manner in which you finally returned it?—There were some alterations, but very few.
Did you frame your own panel, or did you receive a panel framed from your sub-sheriff?—Part by the sub-sheriff, and part my own framing.
Is it not the ordinary course in returning the panel of the petit jury, to take the grand panel, and out of that to take some of the most respectable and leading names?—I did it so.
After you had done it so, were there any alterations made, and at whose suggestion?—There were very few, for they were of such a respectable return, that it was not necessary.
By whom were those few suggested; do you speak of those that were returned by the subsheriff?—I speak of the whole panel.
How many were returned by the sub-sheriff; what proportion did the number returned by him bear to the whole panel?—I think it probable it might be from 20 to 30 or more.
You have said, that you are not a person of any party feeling; do you mean to say, that the sub-sheriff, Mr. Whistler, was not?—I do not think him what I would term a violent party feeling man.
63
Was he a man of patty feeling; or was he a man, as you are yourself, a man of no party feeling?—It is difficult for me to answer to the feelings of another.
What is the reputation of Mr. Whistler in that respect; is he, or not, considered a man of party feeling?—I would not consider him a man of high party feeling.
Twenty or 30 of the names were returned by him?—I think about that number.
The whole panel consisted of sixty?—Yes.
Twenty or thirty were returned by the sub-sheriff?—Submitted to me.
Did you adopt those that were submitted to you by the sub-sheriff?—I think I did, the whole of them.
Are there not some circumstances that would have rendered it rather awkward for you to decline adopting the panel sent you by your sub-sheriff?;—I think not.
You do not, feel then, under obligation to the sub-sheriff?—No; I felt them of that description of men that were of the highest character in Dublin, from my knowledge of them.
Do you mean, that those gentlemen were not men of any party feeling?—Not to my knowledge, positively.
Will you undertake to say, whether the twenty or thirty, then suggested by Mr. Whistler, were, or not, men of strong party feeling?—I took the whole panel of that sixty; for I was cautious on that, that I made the observation, we would not have high party men on the panel.
High party men?—Or party men.
Were there any names suggested upon that panel, who were not upon the grand panel?—I cannot answer that question.
What alterations were made in the panel, from the time that you had first taken the sub-sheriff's suggestion, and had given your own names, till you returned it into court; were there not alterations made?—The alterations that were made, were, I think, putting men of greater respectability from the bottom to the top of the panel, according to their respectability.
Were there not new names added?—I do not think there were more than one or two.
Do you know a person of the name of Stoker?—I do.
Was he not a person who was considered as having been very much concerned in the planning of the riot at the theatre?—I heard something of it; but I know nothing of it.
He was a clerk of alderman king's?—He was.
Have you ever, heard, that, by the sub-sheriff that panel was taken and shown to Stoker, and that, at his suggestion, any names were added to that panel, or any alterations made?—Nerer; I know very little of Mr. Stoker; but I do not think the sub-sheriff of Dublin would be guilty of submitting the panel to Mr. Stoker, for his approbation.
Have you ever heard that Stoker has him-
64
How many names do you say were struck off the panel of the grand jury, after Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had consulted you?—I think, there were probably three or four, and other names substituted.
Was Mr. Poole's one of those names that were struck off?—He was.
Have you heard, or do you believe, that, before the riot had happened, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had promised to put Mr. Poole's name upon the panel?—Mr. Poole told me so himself.
Do you believe that?—Yes, I do. That he had promised him before the riot?—I do not know as to the time of the promise.
Have you any doubt the promise was before the riot?—I declare the time was not stated, and I do not know whether it was before or after.
Do you not know that, afterwards, Sheriff Thorpe refused to let his name remain upon the panel?—He agreed in the objection, in consequence of Mr. Poole requesting me to speak to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to put him on; we thought that he had some motive we did not know; I objected to him under those circumstances.
In the interval between his having been promised to be put on and his being struck off, had not Mr. Poole taken an active part in the corporation, to prevent the dressing of the statue?—Not to my knowledge.
Had not you heard of it?—I heard of it. I do not know of any active part he could take I to prevent it; the police prevented it.
Had he not been an active person in the corporation, to declare his disapprobation of it?—Yes.
He had done so in December, in the corporation?—I so understood that he always had.
Have you not heard that sheriff Thorpe declared he could not place him upon that panel because he was a "conciliation man?"—No, I never heard those expressions.
Or any expression to that effect?—No; sheriff Thorpe did not communicate it to me.
By Colonel
Barry.
Were they not told, that if they did not attend they would be fined, or that they must attend?—As far as came to me, I always gave that for answer, and that I could not take them off.
Would not that account a good deal for their consecutive attendance for their answering as their names were called?—I would conclude so.
If those men were anxious to be put on for sinister purposes, do you conceive they would have applied to you to leave them out?—No.
In the state of Dublin now, do you hold it to be possible almost to find a grand jury who
65
Do you conceive those men who were on the grand jury, having, in common with the rest of the citizens of Dublin, formed such an opinion, they were men who would have perverted justice on their oaths, by finding a partial verdict, in consequence of those opinions they had formed?—I do not.
By Mr.
Brougham.
How often has he served the office of sub-sheriff f—I believe this is the second time; it is many years since lie served before.
There is a bye law, or an act of parliament, which prevents a person serving oftener than once in three years, is there not?—I understand there is.
Who served the office of sub-sheriff the year before Mr. Whistler?—Mr. Archer.
Who is Mr. Archer?—An attorney.
Is he at all connected with Mr. Whistler?—I am almost certain not.
Do you know of any person in the employment of Mr. Whistler serving the office of sub-sheriff the year before?—No, serving as sub-sheriff a year or two before; there is no such clerk in the office as Mr. Archer.
The year before Mr. Archer, did the person who was a clerk in the employment of Mr. Whistler serve the office of sub-sheriff?—No.
Do you know it one way or the other?—No; I know there is no sheriff has served, an under clerk to Mr. Whistler; nor connected with him in any way.
Who elects the sheriff?—The commons; there are a number sent from the commons to the board of aldermen, and from this number the two sheriffs are chosen.
Do you mean by the commons, the common-council-men?—Yes.
Did you ever hear of a society called "The Amicable Society?"—I have.
Is it composed of common-council-men?—There are a number of common-council-men in it.
Are the bulk of the society common-council-men?—No, they are not.
Are a considerable number of the members of it common-council?—As members of the society, there are a good many common-council-men.
Do the Amicable Society exercise an influence upon the election of sheriffs?—They recommend the friends of that society, I rather think.
Do they not exercise a considerable influence in the choice of the sheriff?—They do, rather in the returns, not in the choice of sheriff.
In the return to the aldermen of those out of whom they are to choose?—Yes.
How many are sent up to the aldermen?—Eight.
66
Did you ever hear of an understanding between the persons who are to be recommended, to be assisted in the election by the Amicable Society, an understanding between them and the common-council or the Society, as to the conduct they are to hold while they are sheriffs?—No, I do not know that there is any such compact.
There is nothing in writing, but is there any thing understood 'between theriv?—I do not think there is any understanding.
Any thing understood between them as to the patronage of offices?—I think not.
You must be quite sure of that, one way or another, in your own case?—In my own case I am certain of it; as to the patronage of the office, certainly not.
You have no recollection yourself, of any understanding as to the line you were to adopt in the conduct of your office?—No.
Is there not a considerable degree of patronage in the power of the sheriff?—No, not to my knowledge.
Do they not name to a number of things?—To none but the sub-sheriff.
That is the only appointment they have?—Yes, I believe so.
Is that the only appointment you yourself have named to, or had a share in naming to?—The only appointment.
Is there not a keeper of the sheriff prison?—There is.
Have they nothing to do with the nomination of the keeper?—The nomination of the under officers of the prison comes from the sub-sheriff.
Does that include the keeper of the sheriff's prison?—The sub-sheriff named him, and I concurred in the appointment.
Do you mean that the sub-sheriff is the man who appoints those officers, or does he submit the names to the sheriff?—He submitted those names; and I concurred in his appointment.
Do you recollect any other of those-inferior officers?—No; only the officer under" Mitt, which is his clerk in the sheriff's office, and this.
Are those officers changed with every suh'-sheriff?—They are not, I believe.
They continue in them after the time when the sheriff is changed?—When they are well-behaved persons, I conceive they do.
Is the office of the sub-sheriff a lucrative one?—I believe it depends upon Circumstances. I dare say it may be worth from 600 to 700
l.
Does he account for the fees to the high-sheriff?—He does.
Does he pay any other consideration to the high-sheriff, besides accounting for the fees?—Not that I know of; not to me.
The sub-sheriff gives you a security, does he not?—He does.
Would you not consider yourself interfering with the safety of that security, if you interfered with his appointment of those officer such as the keepers of the gaol, and other you have alluded to?—It would.
67
By Sir
G. Hill.
Are you of opinion, that a man who is hostile to the Roman Catholic claims is disqualified as a grand juror, or incapable from that circumstance of performing his duty as a grand juror, upon his oath?—I do not.
Then, comparing that grand jury with other grand juries that you have known sworn in the city of Dublin, do you think that grand jury was as capable of performing its duty conscientiously as any one you have known?—In my opinion they were.
By Lord
Milton.
You suggested the propriety of striking off some names in that list?—Yes; I think three; and others were substituted.
In point of fact, the panel, as it stood, consisted of names, all of which were suggested by Sir. Sheriff Thorpe?—They were sure; those struck off, and those substituted in the place of them, that we mutually agreed on.
Were there any substituted in the room of those struck off?—There were.
By whom were they suggested?—I think they were mutually agreed upon by both of us.
By whom were they suggested?—I really think, that, taking the almanack, we spoke on several citizens probably, and took them from those names that we mutually talked of.
But not particularly suggested by you?—We agreed that those persons should be substituted in the room of the others.
Were they suggested by you, did they come from a list you suggested?—No; I had no list.
By Mr.
Goulburn.
Did you know that a person of the name of M'Culler, was to be indicted before that grand jury?—Not at that time I did not.
Mr. Joseph Henry Moore was on that grand jury?—He was.
Was he proposed originally by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—He was in the list.
Do you know whether he bears any relation to Mr. M'Culler?—Not to my knowledge. I do not know any further than having heard he was his clerk.
Has hot Mr. Moore been in the habit of attending the commission grand juries constantly?—He has, frequently.
Do you happen to know that Mr. Moore's sister is married to the provost of Dublin University?—I do not know it, as my own knowledge, but I believe it to be so.
By Mr.
S Rice.
68
Have you joined in a panel for a term or presenting grand jury at any other time?—No.
Have you ever served individually upon either term or commission grand juries?—I have on both.
What kind of persons composed the term or presenting grand juries?—Principally the corporation of Dublin.
Are there any other individuals upon them? I—I do not know that there have been.
Do you know, as sheriff of Dublin, whether it is the usage to select those grand juries out of the members of the corporation?—I believe it is, generally.
Is the serving on a commission grand jury, considered a burthen or an advantage?—It would be considered an inconvenience to men in business.
Is the serving on a presenting grand jury, considered as a burthen or an advantage?—I declare, I do not know the advantages of it; I would avoid them; I never was but on one.
On the commission grand jury on which you served, how many members of the corporation mere there?—I should suppose the number to be 10, or 12, or 14.
Can you state, whether there is a general anxiety to serve on a presenting grand jury?—I have heard it, but I do not know it accurately.
Do you believe, that there is a general disinclination to serve on the commission grand juries?—Some men will serve on the commission grand juries, in consequence of their being short, to avoid being put on others.
By Mr.
Hume
You have stated, that you went to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe in consequence of that letter, and found that he had drawn, out the list of the panel, which he produced to you; in consequence of the discussion which took place, was any alteration made in the order in which the names were placed upon that list?—There were alterations made in that respect, moving the names up.
You have stated that several of the corporation applied to you to be excused from serving, can you remember the names of such corporators as prayed to be excused?—I remember Mr. Forster applying.
You have stated, that you did not consider, and do not consider the seven names, which you read from the paper which you hold in your hand, to be violent party men; will you state whether you consider, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe a violent party man or a moderate party man?—I would consider him inclined to party but as to violence it is a difficult matter for me to form an opinion.
Do you consider Mr. Sheriff Thorpe a decided party man?—Oh, I think him a party man, decidedly.
Do you consider those seven individuals less
69
Will you state any one of those seven, whom you consider more decidedly party men than Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I would consider Mr. Graham and Mr. Stevens as more moderate.
If Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had been one of the jurymen, would you have considered him objectionable, as a strong party man, to try such a cause?—Had he taken the oath as a juror, I would have considered him perfectly eligible.
By Mr.
Brougham.
You have staled, that, according to your opinion, the panel could not be called an Orange panel; and you have stated also that you do not know the political feelings of the persons upon it; what ground have you, therefore, for forming an opinion, that it was not an Orange panel?—I had no grounds for forming an opinion on it; I know no man upon it to be an Orange-man,
You stated, that three or four names were removed, with the concurrence of your brother sheriff, and as many more substituted in their places, upon what grounds were those persons so removed; was it political grounds, or for misconduct, in your view?—Not from political feelings.
The House resumed. The Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 6, 1823.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a Committee on the Conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir R. Heron in the Chair,
Mr. Barrett Wadden was called in; and examined
By Mr.
J. Williams.
What is your situation in life?—That of a silk-manufacturer.
Do you know a person of the name of M'Connell?—I do. He was before this House last night. He is my wife's son by a former husband. I saw him the Wednesday after the riot in the theatre.
Did he make any communication to you, about that time, of any thing that he had heard?—He did.
What was it that he stated to you at that time?—He expressed his surprise at the conduct of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, in whose company he had been the preceding evening: his identical words were, "that the sheriff had not only betrayed great ignorance, but that his con-
70
Did you state, to the attorney-general, what you have mentioned to this committee how?—The principal part of it.
Have you been unfortunate in trade? Extremely so; for I have been a bankrupt.
Have you obtained your certificate?—No, for I did not want to obtain it; the commission having been superseded, and I reinstated in my business, to the satisfaction of my creditors; for I have but two in the world.
Have you, at any time, been, compelled to leave Ireland?—I have never been compelled to leave my house for one moment.
71
By Col.
Barrry.
Did you mention those remarkable circumstances of having an Orange panel in his pocket, to the attorney-general, in your first interview?—I did not.
Why did you not?—Because the communication had not been made to me. I would divide the communication into two parts; the first was made to me on the Wednesday following the riot in the theatre; the second, as applicable to the Orange panel, was made to me on the following Saturday morning.
When did you mention that to the attorney-general?—That communication I mentioned to the attorney-general, in a letter written by me to him not more than a fortnight or three weeks ago.
Then you looked upon it as an immaterial point of the conversation?—As a most material one; and the reason that I did not make the communication sooner to the attorney-general was, that the attorney-general himself was acquainted with the fact, I believe, in one hour after it had been communicated to me. I have good reason to believe that the attorney-general had the information on paper from John M'Connell an hour afterwards. He was sent for to attend the castle, was there examined on oath, and the fact of the sheriff having said that he had an Orange panel in his pocket, for the trial of those traversers, was then sworn to by John M'Connell.
Mr. William Poole called in, and examined
By Mr.
J. Williams.
You remember the time of the trial of the persons charged with committing a riot in the theatre?—I do, perfectly.
Do you remember about the time of the alleged riot and those trials, having any conversation with Mr. Sheriff Thorpe on the
72
When was that?—About the middle of November.
What pased between you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I requested to be on the jury the next commission, and he said I should be so.
Did you see Mr. Sheriff Thorpe again, either before or shortly after the trials of the alleged rioters?—I did not see sheriff Thorpe, to speak to him, on the subject of the grand jury, until after the jury were sworn, and then I saw him in the Sessions house and spoke to him.
What passed between you upon that occasion?—I spoke to sheriff Thorpe in remonstrance; I thought he had treated me ill, by not putting me on the jury; and he said he had a very hard card to play, and many parties to please. I told him that was no affair of mine, but that I felt he had left me off the jury for party purposes, and had broken his word, and that, as such, I felt he was not a proper person to fill that situation of sheriff.
What circumstances did you allude to?—I alluded to his not placing me on the panel of the grand jury, and to the circumstance of the trial of the rioters.
To what did you allude when you used the word "promise?"—To the conversation we had in Sackville-street, en passant.
What did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe say to that remonstrance?—He said he had a very hard card to play; it was impossible he could please all parties.
You were understood to say something about leaving you out for party purposes?—Yes, I said that he had left me out of my place in the jury, for I had been in the habit of being very high on the jury, for party purposes; that he had broken his word for party purposes, and I felt that he had acted improperly.
What did you mean by leaving you out for party purposes?—What I meant was this, because I abided by the king's letter; and in I the election for the brewers' corporation, the I respectable part of that corporation, with my own exertions, put out a Mr. Sutter, who made himself very conspicuous in dressing the statue of king William, and in acting in collision with his majesty's government in opposing their measures.
Had that Mr. Sutter once belonged to the brewers' corporation with you?—He did.
Had you contributed to expel him, Sutter, from that corporation?—I certainly voted against him.
When you made those observations, did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe make any answer to you?—He said he had a very hard card to play and
73
Was that after you had said, that you were omitted for party purposes?—Yes.
Do you know whether Mr. Sheriff Thorpe is acquainted with that Mr. Sutter?—Intimately.
Do you know of any cause for your being omitted from that panel, except what had passed with respect to Mr. Sutter in the brewers' company?—I do not.
Had you ever any difference with Mr. Sheriff Thorpe before your being omitted?—We never agreed in politics. We have not been connected, we have not mixed much together.
After this conversation upon the subject of your omission, did any thing further pass between you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I do not think I saw sheriff Thorpe, until the quarter's assembly after; I was going down stairs, and sheriff Thorpe got hold of my hand; he said, "I hope every thing will be forgiven and forgotten, and we shall be friends:" I walked down and took no notice. Connected with this, I would mention, that he asked me to his civic dinner, and pressed me to go; I said, if I dined in town I would; but, at the same time, I had no intention of going, and so I dined in the country; there is another dinner follows a week after that, and I was invited to that, but I did not go.
Has there been any other quarterly assembly, since the one of which you have been speaking?—There has been one last April.
Did you see Mr. Sheriff Thorpe at that quarterly meeting?—I certainly did, in the chair.
Did any thing pass between you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe upon that occasion?—This Mr. Sutter is returned for the merchants; he got up to move a resolution for a committee to prepare a vote of censure and petition to this honourable House, condemning the measures of the attorney-general for Ireland; I opposed him, and moved an amendment; and I was seconded; but Mr. Sheriff Thorpe declared the measure to be carried, and refused putting my amendment.
By Col.
Barry.
Did you apply to sheriff Cooper, to be on the jury?—I did.
What reason did you give to him?—Alderman Smith wished me to be on the jury, and
74
What had Mr. O'Meara to do with the grand, jury?—There were bills of indictment preferred against him, and he called upon me to request I would attend upon that panel. I met sheriff Thorpe and said, "I wish to be on this commission jury." "You shall be on it, he said, "certainly."
Was it before or after you applied to sheriff Cooper, that you had; that conversation with. O'Meara?—Before; for I applied to sheriff Cooper not more than three days, before the jury was struck.
Were you acquainted with the circumstances attending the accusation against Mr. O'Meara?;—I was not. I heard it was some transaction with reference to lord Rossmore, and nothing more I know of it.
By Sir
G. Hill.
By Sir J.
Stewart.
Was it a presenting grand jury?—It was hot. It was a commission grand jury.
Is it usual for men in your high station in the corporation, to solicit to be on the commission grand jury?—It is generally the practice in the corporation, that any member of it who wishes to be on a particular jury, if they merely signify their intention to the sheriff, they are put on.
What answer did Mr. Sheriff Cooper give you when you applied to him?—Sheriff Cooper said, that he felt that I ought to be on the jury; but, says he, "it is not my quarter, I have not the impanelling of the jury; but go up to sheriff Thorpe, he has the panel in his pocket; he is attending the recorder's court, and I dare say he will arrange it for you." I went out of the gate with that answer; but. I never went to sheriff Thorpe; I felt indignant, and determined not to let myself down.
Will you attend to the statement which has been made to the committee respecting you, I and state whether it is correct?—[An extract was read from the evidence of Mr. Sheriff Cooper, of yesterday.]
Is there any part of sheriff Cooper's testimony, which you have just heard read, which, you object to in point of fact?—I think for the most part it is not founded on real fact the, only part that I conceive of that, that I know to be true, is that in which he says, he referred me to sheriff Thorpe at the Session house, who had the panel in his pocket; as to the rest I know nothing about it.
75
As far as it states What passed between you and sheriff Cooper, is it correct?—As excusing himself by saying it was Sheriff Thorpe's quarter, and he would not interfere, and to go up to sheriff Thorpe at the court, that is perfectly correct; as to the rest I know nothing about it.
By Mr.
R. Martin.
Did you, in the recorder's court, make this request to sheriff Thorpe, to beg to be put on the grand jury panel because otherwise justice could not be done to Mr. O'Meara?—It was impossible that I could have made such a request in the recorder's court, because I never there.
Did you make that request to sheriff Thorpe, and for that reason previous to the impanelling of the grand jury?—I did not.
By Colonel
Barry.
Did you offer him any inducement for doing so?—None; whatever.
Did not you tell Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, that if he placed you upon that panel, in order to try Mr. O'Meara's case, you would not divide on the play-house riot?—I did not make any compromise or offer; if the House thinks proper, I will give an explanation, as I was really indignant at hearing such a speech—[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Bennet
wished the witness to be; admonished to conduct himself with that decorum which was befitting the assembly he was addressing.
Mr. Abercromby
was of opinion, that as the hon. member for Armagh had made a particular allusion to the witness, the latter ought to be allowed to give an explanation of what he conceived to be a misunderstanding on the part of the former. The witness ought certainly to be admonished not to allude personally to any member.
Mr. Bennet
said, that independently of the allusion of the hon. member for Armagh, the witness's whole manner was quite indecent. The committee ought not to suffer itself to be brow-beaten thus. The witness bad made the most unbecoming exhibition he had ever beheld at the bar of the House.
Sir J. Newport
observed, that if the witness had answered with some degree of warmth, it was, in consequence of the violent tone which hon. members had assumed towards him.
76
Mr. Forbes
said, that the witness must have been something more than marl to have tamely borne the badgering to which he had been subjected. In his opinion the witness had displayed that proper degree of spirit which every honourable man ought to exhibit when his veracity was attempted to be impeached [Hear].
Mr. Alderman Wood
concurred in the sentiments of the hon. member who had just Sitten down; and added, that it was a very common practice in the city of London, for gentlemen to ask the sheriffs to place them upon the grand jury.
Mr. R. Shaw
was quite sure that the witness meant no offence whatever to the House.
[The witness was again called in.]
Chairman.
By Mr.
J. Williams.
By Mr.
Scarlett.
Were the feelings of those jurors so well known; that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe must have known that they had strong party feelings?—I am clear, that he was aware of their feelings.
By a
Member.
By Sir
G. Hill.
77
Mr.
James Troy
By Mr.
J. Williams.
Were you in Dublin at the time of the alleged riots at the theatre, and afterwards, when some bills were presented to the grand jury?—I was.
Were you before that jury on the day the bills were ignored, or on the former day?—I believe, the former day.
Were you examined before that grand jury?—I was.
To what point were you giving your evidence?—Relative to a transaction that occurred in a tavern, in Essex-street, the night of the riot at the theatre.
A transaction concerning what persons?—A number of persons that were indicted. Mr. Forbes, Brownlow, Graham, and others.
You have named the whole of the persons that you have designated, have you?—There were others in the indictment, that I do not recollect.
Had you seen some or other of those persons that you have now spoken of, at a tavern? On the night on which the alleged riot took place?—I had.
Did you state, what you had heard them say and do, to the grand jury?—I did.
Who examined you?—I was examined by several. I was in about a quarter of an hour.
How came you to quit the room in which the grand jury were?—After undergoing examination, I was told they were done with me.
Had you stated all that you had to say to the grand jury?—I think not the entire.
How did that happen; why not?—As far as I recollect at the time, I stated the occurrence that happened in the tavern; but there might be a part of the transaction that occurred there, that did not immediately come to my mind while in the grand jury room.
Did you state to the grand jury all that you knew, or if you did not, how did it happen that you did not state it all?—It occurred when a question was put to me, in giving an answer; before my answer was entirely delivered, I was interrupted by a fresh interrogation.
Did you name the persons that were supposed to be included in that charge?—In relating the transaction as it occurred, I was desired, by two of the jurors not to name any person who might have expressed himself in any way, whom I did not know by name, the night the transaction occurred.
Before, that time, had you stated that you did not know, their, names the night yon saw
78
Did you mention to the grand jury, when those observations were made, to you, that you knew the persons of the men?—I did.
And that you had since learned their names?—I did.
Was it after that, that those observations were made to you by two of the grand jury?—It was.
How long before you quitted the room was it, that these observations were made to you by two of the grand jury?—A considerable time before I left the room.
Mr. George Farley called in, and examined
By Mr.
J. Williams.
Were you examined before the grand jury upon the subject of the alleged riot at the theatre?—I was. Upon the subject of a conversation that took place in a tavern, in which I was sitting, kept by a person of the name of Flanagan, in Essex-street.
Had you seen some persons, and heard some expressions from them at that tavern?—I had. There was a Mr. Forbes, a Mr. Graham, and Mr. Atkinsons, and a Mr. Brownlow.
Did you give any evidence respecting the persons you had seen, and what you had heard, at that tavern?—I did.
Did you name any one person that you had seen and observed at that tavern?—I named two Mr. Atkinsons, Mr. Graham, Mr. Brownlow and Mr. Macintosh, as persons, that, I knew by name. I mentioned that there was another person sitting in the box opposite to me, whose name I did not know at the time that I was sitting in the tavern. I was told by the jury, not to mention the name; to say nothing that I did not know of my own knowledge, then said, that although I did not know his name at the time, yet that I had learnt that his name was Forbes.
Was any remark made by any of the jury, on your saying that you knew the person of that man?—I was called upon to state what I had heard in the box; and in mentioning the name of Forbes I was again interrupted, and told not to mention the name of any person except I knew it of my own knowledge; I then said I had seen him that morning in court, that I was told his name was Forbes, and that I had no doubt of his being the person that I saw in the tavern. Then I was asked to mention the conversation that I heard, and I repeated almost every tiling that I heard in the box upon that occasion; and I must say, that I was very frequently interrupted by some of the jury when I mentioned the name of Mr. Forbes.
In what manner?—"You are not to, say any thing you do not know of your own know ledge."
Did you observe whether the foreman took any part in it?—He seemed to take the most active part of any of them. He told me
79
At that time, did any other of the grand jury interpose?—There was a gentleman who sat on my left desired that I should be heard; for two or three were putting questions at the same time to me; I was mentioning something, and was interrupted.
Upon that gentleman on your left hand desiring you should be heard, what was said?—I proceeded then with my examination.
Was there any further interruption?—I do not think there was; I very shortly afterwards left the room. When I had finished what I had to say, I was told of course that they had done with me.
By Colonel
Barry.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
Was the bill ignored against Forbes?—I have heard it was.
After some further questions of an unimportant nature, the witness was ordered to withdraw. The House resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 7, 1823.
SALE OF GAME BILL—PETITION OF
Mr. Brougham
rose, he said, to present a petition from a writer of eminent talents, respecting the Game Laws, which contained statements, as he thought, deserving the gravest consideration of the House. It was signed "W. Cobbett," and it prayed, that as there was a motion for bringing in a bill for the alteration of the Game Laws, the House would be graciously pleased to pause before passing an act which, as the petitioner had been informed, was likely to go to legalize the sale of game by lords of manors, and other privileged persons to be designated in the act. It prayed that the House would weigh well and consider the state of the laws, and the severe hardships
80
81
Lord Palmerston
said, that the two young men in question were executed, not for poaching, but for murder. One of them had killed a game-keeper who was in the lawful exercise of his duty, the other had levelled his piece at another gamekeeper, who received the contents in his body, but from proper treatment recovered. He was able to speak with certainty upon the characters of the young men, as they were servants of his, and he must say a more cruel and deliberate outrage had never been committed.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he did not deny the statement of the noble lord, and yet it would rather go to support the reasoning of Mr. Cobbet. It was not even necessary for him to palliate the offences of the two young men: for the question was, how came they to kill the gamekeepers? and then the answer might be, in consequence of the state of the law. That was the very argument he had used before the court on the trial of 21 persons the other day, charged with murder on the high seas, and it prevailed, too, with the jury: for the men were killed in consequence of that most abominable law, which enabled revenue cruisers to fire shotted guns upon the ships of any nation within two leagues of the British coast.
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, admitted that the two young men had suffered death very properly in Hampshire. Still he thought that the state of the law demanded reformation. Most of the offences of the country might be considered as results from the severity of the game-laws. Offenders were gradually trained from poaching to shop-lifting, and then to housebreaking, and occasionally murder.
Sir T. Baring
corroborated the statements in Mr. Cobbett's petition. Half the offenders in Hampshire were committed for poaching.
The petition was ordered to be printed. The following is a copy thereof:
To the honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled.
"The Petition of William Cobbett, of Kensington, in the County of Middlesex, Most humbly sheweth,
"That wild animals are, according to the law of nature and the common law of
82
"That your petitioner has now lying before him the quarter sessions calendar of this present month of April, for the county of Berks; that he finds thereto be 77 prisoners in the Bridewell of that county; that he finds 22 of these to be imprisoned for poaching, and that 9 of them have been committed by ministers of the Church of England, acting as justices of the peace; that he finds, in this calendar, that poaching is, in many cases, punished with more severity than theft; that he finds an utterer of base silver punished by twelve months imprisonment, and a house-breaker punished by 24 months; and that he finds a poacher punished with 24 months imprisonment and hard labour:
"That your petitioner thinks it monstrous injustice, that the rest of the community should be taxed to build and repair prisons and maintain gaolers and prisoners, and also the wives and children of so many prisoners, and all this for the preserving of those wild animals which it is a crime in nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of that community to pursue, or to have in their possession; and he, therefore, prays, that your honourable House, if you should think proper to continue the present game-laws in force, will be pleased to enact, that those who prosecute poachers shall pay all the expenses attending their imprisonment, or other punishment; and also all the expenses attending the support of wives and children rendered chargeable by such punishment:
"That your petitioner, looking at the above-mentioned scale of punishments, and bearing in mind, that, of 16 persons, condemned to death at the assizes at Winchester, in the Spring of last year, the only persons actually put to death were two young men, who had resisted game-
83
WM. COBBETT.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a Committee on the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir R. Heron in the chair,
Henry Cooper, esq. was called in; and further examined
By Mr. J.
Williams.
Did not sheriff Thorpe object to Mr. Poole on the ground of his political opinions?—I cannot be certain.
Do that you believe, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe objected to Mr. Poole, on the score of his po-
84
Upon your examination the other night being closed, did you not see Mr. O'Reilly, the witness?—I did.
Do you now mean positively to say, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe did not make objection to the political opinions of Mr. Poole?—I do not mean positively to say it, but I rather think he did not, inconsequence, that from the circumstances that occurred, he and I were not of the same feelings in politics.
Did you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe concur, at last, in forming the panel from which this grand jury was struck?—We did.
You have mentioned, that the panel, when it was presented to you first, was in the hand writing of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I think it was.
Was Mr. Poole's name upon the panel when it was first shown to you?—It was.
You have stated that you cannot take upon yourself positively to say, at whose suggestion it was that his name was put off the panel?—It was mutually.
You mentioned on a former evening, that the reason of Mr. Poole's being struck off was, his having made the application?—To me; if he had not made the application, I think I would have insisted on his being on.
What do you mean by your insisting on his being on?—In consequence of his standing in a similar situation with those who were on, being one of the members of the commons of the city of Dublin.
Do you mean, you would have insisted on his being on, against Mr. Thorpe's attempt to put him off?—I think I would, for I have known Mr. Poole a longtime.
What was the nature of Mr. Poole's application to you; was it in the way of complaint or of application?—I think he came to me, to require me to speak to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, to have him put on the panel.
Did he make any complaint with respect to any breach of promise in Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I do not think he did.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
Do you not believe, that Mr. Poole had long before that, applied to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, for the purpose of being on the panel?—I do, from conversations I have heard since, but not at that time.
And that he had promised him?—Yes.
Was that before Mr. Poole came to make his application to you?—Not before that, I did not hear.
85
Do not you believe the fact to be, that before he came to make the application to you, he bad been promised by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, that he should be upon the panel?—I declare I cannot form a belief of it.
From what you now know, and have heard, do you not believe that an early promise had been made by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to Mr. Poole, that he should be upon the panel, long before the conversation with you?—I do believe, from the conversation I have beard since, that he bad been.
The return of the panel was in the hands of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—It was.
Why did Mr. Poole come to you, he having already had a promise from Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, to be upon the panel; why did he apply to you to put him upon the panel?—I cannot say.
Do you not believe that it was because he had heard, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had changed his mind as to putting him upon the panel?—I think it may be so.
From what you have since heard, do you believe that Sheriff Thorpe bad changed his intention of keeping Mr. Poole's name upon the panel, before Mr. Poole made the application to you?—I do.
If sheriff Thorpe had changed his intention, as to keeping Mr. Poole's name upon the panel, before Mr. Poole applied to you, how could Mr. Poole's applying to you be the cause of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe's putting his name off the panel?—This was the preparatory list, prepared for the record panel, and on reading that over, when we came to Poole's name, a conversation took place, as I have mentioned before, and I stated that he had called upon me, and under those circumstances I thought his name ought to be omitted.
By Mr.
Leycester.
Do you think there were five?—I do.
Were those five within the first 27 of that panel, or any of them?—If I had the panel I could state; but there were certainly more than that, to my knowledge, upon the panel.
George Harris
By Mr. J.
Williams.
Were you not examined before the grand jury, after the alleged riot in the Dublin theatre?—I was.
Who examined you?—Four or five of the jury.
In what manner was the examination conducted by the grand jury?—Not very courteously; indeed it was not.
Explain to the committee what you mean by the words "not very courteously?"—They were very careful to remind me that I was speaking upon my oath; and after I had answered a question, it was repeated to me, and that in a significant and fretful manner; and
86
Had you, at the time, positively stated your knowledge of the person?—I had stated it with the greatest confidence; I spoke to the individual who threw it; one of the jurors answered, "I do not believe that you knew the person who threw the missile."
When yon retired from the room, did you make any comment to the persons in the neighbourhood, to bystanders, on the manner in which you had been treated?—I did; there were several gentlemen standing at the grand jury room door, and were inquiring of most of the witnesses, as, they came out, how they had I been received by the jury; I there publicly I said, I had been used very badly, and I also I heard several of the, other witnesses say they had been used in a similar kind of manner.
By Colonel
Barry.
Did they seem to discredit your testimony?—Perfectly so.
Philip Burke Ryan called in; and examined
By Mr.
J. Williams.
Were you examined by the grand jury, on the subject of the riot at the theatre?—I was. I was examined as to a few questions, by the foreman; and then by one or two more, immediately after him; and in the course of a few minutes, I was asked one question by one, and before I had time to give an answer, two or three more started fresh questions to me, for the express purpose, as I conceived, of shaking my testimony, from the manner in which they proceeded towards me; that was, after one of them asked me my motives and my expectations, if I was counselled or advised, or what my expectations or motives were for coming forward to give my testimony there.
Did you make any complaint to them of the manner in which you had been treated?—I did to the foreman; I was called from where I sat, next to the foreman, and in the event of being annoyed so much by two of the grand jurors, I immediately returned back to him, and told him, it was impossible for me to give direct answers to the questions they put, or to be able to recollect the questions they put to me, from the manner in which they acted. I told them, when they were annoying me, that I was equally sworn as they were, that I took a solemn oath in the court to do my duty, and had no other motive for doing it, and requested to be heard distinctly by them.
Was that after the question had been put in the manner you hive described, so that you had not an opportunity of giving your answers fully and distinctly?—Yes, it was.
87
Were you stating evidence as to the persons of any of the men that were charged by the indictment?—Yes,I was stating the particulars of the circumstance, and the description of the person who threw the rattle; because I was asked by one of the grand jurors, were not there two Grahams there; did not one of them wear glasses, and which of them it was that threw the rattle; I said, that the one who threw the rattle did not wear spectacles, and that he was a low-sized, sallow-looking young man. One of the jury asked me, could I be mistaken in the person of the man, and I said it was impossible; he said, I think you have admitted you might have been mistaken, for I have such language on my notes; and I told the foreman of the grand jury I had used no such language; the notes were referred to, and there was no such language to be found. At the first commencement I was very civilly treated, but at the latter end I was not; for immediately after coming out of the door, I mentioned the conduct of the grand jurors to me, to a number of people standing outside the door, strangers.
Did you hear any other complaints by other persons?—Some of the persons who came out grumbled in a similar manner; but I do not recollect what were the words they said.
At the time you complained to the foreman, that you could not, in that manner of examination, fairly give your testimony, were you enabled fairly to state what you had to state?—No; for some of them looked upon me with contempt, and laughed; and from the manner in which the questions were put to me, I could very badly answer them, one at one end of the table, and another at another part of the table; I was talking to three jurymen at one and the same time.
By Colonel
Barry.
You are positively certain as to his identity?—Oh, yes; if I saw the man I would know him again, equally the same as I did that night, or in the court of King's-bench.
By Sir J.
Stewart.
It ended in your telling the grand jury the whole of your evidence?—Yes.
You were examined before the petit-jury?—I was, in the court of King's-bench.
You gave the same testimony before the petit jury, as you had given before the grand jury?—To all intents and purposes I did.
And you swore to the same man?—I did, to George Graham, as the person who threw the rattle.
That man was not convicted?—At the time I appeared before the grand jury, the bills of indictment were found against him and against another; and at the time I appeared in the court of King's-bench, he was not convicted;
88
But he was not found guilty before the petit jury?—No, he was not.
The grand jury found a bill for the riot against that man whom you identified, and the petit jury did not find the man guilty on the same testimony?—Yes.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Where did you sit?—On the fourth or fifth seat of the middle gallery, and he was sitting I on the front seat of the upper gallery, at the time I recognized him, with the rattle in his hand. I saw him with it before he broke it, winding it in his hand, striking it against the gallery, and I saw him stand up and look into the middle of the gallery, and throw a large piece of the rattle, which struck the cushion or edge of the seat adjoining the box in which the lord-lieutenant was sitting; and I called out to a person to have him taken into custody, which he did not do.
What sized instrument was this that he threw?—It was not to say a very large size, but it was weightier than timber of another description; I saw it in the court of King's-bench.
Was it as large as that little book there?—[six inches by three]—It was a solid piece. It appeared to me a good deal larger, for it went round here, and scooped for the handle of the rattle to fit to it.
Was it such a weapon as a man would have attempted the lord-lieutenant's life with?—From the size and weight of it, and from the place in which it was, and from the velocity of it, I have no hesitation in saying, that if it had hit him, it would have killed him; it could not weigh less than two pounds, the wood being of a weightier description than wood in general; it may have weighed that.
Did you weigh it?—No; but I saw it on the stage, and saw it produced in the court of King's-bench; for the man who took it up produced it as the piece of timber he found there. The piece of timber?—It is a piece of timber in itself, though called a rattle.
Mr.
Terence O'Reilly
By Mr.
S. Rice.
89
Did Mr. Sheriff Cooper make any observations to you last night, with regard to the evidence he was about to give to this House?—I told him the evidence I would give, was what I had at first mentioned; and the only thing that makes me alter my mind with respect to it, is the conversation of last night; and the impression that sheriff Cooper may probably have a better recollection of the facts, being more interested in the event than I was.
Did Mr. Sheriff Cooper address himself to you, did he begin the conversation?—No, I went to him, and told him my impression of the conversation which had previously occurred; and he said it was true, with respect to every thing, save that of his referring it to sheriff Thorpe; that it was his wish to keep him off the jury in consequence of his application.
Is your impression, independently of that conversation, such as you have stated?—Yes, independently of that conversation, it is quite clear as to what I at first stated.
Christopher Moran
By Mr.
Nolan.
Were you before the grand jury in January last?—I was, for five or six minutes. They asked me if I saw the stick or the bottle thrown; and I said I did not. I was describing the riot to them, and they did not seem to think any thing about it, and they told me that would do. They asked me the persons that I saw rioting. They asked me a good many questions.
When they asked you, whether there were any persons whom you saw rioting, what did you tell them?—I told them I did.
Did they ask you any thing more, or send you away?—I was describing how one of the rioters was taken; and some of the grand jury told me, that would do and showed me out.
Did they take an account of what you said, or did they send you out without it?—I believe they did; they took an account of what I said.
What account did you give them?—I described the persons I saw rioting and what they said.
What did they say upon that?—I heard them calling out, "no papist lord lieutenant."
Were you going to give them a further description of what had taken place?—I was; and they seemed to laugh and think little of it.
And they prevented you, and stopped you from going forward?—Some of them told me, that would do.
90
Did you tell the whole of your story, or did they, by stating, "that would do, prevent you from telling it; and then show you out?—I intended to have described how one of the rioters was taken.
Did they prevent you from telling it; did they say that would do, and sent you out?—They did; I understood so, by their telling me that would do, that would do, and one of the gentleman showed me out.
By Col.
Barry.
Do not you think it very probable that they had heard the story you were going to tell them, from many witnesses before?—I do not doubt that they had.
By Sir
J. Sebright.
Had you told them all that you meant to say upon your oath, before they told you that would do?—I was going to describe how one of the rioters was taken, for it was I described him to a peace officer.
And they would not hear you?—One of them told me that would do; they seemed to laugh at me.
By Mr.
S. Rice.
Was it what they said to you prevented you?—It was.
Do you conceive it was very material how the man was taken; you told them his name?—Yes, I did.
It was against Matthew Handwich you were about to tell this story?—Yes.
You say you pointed out to the peace officer a man that he was to apprehend?—Yes, I bade him to search him; he had got a big stick under his coat.
Did you state to the grand jury what was your reason for so pointing him out to the peace officer?—I do not recollect whether; I stated that to the grand jury.
Should you have stated it had they not laughed at you, and treated you in the manner you have described?—Yes.
Did you tell the grand jury what you saw the man do, which induced you to point him out?—Yes, I did.
Did you tell the grand jury what induced you to point him out to the peace officer?—I did; but I did not tell them it was I who pointed him out.
Why did you not tell them that?—I was about to describe that, when they told me that would do.
Did you see any other person concerned in the riot, and would you have informed the grand jury if they had not laughed at you, and interrupted you, and said that was enough?—I would; I saw the person throw the rattle in the theatre, but I did not see him riot; I cannot say he was the person.
91
You were prevented giving evidence as to a person you would have given evidence about, if they had not prevented you?—From the way in which I was used.
Who was that person?—A person of the name of Graham.
That was the man who had the rattle?—Yes.
Were not the bills found against that man for the riot?—I believe they were.
Did the grand jury begin asking you any questions, or did they merely desire you to tell your story?—They asked me questions.
What questions did they ask you?—They asked me if I saw the bottle thrown.
What did you say to that?—I told them I did not.
Did they ask you any other questions?—They asked me, did I see the sticks thrown.
What did you say?—I told them, I did not see them thrown.
Did any of the grand jury ask you any other question?—I believe they did.
What was it?—They asked me, if I knew any of the persons who were rioting; I told them that I did. I described their persons and their names.
What person did you describe?—Matthew Handwich and Henry Handwich, the two persons I could name.
What did they do upon that, did they ask you more questions, or tell you that would do, and send you out of the room?—They asked me what I saw them doing; I told them I heard a hiss and a groan.
What did they do upon that, did they desire you to withdraw?—They did, when I was about to describe the manner in which the man was taken. [The witness withdrew.]
It was here understood that the ease against the Sheriff was closed, but with this reservation, that it would be open to any member, in a future stage of the investigation, to call for any information he might think proper.
Colonel Barry
remarked, that in producing witnesses on the part of the sheriff, he laboured under this difficulty, that the examination had been hitherto conducted by the principal learned gentlemen in the committee, whilst almost the whole weight of the cross-examination had rested upon himself. He hoped, therefore, for much indulgence in the performance of the duty which had devolved upon him.
Mr. Nicholas Murray Mansfield called in; and examined
By Colonel
Barry
Do you know how the grand jury panel of January 1823 was made out?—It was made out in the first instance by sheriff Thorpe's writing a list, of names, and, afterwards
92
Were the names that were on it those of men of respectability?—Perfectly so.
From the character of those men who were upon that grand jury, do you, or do you not, think they were well calculated for doing business between the crown and the person to be tried on the subject at issue?—I certainly do.
Did you ever hear either of the sheriffs express an opinion that men of what are called warm politics should hot be on the panel?—I did; both sheriff Thorpe and Mr. Cooper. I conceive the majority of that jury to have been moderate men.
At what time was it that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe told you he wished no violent party man to be on the panel?—Before he submitted the panel to his brother sheriff Cooper or to Mr. Whistler.
Was it before the names were put down upon that panel that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe said he wished to have no party men upon that panel?—No, it was after. I did not know who were ultimately adopted, till it was inspected by Mr. Sheriff Cooper and Mr. Whistler. Mr. Sheriff Thorpe submitted it to me, and asked me whether I knew any of the men to be violent party men; I read over the names, and said I did not know any of diem to be such.
By Mr.
Jones.
They consisted of a much smaller number than was usual on panels of the grand jury?—They did.
There was a very unusual circumstance attending it, the ex-sheriff was not the foreman of that jury?—He ought not of right, agreeably to my conception, to be so.
But according to usage he always had been the foreman of that jury?—He could not have been, the sheriff that ought to have been the foreman was sir Thomas Weyland, he was in England and unwell.
But one or other of the ex-sheriffs had always by custom been the foreman of the first grand jury after they went out of office?—Not always; they were always solicited to take the situation, but they sometimes declined doing so.
You know that sir W. Smith, who was the ex-sheriff, was what was called a conciliation-man?—I never heard him called so. I really do not know what the term means. I have heard it applied to some that I really do not apprehend to be so; I never heard it applied to sir W. Smith.
Was not the term conciliation-man in the city of Dublin, applied to those persons who abided, or professed to abide by the dicta of his majesty's letter?—I have no doubt it was applied to those who professed to abide by it.
93
Do you not know that sir W. Smith was one of the persons who professed to abide by the dicta of the king's letter?—I do believe sir W. Smith did.
Then was not sir W. Smith a conciliation-man?—By inference, he must have been.
Sir Thomas Weyland was sheriff in 1822, was he?—He was,
Who was the other sheriff?—Sir W. Smith.
In what way was the last panel of that year for the commission grand jury formed?—From the best of my recollection it was formed by myself.
You selected the names and submitted them to the sheriff?—Yes.
Was that the case with all the panels of that year?—Certainly not.
The last panel but one, the commission before the last, who formed that?—To the best Of my recollection I did; it was formed in a like manner with the rest.
How was the panel for the commission before that formed?—I think about three or four of them might have been so formed, and about three or four of them by the high sheriffs themselves. I have a most positive and distinct recollection of sir W. Smith himself having formed a grand jury panel during his year of office.
Can you state what was the course of forming the panels in the year 1821?—When there was any extraordinary question to be tried, the high sheriffs took upon themselves to strike the grand panels; when nothing but the ordinary or common routine business was to be transacted, it was left to the sub-sheriff, and it very frequently in that case devolved upon me to do it.
Who were the sheriffs in the year 1821?—Sir G. Whitford, and sir N. W. Brady.
Can you state any instance in 1821 in which the panels were formed by either of those gentlemen personally?—No, I cannot; but my recollection is, that when an extraordinary occasion occurred they struck, when it was the ordinary routine business, it was left to the under sheriff.
Can you state any instances within your official duty in which you recollect that to have occurred, and from that remembrance derive that impression except the one you have slated?—No, I have no present recollection to fasten the thing on my mind.
Take a little time to recollect whether there was any other instance except that you have mentioned?—The only circumstance which can fasten it upon, my recollection is, that I am aware it was usual on the approach of the commissions, either for the sub-sheriff to speak to the high sheriff or to write him, informing him that the commission was approaching, and that it would become necessary to strike the juries; the line afterwards to be pursued depended on the answer of the high sheriff; he sometimes did it himself, and at other times said "There is nothing particular to be done, you may as well assist me by doing it."
94
The general course was for the sub-sheriff to do it?—I think the general course was, unless something particular was to be done.
Your impression that when any thing particular was to be done it was done by the high sheriff, was in consequence of particular instances?—I think the general course was, if there was nothing particular to be done, for the high sheriff to say "Will you do this for me."
The impression of its having been otherwise in particular cases must have arisen out of special circumstances arising within your own knowledge?—Yes.
Can you state any other instances of the sheriffs themselves striking the panel, except that of sir W. Smith and this late instance of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I cannot charge my memory with how the thing was done, but I am quite certain there never was a sheriff in the office that did not strike some one grand jury.
But except in those two instances you can recal no other?—No; nor would I have been prepared to state those two instances, but for conversations I have had on the subject of the present proceedings.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
In every respect?—I think so.
And consisting of persons who were fit and proper and impartial for the trial of the ease that was expected on?—I believe so.
It was your express wish and the instruction of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe that no person of warm party feelings should be returned upon it?—No, not his instructions; he submitted the list and asked me to look at it, and requested my advice as to those persons.
As to whether they were persons of warm party feelings?—Yes, and I said I believed they were not.
Was not the trial that was expected on, one that involved a good deal of consideration with respect to the dressing of the statue of king William?—Yes, I think it was.
There had been pretty strong opinions expressed upon that subject by certain persons in the city of Dublin?—A great many.
Do you not believe that an election of common-council-men took place some time in the month of November preceding that commission?—I know it did.
Do you not believe that a new election of corporators to the amount of 96 took place at that time?—I do know it.
Do you not believe that considerable exertions were made by a certain party in the corporation, to have persons returned who were favourable to the dressing of the statue?—In some of the guilds there was. By the guild of merchants particularly; but I think the principal object of the political party, in the guild of merchants, was the election of one individual who had been rejected from the brewers' corporation; a Mr. Sutter.
95
What was the reason of his being rejected from the brewers' corporation?—I believe, that the great reason of the effort being made in the guild of merchants was, that he had exerted himself very much on the dressing of the statue, and that his whole claim to the favour of the guild of merchants was founded upon that circumstance.
Do you not believe, that a list was circulated of 31 persons, who were represented as fit to be elected as common-council-men for the guild of merchants, as being good men in bad times?—I know there were several lists.
Will you have the goodness to look at that paper? [the hand-bill produced on a former evening being shown to the witness]—This is one of the lists.
Do you consider that the 31 persons who are named in that list were recommended upon the ground of their being favourable to the dressing of the statue?—No, I do not believe that.
Will you look at the device at the top of that list?—I do.
It is the figure of king William treading on the emblem of the lord mayor?—It is.
Was not the offence, that the lord mayor of Dublin had given at that time his having given directions for preventing the dressing of the statue?—I believe it was.
What were the "bad times" designated in that paper; do you believe they were times in which the dressing of the statue was prevented?—I believe it refers to the dressing of the statue.
You believe the object was, to obtain 31 men of the like description with Mr. Sutter?—I have no doubt the party who made out this list would have returned 31 men of the description of Mr. Sutter, in preference to any other description of men, if they could have got 31 such.
You are not of opinion that 31 such as Mr. Sutter could have been got?—No, I think they could not.
Do you not find that out of the guild of merchants alone, seven of the person's who are named in that list were returned upon the panel, and sworn upon the grand jury?—I perceive there are seven of the persons in this list that were on the grand jury.
And that were elected of the guild of merchants upon that occasion?—Yes.
You have said that the jury was formed of persons dispassionate, not of warm feelings, and who were perfectly fit for the trial that was coming on?—I have said so.
Do you think those persons were of that description?—I do think so.
And it. is upon the same principle you say that the jury generally were?—Certainly. I say the circumstance of their being in this list does not mark the tenor of their politics. I am of opinion the persons who made this list would not have put them there if they could have got better men for their purposes.
Will yon have the goodness to say whether
96
Do you see upon the list of the grand jury a person of the name of Joseph Lamprey?—I have seen it.
Do you not believe that he was a sworn Orangeman?—I have no reason to believe it.
Have you any ground then, to form an opinion whether he was a fit person to be on that grand jury?—I never heard he was an Orangeman, and therefore I think he was a proper person.
Do you see upon that list the name of Edward Cusack?—I do.
Do you believe that he is an Orangeman belonging to the lodge 1640?—I know he is, because he subsequently told me so himself.
Do you now think he was a proper person to be returned?—I am quite sure he would not have been returned, if he had been known to be an Orangeman; I would not have recommended him.
Do you believe that Samuel Lamprey is an Orangeman?—I do.
Do you consider him a proper person to be returned on that panel?—I certainly would not if I had known it at the time.
The usual practice in your office is to have fair and independent jurors returned for trial of all the issues which come before the court?—So far as I have known, it has always been so.
And was so upon the present occasion?—I really do believe the parties making out that jury, were actuated by the same pure motives their predecessors had been.
Do you mean to inform the Committee that the sworn grand jury on that occasion was constituted with a view to the administration of impartial justice with a view to the approaching trials?—So far as I know I say it was.
Were you applied to by any person to return particular names on that panel for any particular purpose?—I was. There was a list or paper containing some names given to me.
Did you make any answer to the person who proposed to you to return that list of names?—I did.
Did you promise they should be returned?—No, certainly not.
Did you say they should not?—My answer was, whatever can be done for your friend shall be done.
The uniform practice of the office being to return fair lists for the purpose of impartially trying the causes that were to come on?—So far as I know, it was.
For what particular trial was it that those names were suggested to you?—For the trial of a Mr. O'Meara, who was to be tried for perjury.
Did you feel a sentiment of indignation in your mind at such a proposal being made to you?—No; such proposals have been frequently made to me.
97
Were any of those names that were so proposed to you actually returned upon the panel?—That I cannot positively tell; I never read the names. The gentleman who made the application to me called me from the desk where I was transacting business, to a fireplace at some short distance from it; he said, "this is a list for my friend O'Meara, whom we have had some conversation about." I took the list from him, and said, "whatever can be done for your friend shall be done for him;" he walked out of the office; I walked towards the desk, and, as I had been in the habit of treating any application of that kind, I tore it, and never thought any more about it.
It is not in your power to state, whether the names so proposed were actually on the panel?—Quite impossible.
The House cannot, therefore, have the advantage of comparing the written list with the panel returned?—Certainly not; save that the f louse may have the means of coming to that information through the person who handed that list to me; a Mr. George Butler in the Six-clerks' office.
Do you know whether any bill was sent up against Mr. O'Meara on that commission?—I believe there was, and that it was ignored.
Do not you know that an application was made to the Court of King's-bench to grant an information against Mr. O'Meara for that conspiracy, on the ground of the grand jury having ignored that bill?—That I have heard only through the proceedings in this House.
Why did you give that kind of answer to Mr. Butler when he applied to you to return those names for a particular purpose?—Because I conceived it the shortest possible mode of getting rid of the application.
Do not you believe that it was an application to you to violate your sworn duty for a most fraudulent purpose?—Not my sworn duty, but a very sacred one.
Do you recollect the application being renewed to you?—I recollect the application afterwards.
Do you not believe, that the subsequent application was made to you by the same person for the same purpose?—Yes.
What did you say to the person when he renewed the application?—That it could not be effected, because sheriff Thorpe had taken the striking of the jury into his own hands; that answer was given precisely with the same view that the previous answer had been, namely, to get rid of the importunity.
Will you mention, why it was you tore that list, was it lest you should be tempted to read it?—No; the reason I tore it was, because I conceived it the mode in which every such document should be treated.
Do not you consider it would have been wiser to have preserved the document, to prevent any such persons from getting upon the jury?—I certainly did not; I thought I as doing my duty in getting rid of the application in the manner in which I did.
98
You conceived you were doing your duty in first informing the party whatever could be done should be done; and then destroying the document by which the guilt of the party could have been proved?—The proving the guilt of the party never entered nay mind; I could never think of turning round on Mr. Butler, whom I had known many years.
Do not you think a gross insult was offered to you by the application?—If the application had been made by a stranger, I should have considered it an insult.
A person who knew you well, did not give you so much offence in making it as. a person who is a stranger?—Certainly, I. think a man should not be so much displeased with his friend for making applications as he would be with a stranger.
Then you think the more a person knew of you, the more right he would have, to make such an application to you, and would be entitled to expect a favourable reception from you?—I should give him civil treatment if a friend made such an application to me.
Did not you think it was your bounden duty to prosecute the person making that application for tampering with justice?—I do not see how by the prosecution of a friend the ends of justice could be answered.
You say that applications of that kind hate been very frequently made. Will you explain if they have been uniformly refused to be complied with why they have been so frequently made?—I cannot tell why they have been so frequently made, except that men are weak enough to think that their friends will do more for them than their friends are disposed to do.
Do you believe that any consideration of any kind was received by any one in the office, with respect to returning names upon that grand jury; will you take upon yourself to say there was not?—I positively do not believe any such thing.
By Colonel
Barry.
Is not he a man who is always supposed to he active in the Roman Catholic cause?—Yes.
Do you think the friend of a man active in the Roman Catholic cause would be likely to act in favour of persons whose crime was having acted against it?—I think if the friends of a man got upon a jury, they might go a great way to serve him.
Then if Mr. O'Meara's friends were put upon that jury, would they not in your opinion have defeated any intention, if such could have been entertained, of packing an Orange jury?—If the friends of Mr. O'Meara were of the same description of persons he himself was, I should think so, certainly.
By Sir
J. Newport.
99
In consequence of your having given these hopes to the person, that whatever could be done should be done, you had a subsequent application, and you conceive the manner of your answering upon those two occasions was the method best calculated to relieve yourself from any other application?—Yes, certainly.
You conceived that was the mode in which you could best discharge the duty of looking out a fair and impartial jury?—Certainly; there had not any other mode struck me at the time, but I now see it would have been the better mode to have preserved the list.
You are to be understood that it has been the practice more than once to make applications of a similar nature, with respect to putting persons on the panel, within your knowledge of the Sheriff's office?—Oh; certainly; I have been applied to more than once.
By friends?—By friends.
Not by strangers?—Of course no stranger would take the liberty.
A list contained in a hand-bill having been shown to you, you have stated that you have no doubt the person or persons who prepared that list would have selected exactly such men as Mr. Sutter, if they could have obtained them, but that they could not find 31 such names?—I did.
Have you any doubt that as they could not find exactly such names as Mr. Sutter, they would select men as like to Mr. Sutter as they could, in political opinions?—Assuredly.
You do not mean to say that 31 persons in Dublin could not be found of the same description as Mr. Sutler?—I do mean to say that 31 persons could not be found connected with the guild of merchants just like Mr. Sutter.
Mr. Sutter was not one of the grand jury panel?—He was not.
Who was the gentleman who spoke to you with respect to the names on the panel for trying the ex-officio informations?—Mr. Henry Archer, the ex-sub-sheriff.
When did that conversation take place?—About a week or a fortnight before the trials were to commence.
Will you repeat that which passed between you and him upon that occasion?—I think on Mr. H. Archer coming to the office, he asked me whether the sheriffs had commenced the striking of the jury panel, or whether they would take upon themselves so to do. I said, that I had known nothing about how the thing
100
What has become of that paper?—Mr. Archer went away; shortly afterwards Mr. Sheriff Thorpe arrived? he said "I suppose it is time for us to be thinking of making out the jury for the trial of the ex-officio informations." I said "it is certainly time to be stirring about it." He said "I suppose sheriff Cooper will return a good panel." I said "here is a description of persons, certain persons would like;" sheriff Thorpe looked at the thing, smiled, and tore it.
By Mr. J.
Martin.
What is the general number of which the panel consists?—They have certainly varied very much in their number on that point; there is correct information before the House from Mr. Riky. They run from 50 to 70, and from that to 100. The smallest number I recollect was that returned on the preceding commission by sheriff Thorpe; I think that was 63.
By Sir
J. Newport.
Did it not strike you as extraordinary, that on a panel before which bills were to be brought for trials of the greatest consequence, the number should be much smaller than usual?—No, I would not have conceived that I circumstance of any value whatever. The grand jury is so constituted, that it does not matter what the number was; the first 23 persons that answer to their names must be of the grand jury; no objection or challenge will lie; and therefore if there was an attendance of 23 secured, it is no matter what the number was.
Have you ever known the first 23 answer to their names?—No, I have not.
In general you would not think it sufficient to return a panel of 40 names only?—I certainly would not.
Do you think fifty would be sufficient in general?—No. When there is nothing but ordinary routine business, and that public feeling is not interested, 50 or sixty would not be sufficient; but when the public mind is occupied with the business to be done, 50 or sixty would be sufficient, for juries are generally anxious to attend on public occasions.
You have said that when you gave that paper of which you have spoken, into sheriff Thorpe's hands, you said, that was the list of
101
Who are certain persons?—Mr. Henry Archer, his father alderman Archer, and his friends.
Did you make Mr. Sheriff Thorpe understand who certain persons were?—No, I think I went no further than the mere communication, that this was the description of persons certain persons would like to have upon the jury.
What did sheriff Thorpe do upon that?—He took the list, smiled at it, and tore it. I laughingly handed the list to him, and he laughingly received it, and so disposed of it.
Did you read any part of the list?—I really did not; I have no recollection whether I read the list.
Do you or not believe that the persons in that list were afterwards put upon the jury?—I cannot form a clear opinion, for I have no recollection of any of the names.
Is Mr. Archer a conciliation-man?—As I now understand the term he unquestionably is.
Looking over the list of the grand jury of January 1823, and comparing it with the recollection of former grand juries, do you think that it is composed of individuals of the same class of society as those ordinarily returned to serve on grand juries?—I certainly do.
By Mr.
S. Rice.
Did W. Carpenter ever serve on any former grand jury?—O yes; I believe many.
Can you mention any one year?—No, I cannot; but I am positive he served on a great many quarter sessions grand juries.
By Mr.
C. Calvert.
Do you recollect the making out the panel when the king's visit was expected in Dublin?—I do.
Was not there great solicitation to be put upon that grand jury?—So I understood.
Cannot you say whether you made out that panel or not?—I think I did not; I think, whichever sheriff's quarter it was at that time, made it up.
Did not the grand jury expect that they should have to go up with an address to the king, and be received personally?—I believe that was the ground of the anxiety to be put upon it.
By Mr.
Nolan.
102
The first application that was made to you to put some persons on the panel on Mr. O'Meara's account, was by your friend Mr. Butler?—It was.
Was the second application made to you by Mr. Butler also?—It was.
How long after the first application?—I think it might be about a week.
How long was that before the panel was sworn or summoned?—About a fortnight.
Was there any body by besides Mr. Butler and yourself?—No one. I said that sheriff Thorpe had taken upon himself to make out the panel, and therefore I could not do it.
Did not you assign a reason why sheriff Thorpe had taken upon himself to make out the panel?—I did not.
Might not you have said such a thing as this, that sheriff Thorpe had taken upon himself to make out the panel on account of the trial of the rioters?—It is perfectly possible I might;, but I have no recollection of having said that.
You say you destroyed the list given you by Mr. Butler; how soon was that after he gave it you?—The distance I had to go from where I stood when he handed it to me to the desk, was not farther than from this to the table; on my way from that place to the table I tore the list.
You thought, of course, those persons were improper persons to be put upon the grand jury?—No, really I had no such thought.
Did not you think that any persons recommended by any gentleman for the purpose of throwing out a bill, were improper persons to be put upon the grand jury?—I thought that, the putting them there would be an improper act; but I did not give myself any thought upon their propriety or impropriety.
Can you say whether those persons were, or not, on the grand jury impanelled by the sheriffs?—I cannot.
Did not it strike you that it would be desirable to keep that, to prevent such persons being put upon the panel?—No, it did not occur to me; but I now think from the questions put to me this evening, that would have, been a better mode.
Are you to be the sub-sheriff for the next year?—I really believe yes.
Mr. Samuel Lamprey is one of the sheriffs, elect?—Yes.
He is one of the gentlemen you have stated to be a sworn Orangeman?—As I have heard.
You are acquainted with the general description of persons who are put upon the panel to be sworn grand jurors?—I am.
Have you ever known Roman Catholics put upon that panel?—Certainly I have.
Were there any Roman Catholics upon this panel of fifty?—No, certainly not.
Did you know that there were any Orange men upon it?—Certainly I did not, and cer-
103
What is Lamprey?—It has subsequently come to my knowledge that he is.
[The Witness was ordered to withdraw.]
Colonel Barry
said, he now intended to call sir George Whiteford, the foreman of the grand jury. He knew that a grand juror was sworn not to disclose any thing which had come to his knowledge whilst in the execution of his duty, and he therefore would abstain from proposing any questions to the witness he was about to call, the answers to which would necessarily lead to a violation of his oath.
Mr. Wetherell
protested against the principle laid down by the right hon. gentleman. The House of Commons had the power to absolve a grand juryman from his oath of secrecy, and could compel him to answer any question that might be proposed to him.
Mr. R. Smith
said, he recollected many cases in which grand jurymen had been compelled to give evidence. There could be no doubt as to the power of the Mouse to make a grand juryman answer all questions which he might be asked.
Mr. Wetherell
said, the meaning of the oath was, that the grand jury should not voluntarily disclose the secrets of their room; but they were bound, and it was their duty, if ordered in a court of justice, or in that House, to disclose those secrets.
Mr. Wynn
concurred entirely in the opinion which had been expressed by the two members who had last spoken; but at the same time, he hoped the question which had ben raised would not be decided without receiving further consideration, and in a fuller House. His reason for wishing this was, because he knew that many persons of very high authority held different opinions on the subject. During the inquiry respecting the Walcheren expedition, sir David Dundas was examined as to something that had passed in council. Sir David did not object to answer the questions which were put to him; but Mr. Perceval stated, that he could not do so without a breach of his oath, unless he had previously obtained the consent of the king. The question was not decided, because on the following day the king authorized sir David to declare all that had passed in council.
Mr. Bankes
thought that the House could compel a grand juror to give any information that might be considered necessary.
104
Mr. Hurst
contended, that the oath of a grand juryman was too strictly interpreted if it were supposed to restrain him from making known any thing which had come before him in the execution of his duty. It had frequently come under his own observation that grand jurymen, amongst whom a difference of opinion prevailed upon some point, had come into open court, and stated what had passed in the grand jury room, in order to obtain the opinion of the judge, as a rule for their conduct.
Colonel Barry
observed, that grand jurymen had frequently given evidence of what had passed before them, in order to convict a witness of perjury.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that an act of parliament had been passed expressly to allow grand jurors to give evidence in cases of perjury, "notwithstanding their oath of secrecy." If he were a grand juror, he would refuse, even at the call of the House, to state what had come to his knowledge whilst in the exercise of his functions. Some of the witnesses who were about to be examined at the bar might entertain similar feelings. The House would then, in justification to its own character, be called upon to punish men for what they conceived to be a conscientious adherence to their oaths. To avoid so unfortunate a circumstance, he would entreat hon. members to weigh well their questions.
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the oaths which the grand jurymen took were intended for the benefit of the public. That being the case, why should they not be made subservient to the inquiry in which the House was engaged, which was also for the public benefit?
Mr. Ricardo
thought it was preposterous to talk of the House absolving a man from a solemn obligation into which he had entered with his Maker.
Mr. Bennet
was of opinion that justice could not be done unless the committee heard all that the grand jury could state.
Mr. Sykes
said, the question was one of so delicate a nature, that it ought to be referred to the consideration of the whole House.
Mr. Abercromby
suggested, that if it were thought necessary to refer to the decison of the House the question, whether or not a grand juror ought to be called upon to answer as to what passed in the jury room, and which he considered he was bound by his oath not to divulge, the best way would
105
Sir George Whiteford called in; and examined
By Colonel
Barry.
You recollect the circumstances which passed upon the informations preferred against certain persons, for a riot in the theatre of Dublin, on the 14th of December, which were preferred before the grand jury, of which you were foreman?—I do; I cannot exactly state every particular; being foreman, I did not take notes from the witnesses, but the secretary did take notes of the evidence.
Are you an Orangeman?—I am not.
Are you a man who hold very strong party feelings with respect to the questions which agitate the city of Dublin at this present moment?—I never conceived I did; quite the contrary.
Are you a man, who think that it would be for the benefit of Ireland, that general conciliation should take place between all its inhabitants?—It was always my wish, that the inhabitants of Dublin should live in peace with each other.
In the investigation which took place before the grand jury, what portion of time was devoted to the bills before alluded to?—I think we got the bills about two o'clock; we remained until five; and I think from ten o'clock or eleven o'clock, until about three or four the following day, in close investigation.
How long was it previous to, or subsequent to the riot at the theatre, that sheriff Thorpe requested you to be foreman of that grand jury?—I think it was nearly three weeks previous to the row at the theatre.
From what passed on that grand jury, did fair investigation seem to be the object?—I never saw a set of gentlemen more anxious to discharge their duty than they seemed to be.
Did you see any symptom of party feeling breaking out, with regard to any particular witnesses who were examined?—I did not.
If you had seen it, would you have thought it your duty to have checked it, as foreman?—I would have done so.
Did you hear a report of any conversation, in which sheriff Thorpe was supposed to have stated, that he had an Orange jury in his pocket?—I did.
Did any thing pass between you and sheriff Thorpe, upon that subject?—There did.
State what it was?—Previous to the jury, I heard that a man of the name of M'Connell, went before the privy council, and made affidavit, that sheriff Thorpe said, "he had an Orange panel in his pocket, that would acquit the prisoners." I went to sheriff Thorpe, and asked him, did he say such a thing; if he did,
106
By Mr.
Grattan.
Did sheriff Smith give the toast, "the glorious and immortal memory?"—I rather think not.
Was that toast given by any person at that dinner?—I believe not.
You did not take out an Orange handkerchief, and give that toast?—I did not.
By Mr.
S. Rice.
And you hold in veneration the memory of king William?—Yes.
There has been for a great number of years, a custom of decorating the statue of king William?—I always saw it done.
There was a great diversity of opinion, as to a stop having been put to that ceremony?—There was.
You were one who thought that ceremony might as well not have been stopped?—Ceriainly, my feeling always was, that all kind of irritation should be avoided.
You thought that a wrong step had been taken by the authorities, in putting a stop to s that ceremony?—I did not think it a judicious measure, in the way it was done.
You concurred, in blaming those that so stopped it?—I certainly thought it was not judicious.
Then you thought those persons who did so stop that ceremony, did act a part which they ought not to have acted?—I certainly expressed my feeling so far, that I thought it was a measure that was not calculated to create conciliation.
You expressed that feeling?—I am not quite sure, whether I expressed that feeling; but I certainly had that feeling on my mind.
Have you then any doubt in your mind, that in conversation with your friends and acquaintances, you did express feelings to that effect?—I dare say I did.
The riot which occurred at the theatre was occasioned by the irritation occasioned by the stopping that ceremony?—I should suppose so.
Can you state before this committee, that the slightest doubt exists in your mind, that that riot was created by that ceremony having been stopped?—I declare I cannot say; I should suppose it arose from the stopping of the dressing of the statue.
By Mr.
Jones.
Do you approve of measures that are I calculated to promote conciliation?—I approve of measures that are calculated to create conciliation.
Then you disapprove of measures that are
107
You did not express disapprobation with those who stopped the ceremony of decorating the statue of king William?—I do not think I did.
What did you express then?—I think I expressed myself so far as this, that it was not calculated to create conciliation.
Did you approve the stopping the ceremony of decorating the statue of king William?—The feeling I had on my own mind was this, that where the thing was sanctioned by the government for so many years, it was ill calculated to stop it in the kind of way it was attempted.
Did you disapprove of that measure?—So far as that.
Did not the riot that took place at the theatre originate from a disapprobation of the stopping that ceremony?—I declare I cannot say.
Was it not matter of notoriety, that it did take place from that circumstance?—I believe it was generally mentioned through town.
Do you belong to the Amicable Society in Dublin?—I do.
What are the principles of that society?—Loyalty and attachment to the king and constitution.
Are there not many persons belonging to Orange lodges, belong to that society?—I cannot answer that, for I am not an Orangeman myself.
Do you know any Catholics belonging to it?—No.
Is not the toast, "The pious and immortal memory," constantly drunk at their dinner?—Always.
Are you acquainted with the Hand whiches?—No.
By Mr.
Abercromby.
There "The pious and immortal memory" was drank?—It was.
You joined of course?—Of course I did.
Do you think that is calculated to promote conciliation?—I cannot say.
Is it a toast calculated, under present circumstances, to allay irritation in Dublin?—I think, from the present feeling in Ireland, that it is not calculated.
By Mr.
Brougham.
Were you present when the health of sheriff Thorpe was drank by the company?—I think I was.
Did you hear any part of that speech?—I do not think I did.
How far off were you from sheriff Thorpe at that time?—I was perhaps in the middle of the room at one of the side tables; it is an amazing large room.
Did you hear any persons, further off than yourself, applaud what sheriff Thorpe said?—It might be the case, but I cannot recollect.
Did sheriff Thorpe speak in a loud, or low tone of voice?—I did not hear him.
108
When sheriff Thorpe got up to speak, was there not silence in the room to hear him?—I should think there was.
Did you turn your ears towards him?—The room is so large, that if I paid ever so great attention, I do not think I should hear him from where I was.
Do you recollect the room, generally speaking, being attentive to sheriff Thorpe, when he made that speech?—I believe they were, but there is generally such a noise, and such a buzzing, that unless the person speaks very loud, he is not heard. When gentlemen get a little wine, they get sometimes a little out of order.
In what position did sheriff Thorpe speak, was he standing upon the floor or a chair?—If he spoke at all, he stood on the floor.
Have you any doubt whether he spoke?—I am sure he did speak.
Have you any recollection of where sheriff Thorpe stood?—At the head of his own table, on the floor I should think.
Do you recollect hearing him speak at all?—I do not.
By Mr.
Twiss.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
Do not you think, that persons who are of I that opinion, have a right to express it publickly, and that it is a fair thing for them to do it?—Certainly, very fair.
Do not you think they have a right to do so, in a public theatre or any other; place?—I think they have a right to express their feelings, but not to disturb the peace.
That they would have no right to assault the person, either of the lord lieutenant, or of any other person?—Certainly not.
But they would have a right to express their disapprobation of those measures at the theatre, is not that your opinion?—My opinion is, that, as far as my own feeling would go, there should be no offence, in any kind of way, offered to the representative of his majesty.
Do you think it would be right, to punish any: person for merely expressing his disapprobation of those measures at a public theatre, or any other place?—My opinion is, that, unless he was hostile, and showed great hostility for merely disapprobation, hissing or hooting, my opinion is, that they are privileged to do that, at a theatre.
Do not you think it would be an unjust thing to punish persons for merely agreeing beforehand to go to the theatre, merely for the purpose of hissing or groaning, if they thought a measure
109
By Mr.
R. Smith.
Did you yourself select the names?—I selected the names myself from the grand panel.
Not your under-sheriff?—Sometimes he did; and sometimes I have done it myself.
What is the general course?—The general course is, for the sheriff to write out his own panel, and submit it to his brother sheriff, and then for it to go to the sheriff's office, to have it engrossed.
Did you yourself go to select the names from the book, or was a list handed to you from the office, for your approbation?—Sometimes I made out the list myself, and sometimes I desired the under-sheriff to make out a list; and I submitted that list to my brother sheriff, and then we got it engrossed.
By Mr.
Brougham.
Then the general course in that office is, that one sheriff selects from the grand panel, and submits to his brother sheriff, and they agree together upon the panel, and then send it back to the sub-sheriff?—The sheriffs take it quarter about; in his quarter he makes out his panel.
You are understood to say, that the common course of that office is, that one sheriff selects from the grand panel, and submits these selected names to his brother sheriff, for his approbation; and that then the two agreeing upon the names, they are sent back to the sub-sheriff?—That is the course that I adopted during my quarter.
Is that the usual course in the Sheriff's office?—I should think it is.
Do you know of that course ever having been adopted in any one case, except when you were sheriff yourself?—I do not; for I had no assistance to guide me in the office.
Then you do not know that that is the usual course?—I do not.
Then what you mean by the usual course of the office is, (is it not?) the course of the office while you yourself were sheriff?—I know nothing about the course of the Sheriff's office, beyond my awn year of office.
And you did not then select?—I made my observations on the panel. He made out a general list for my approval. There never was a jury struck that was not submitted to my inspection; I took it to my brother sheriff, and
110
Do you think that the stopping the dressing of the statue was a measure likely to produce irritation?—I think it was. I think the dressing it also a measure of irritation.
By a
Member.
Do not you believe that the course which you pursued in striking the panel, was, the usual course with sheriffs in striking a panel?—I should suppose it was. It was the course I adopted myself.
Are you not one of that party, in Dublin, who wish to see the dressing of the statue die a natural death?—Certainly.
Did you make any objection to the undressing of the statue?—No.
Have you ever heard, that the lord lieutenant himself used to parade round the statue of king William, on the 4th of November, in Dublin?—I have.
Have you heard, that the garrison of Dublin used to fire round the statue of king William, on the 4th of November?—I have.
Are such things observed now?—No.
Then, the honours offered to this monarch, are much on the decline?—I think so.
How often was the statue dressed subsequent to the departure of his majesty from Ireland, and previous to the prohibition on the part of the lord mayor?—I think, shortly after the departure of the king.
How often?—I do not recollect.
Did it not continue to be dressed until the lord mayor put a stop to it in November last?—It did.
Did you ever hear, that any application was made to the lord-lieutenant, stating the apprehensions of many of the inhabitants of College-green, from the riots occasioned by the dressing of the statue?—I did.
Mr. John Twycross called in; and examined
By Colonel
Barry.
You served upon the grand jury last January?—I did.
Are you an Orangeman?—I am not.
Are you a supporter of what is called Catholic Emancipation?—I should be very happy if it took place to-morrow, if there was security given from any inroads on our constitution in church and state.
In the course of the transactions on the grand jury, were there any circumstances that-led you to think that there was any partiality shown as to the subject matter that was brought before them?—Not in the least.
Did it appear to you, that there was an
111
Was it by a patient investigation of all the facts that were brought before you?—A most patient and most careful investigation of all the.
Was, there any thing in the conduct of that grand jury which induced a conviction in your mind, that they harboured any degree of partiality oh the subject matter submitted to them?—I have not the least doubt there was no partiality shown whatever, but every attention shown to: every witness.
Was the finding of the bills according to the unanimous decision of the jury?—Most unanimous; we so, declared in open court.
Mr. Joseph Henry Moore called in; and examined
By Colonel
Barry.
Have you been in the habit of serving on Dublin grand juries?—Since 1817 have.
You were employed by the grand jury to take notes upon the late occasion?—:I took notes as well as others of the grand jury, memorandums of the heads bf evidence.
Are you in any way connected with any Orange institution?—Not any, nor never was. Are you competent to answer to such things as passed upon that grand jury?—I have taken an oath of secrecy.
You know the facts?—I am perfectly aware of the facts from having acted in a measure for the foreman.
[The witness was ordered to withdraw, and a conversation ensued, in which Mr. S. Rice, Colonel Barry, Mr. Bankes, and sir J. Newport participated, on the propriety of taking any part of the evidence of this witness, until the question was decided, whether he should be obliged to answer to matters to which the witness might conceive himself bound by his oath of secrecy. The witness was then ordered to be called in.]
By Colonel
Barry.
Did it appear that it was the intention of the grand jury, fairly, honourably and impartially to investigate the subject matter submitted to them?—Most decidedly.
Did you see any instance of any witness being brow-beat or attempted to be forced out of the room' during his giving evidence?—Certainly not.
How long did you occupy in considering those bills?—Until five o'clock on the first day, when the court sent up to us to know if we had decided. I returned for answer to, I believe, Mr. Riky, that we had not decided; that we should remain there and examine all the witnesses, if it pleased the court, or adjourn, as the court should directs.
Were there a great number of fresh witness
112
Do you remember how many witnesses altogether were examined before the grand jury?—There were 27 I think.
Was any impediment offered to any witness giving his testimony before the grand jury?—Certainly not; the foreman protected them in every way.
Were the witnesses fully examined to every point which they appeared ready to bear witness to?—The usual routine questions of grand jurors were put to them.
By Mr.
Jones.
Was not there a person examined who offered evidence as to the person of one of the rioters, which evidence he was not suffered to give, because he did not know the person of the rioter at the lime of the riot having been committed?—That is a secret of the jury, I apprehend. [The witness was ordered to withdraw.]
Mr. Calvert
said, he thought the understanding was, that they were not to continue the examination after the witness had objected to answer the question.
Mr. S. Rice
considered the partial testimony given ought not to stand on the minutes.
Mr. Brougham
said, there could be no doubt that to any fact which occurred previously to the witness being sworn as a grand juryman, or after the grand jury were discharged, he might be examined; but to an examination relative to what passed in the jury-room, he was not prepared to be a consenting party, unless a precedent could be shown for absolving the witness from his oath. In the case of admiral Byng (which he always considered as a murder)—on that infamous transaction, a bill was brought in, which passed that House, for absolving the members of the court-martial from the obligation of their oaths. It was therefore the solemn opinion of the House at that period, that an act of the legislature was necessary. But there was also the act of the 56th of the late king, for regulating grand juries, which dealt with this very matter. In that act, after directing that depositions taken before justices of the peace shall he laid before the grand jury, it is enacted, that if upon, the examination of witnesses it should appear to the grand jury that the wit-
113
Mr. Abercromby
had no objection to an adjournment, but could not help wishing that the question had been mooted upon the evidence of the first witness. He thought, as far as he could give an opinion upon the sudden, that the House had power to dispense with the oath, and compel the witness to give his evidence.
Mr. Wynn
believed that the power of dispensation, as regarded the oaths of grand jurymen, had existed in courts of justice prior to the 56th of the late king.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the 56th of the late king was meant to declare what the law was, and not to make a new law. With that avowed view, it had been introduced. It was to correct an irregularity that existed in the Irish practice of the law, and to place it upon the same footing with the practice in England.
114
Mr. Brougham
thought the statute enacting, and not declaratory. At the same time he thought that the committee ought to take the sense of the House upon the point.
Mr. Wetherell
thought that the oath of a grand juryman might be dispensed with by the power of a court of justice, and had not the smallest doubt that the 56th of the late king was declaratory. The case of admiral Byng stood upon other ground. The House of Commons, in that case, were not acting in the capacity of a court of justice.
The House resumed: The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 8, 1823.
PETITION OF RICHARD CARLILE
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from Richard Carlile, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, praying the House to consider the hardship to which he had been put. The treatment which Mr. Carlile had received was novel in its nature. There were strong prejudices against Carlile, which he regarded-as being wholly without foundation. The fact was, that Carlile was, previously to the distresses in 1816, a very respectable mechanic. Those distresses had so reduced him in his circumstances, that he was forced to become a hawker of pamphlets; and at the time of lord Sidmouth's circular he had been employed under Sherwin, who published a Political Register. But, up to this day he would say, that Mr. Carlile was one of the best moral characters in England [hear!]. Notwithstanding that "hear!" he would persist in his opinion. Mr. Carlile's religious opinion might differ from that of some other persons; but that did not affect his moral character; and he would dare any one to contradict him when he said, that as a husband, as a father, as head of a family, and as a neighbour, Mr. Carlile might challenge calumny itself. Now, what had those by whom this man had been persecuted made of it? Why, it appeared that the circulation of the books had been prodigiously increased by the measures which had been adopted for the purpose of suppressing them. Previous to Mr. Carlile's first trial, he had published an edition of Paine's religious works, and though 250 copies of
115
l.
of alevari facias,
The Solicitor General,
in answer to the remark of the hon. gentleman, as to the interruption of the defence, begged leave to remind the House of the course taken by the petitioner. He had occupied from eight to ten hours of three successive days in his defence, after which he was convicted. He had a motion in term to set aside the Verdict, which he argued for Several hours. The member for Nottingham had moved in arrest judgment in
116
levari facias,
Mr. Lennard
considered the sentence passed on Mr. Carlile as one of unconstitutional severity. That severity he looked upon as one of the signs of the times. It appeared to him that the supporters of the six acts having failed in their efforts to procure the punishment of perpetual banishment, had contrived, through the agency of the judges, to supply that deficiency by sentences which amounted to perpetual imprisonment.
Mr. Hume
accounted for the inability of Mr. Carlile to pay the fine, by the fact that he had invested the profits of his former sale, in the expense of the works which were seized under the levy.
Mr. Denman
observed, that the proceedings in the case before the, House proved that irreligion could also produce its martyrs. Such were the effects of that re-action which the operation of the joint-stock purse of the self-called "Constitutional Association" had produced. He understood that the funds of that purse were
117
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was admitted that the prosecutions had caused so extensive a sale of the libellous books, that the petitioner must have been fully enabled to pay the fine. But Mr. Carlile was not in prison merely for the non-payment of the fine; he was also called upon for recognizances for his good behaviour. He had, however, continued, according to his promise, up to the latest minute, to publish the offensive books. He did not wish to press the circumstance against him; but certainly it formed a good ground for using precaution as to the persons who were prepared to become bound for him. As the margin of the petition contained the titles of all the offensive books sold by the petitioner, if the House should print it, they would give a publicity to them which it was, on all accounts, desirable to avoid.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
Colonel Barry
rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to an article in a newspaper respecting the pending inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin. He felt reluctant to propose the bringing a printer to the bar of that House; but the object of the paragraph to which he alluded was so obviously to impede the course of public justice, that he felt obliged to notice it. The obscurity of the paper in which it was contained might have induced him to pass it by in silence, were not its wickedness and falsehood such as to make it unfit that, even upon the limited number of the readers of that paper, such an impression should be suffered to remain. He then proceeded to read an article from "The British Press," animadverting upon the conduct and character of the Orange party in Ireland, and commenting upon the evidence given at the bar of the House. The hon. member proceeded to read a precedent from the Journals of the House,
118
Sir M. W. Ridley
thought, that as the paragraph read by the hon. gentleman did not contain any reflection upon the character of any member of the House, although its insinuations were injurious to the characters of others, enough had been done in the notice which had been already taken of it. As those individuals, who, some how or other, obtained a knowledge of the proceedings of the House, had in general abstained from commenting upon the inquiry, he would suggest to the hon. gentleman the expediency of withdrawing his motion.
Colonel Barry
had no objection to adopt the course recommended, if the House were of opinion that the article which he had read was an instance of gross injustice. He did not wish to bring the House in collision with those people. "But unless something be done," said the, hon. member, "the press will become our masters, instead of we being theirs."
Mr. Wynn
said, that witnesses and even culprits charged in that House were under its protection. He, however, thought, in the present instance, that sufficient had been done to prevent a repetition of the offence.
Mr. Abercromby
observed, that if the newspapers refrained from making any comments upon the inquiry now in progress, they would be better employed. With respect to the article just read, he had no hesitation in saying, that was a highly-coloured statement. He was, however, happy to have that opportunity of stating, that since he had become a member of that House, there was no instance in which he had received such a multiplicity of newspapers, pamphlets, and other writings, all coming from the other side, and containing statements that were most exaggerated with respect to the conduct of the attorney general for Ireland. He requested the hon. member to consider, whether, under, all the circumstances, it would be advisable, to engage the House
119
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he would advise his hon. friend not to proceed further. Much consideration was certainly due to his wounded feelings, but he should recollect that his character was proof against any attack of the kind. When the liberty of the press was so abused, its licentiousness became its own correction; for it was the natural consequence of gross and disgraceful exaggerations to lessen the credit of the source from which they proceeded.
The motion was then withdrawn.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a committee to inquire into the Conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir R. Heron in the chair,
Mr. Joseph Henry Moore was called in; and further examined
By Mr.
Jones.
Was there a man of the name of Ryan examined before the grand jury?—[The witness was ordered to withdraw.]
Mr. Plunkett
said, that before the committee proceeded to examine the witness on points involving the performance of his duty as a member of a grand jury, they ought to decide the general principle of the capability of dispensing with the obligation of his oath of secrecy. A grand juryman was sworn not to divulge the counsel of the king, or of himself of fellows. The examination now about to be entered upon might put a grand juryman in, a situation at variance with that oath. As to the power of absolving the witness from such obligation, he would express no opinion, but would leave it for the committee to determine.
Mr. Wynn
maintained that the House was entitled, in the discharge of its highest functions, to call on grand jurors to answer such questions as might be deemed necessary. This had been decided in the case of sir John Fenwick. Sir John had absconded, in consequence of a serious charge that had been brought against
120
Mr. Abercromby
stated it to be the opinion of Mr. Fox, that when the House acted in the capacity of a court of inquiry its powers ought to be as large as possible. He then went into an explanation of the act for the regulation of the proceedings of Irish grand juries, which bill did not relate to
viva voce
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, the present was a question of very great difficulty. No man felt more strongly than he did the necessity of granting to the House the most extensive power for carrying on an inquiry of this description, and no man was more ready to admit that they were not, in their proceedings, to abide by the rules of a court of justice. There was, he conceived, only one case to which their authority did not apply, and that was the present case precisely, which was one of conscience. First of all, they placed individuals in a situation in which they were compelled to do certain acts. The grand jurors were obliged to take an oath, "not to divulge their own counsel, the king's counsel, or the counsel of their fellows," and then the House turned round and demanded of them to violate that oath. Was there, he would ask, any power in that House to release men from so solemn an obligation? Or, if there were, was it prudent, when the force of such an obligation depended altogether on conscientious feelings, to compel men to act; in contradiction to those feelings? Might not the
121
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, the question was, properly, whether an individual could be absolved from the sanction of an oath annexed to civil services of state, or the pure administration of justice, where the service was not for his own advantage, but was a duty imposed upon him. The right hon. gentleman opposite denied that any human authority could dispense with
122
123
Mr. Wetherell
entirely concurred in the opinion, that no court ought, on light grounds, to interfere with the scruples of religious persons, in the construction of an obligation. But, what was the case here? Let them not confound in one common sense, civil and religious obligations. What was the nature of the oath in this case? It was strictly an obligation for the performance of a civil duty: it had, certainly, from its nature, two aspects—one a religious, the other a civil obligation: but, in what sense did the religious part become involved? Why, to give effect to and to enforce the civil. It was, in fact, a pledge
coram Deo,
124
quis imposuit, et quo animo?
quo animo
125
Mr. Bright
contended, that upon a question of such vital importance as this, it was incumbent upon the House to exercise its undoubted privilege of obtaining the utmost information, and he appealed to the highest authority in that louse to declare whether their privileges would not be affected, if they were compelled to stop here. Let the House see the state in which they would be placed. The acquittal of this sheriff would follow, not upon the merits of the case, but upon the absolute impossibility of their obtaining the information necessary for the ends of justice.
Mr. Baring
said, that however important this case was, the House were bound to take care that the more important interests of the community were not made subservient to its convenience. The question really was, was the grand juror's
126
ex parte
Mr. Denman
argued that this was a proper case for calling upon a grand juror to give his testimony at the bar. The case of James 2nd, who had broken his compact with the people and the government, furnished an instance in which subjects might be said not so much to have been absolved from their oath of allegiance, as that that oath no longer applied to them. If so much stress was to be laid upon the doctrine, that in no possible case was a grand juror to be Freed from the obligation of his oath, let the House observe what mischievous consequences might follow: a man might prefer a bill against another before a grand jury, fraudulently and maliciously, upon his oath; and when that bill should come on to be tried before a petty jury, he might swear precisely contrary to the tenor of his former oath; and a grand juror, happening to be present, would be prevented from at once demonstrating the perjury of such a witness, and the innocence of the accused, because he was to be held bound not to divulge what had taken place before him. The hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded to show, on the authority of lord Somers, that the oath of a grand juror "not to disclose the king's counsels, his fellows, or his own," was intended for the security of the rights, lives, and property of the king's subjects, and could by no, means be construed to prevent a grand juror from giving his evidence in aid of justice concluded by expressing his concurrence
127
Mr. Canning
could not at all agree with those who considered that the oath taken by grand jurors by no means strictly connected itself in their minds with the business before the grand jury. He did believe that they who took the oath to keep secret the king's counsels, their own, and their fellows', imagined that they were solemnly pledging themselves to keep secret what might pass amongst and before them, on the subject of such bills as were brought under their consideration. If this was an erroneous view of the character of the oath, it would rather be a ground for a new legislative enactment, than for the course which had been proposed on the present occasion. The practical question to be decided by the House was, whether the proposed mode of inquiry was to be proceeded in? This question, in his view of it, involved two most material points; first, as to the authority possessed by the House of enforcing such a course of examination; and secondly, as to the discretion which they ought to use in carrying that authority into execution. Now, as to the power of the House to enforce such a mode of inquiry in cases of emergency, certainly no one could deny it. But, unless in cases of great emergency, he thought even the discussion of that right a matter pregnant with much danger. It was a question which, on every ground, ought not to be debated, except when a case arose that rendered its agitation necessary. The present was not a case of that kind; and the case put by the hon. and learned gentleman opposite was of little importance in its bearing upon it. The House need hardly consider in what way it would be disposed to exercise its discretion upon the matter before them, if it was not called upon to do so under existing circumstances. It seemed to be admitted on all hands, that a refusal by a party who had taken the oath of a grand juror to answer certain questions that might be put to him in the course of this inquiry, would not constitute, whether arising from purely conscientious, or merely discretionary motives, such a case as should call upon the House for the exercise of its extreme severity in sending the witness from their
128
Mr. Wetherell,
in explanation, begged that he might not have all the high merit and distinction of treating the question of certain oaths with some degree of ridicule. That merit was to be shared at least with that great and enlightened moralist and divine Dr. Paley, whose book he had quoted from.
Mr. Plunkett
rose merely to state what he conceived to be the bounden duty of the House. A charge had been brought forward by an hon. baronet against the sheriff of Dublin, for having improperly empanelled a grand jury. Now, without entering into the question which had that night been so much discussed, it would surely be a gross injustice to the sheriff if the evidence affecting the empanelling of that jury—if the testimony of the grand jury itself—could not be heard, supposing it necessary to his defence. He rose, therefore, to submit to the House, that if these interrogatories were not to be put, all the previous evidence that had been taken affecting the conduct of the
129
Mr. Brougham
said, that he had last night recommended delay, in order to give opportunity for a mature inquiry into a point of so grave and serious a nature as the present. He was now anxious to offer a few observations upon it, and the more so as he confessed that he now felt much fewer doubts upon it than he did on the former occasion. He certainly was of opinion, that if the House could avoid coming to any decision upon this point—if they could prevail on themselves not to decide upon it—that would be the most convenient, as well as the safest course which they could adopt; but that course could, only be adopted by their abstaining altogether from inquiring into what passed Before the grand jury. For it certainly would be going against justice to enter at all upon the inquiry without pursuing it to its fullest extent. Then, the practical question for the consideration of the committee was, could this inquiry go on with safety to its own object—could it be effectually prosecuted—without inquiring what did take place before the grand jury? If there was any member in that House who thought not, then that member must be also of opinion, that the inquiry must be prosecuted to its fullest extent. And then would come the inquiry as to the power of the House to absolve a grand juror from the obligation of his oath. He saw no middle course. If they could not go into that inquiry without taking this course, and if the House did not possess the power of taking it, then it must drop altogether—a circumstance for which he has no doubt every member of the House would feel extremely sorry. But he did not feel that they were placed in this dilemma: he did not conceive that what had passed before the grand jury of Dublin was necessary to the vindication of the sheriff's character; and his reason for thinking so was this: The main question to be inquired into was, whether the sheriff had packed the grand jury? Now, if that jury so packed, had done as it was expected they would do, and if this were proved, it certainly would tend much to the crimination of the sheriff; but if they had been disobedient, and had not done what it was expected they would do by the person who packed them (always supposing them
130
131
132
Colonel Barry
said, he should extremely regret any circumstance which would prevent the sheriff of Dublin from producing at their bar testimony which would go to contradict that which he (col. Barry) believed in his conscience to be false evidence. Indeed, he should regret any thing which would put an extinguisher upon the present inquiry. The grand jury themselves, as far as he had been led to understand, had no objection to state at the bar what took place before them, as they did not conceive the obligation of their oath went so far as to prevent them from giving evidence in any inquiry instituted by that House for the purpose of attaining the ends of justice.
The Attorney General
observed, that when, two nights ago, the first question was put to a witness with respect to the conduct of the grand jury, he had entered I his protest against such a line of evidence, because he foresaw, that, if it were persevered in, the committee would be placed in the dilemma in which they now stood. He regretted that the House had not listened to his advice upon that occasion. He knew that in the case of sir John Fenwick the House had compelled a grand juror to state proceedings which had passed in the jury room; but he doubted whether it would be expedient to follow that precedent upon the present occasion. He had not yet made up his mind open that point, and he hoped that the committee would not come to a hasty decision of the question before it. Of this he was satisfied, that if the committee should refuse to receive the evidence of the grand jury, they ought, in justice to those gentlemen, to expunge from the minutes of evidence every word which related to their conduct.
Dr. Lushington
said, that in his opinion the House had decidedly the power to inquire into what passed before the grand jury, and that it would be no violation of the oath of any grand juror to give the fullest information the House might require of him. If the question under consideration was, whether in every case that
133
Sir J. Newport
suggested that a motion should be made to expunge from the minutes all that related to the conduct of the grand jury. [Cries of "move."] He would first wish to know the opinion of the right hon. gentleman opposite.
Colonel Barry
was of opinion, that the proceeding suggested by the right hon. baronet would be an act of gross injustice towards the grand jury. Could the committee, after having allowed all the calumny (he did not use the word in an offensive sense) which had been uttered against the grand jury to be published, now refuse to hear and record their vindication?
Sir J. Newport
said he would not make the motion in opposition to the opinion of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Dawson
said, he had been in doubt whether any examination of a grand juror should take place, but the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) had completely removed that doubt from his mind. After what had been said of the conduct of the sheriff and the grand jury, it would not be doing justice to either, nor dealing fairly with the administration of justice in Ireland which was thus impeached, if they did not go into the fullest examination of all those whose evidence tended to the elucidation of truth. However inconvenient the course of examination proposed might be, he thought it ought to be gone into.
Mr. Goulburn
said, it was very natural for an Irishman to wish to clear the administration of justice in that country from every; imputation. of partiality. He was
134
Sir N. Colthurst
said, that the attorney-general for Ireland had "declared it was not his intention to cast any imputation upon the grand jury. It appeared, however, that in the list of witnesses which he had given in, there were five persons who could not be examined for any other purpose but that of impugning the conduct of the grand jury, as they were called to state how they had been treated when called before that body to give their evidence. Under these circumstances, he thought the fullest inquiry should be entered upon, for the purpose of giving all the parties an opportunity of defending themselves.
Mr. Canning
said, that the decision of the House, if it should be for allowing the question objected to to be put, would still leave the real point open for dicussion, for the witness might go on with his testimony until he came to some point which he might consider himself prevented from answering by his oath of secrecy. The question would then be raised as to the power of the House to compel him,. If, however, the committee should decide that the question should not be put, they would cut off the matter altogether. The right hon. gentleman then referred to the petition of the grand jury, in which they complained of the imputations cast upon them by the attorney-general for Ireland, and which imputations they observed they were prevented from rebutting by the oath of secrecy by which they were bound. Now this, he observed, was sufficient to show the feeling which that jury entertained with respect to their oaths, and that the committee were proceeding to do that to which they had such a conscientious objection.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that since the presentation of the petition, the grand jury had presented another jointly with the sheriff, in which they prayed for the fullest investigation into their conduct, and expressed their willingness to repair to London for that purpose.
Mr. Canning
said, that if all the jury
135
Mr. Brougham
said, if the sheriff and his friends desired it, he saw no objection to the examination; but he did not think the examination of the grand jury at all necessary to the case of the sheriff.
Mr. Dawson
said, if the grand jury sought to give an explanation of their conduct, the opportunity should not be denied them of answering charges so unequivocally made.
Mr. Tierney
conceived that they must have all the evidence respecting the grand jury or none. Would it not be better to shape some middle course, and instruct the chairman to state to any grand juror who might come before the committee, that he must either be silent as to the conduct of the jury, or consent to be examined touching all that occurred.
Mr. Keith Douglas
said, that rather than have the proceedings conducted in this undecided manner, he would wish the whole inquiry to be put a stop to at once; and if any member felt disposed to second him, he would move that the chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again that day six months.
Sir J. Mackintosh
did not see how the committee could possibly refuse to the grand jury an opportunity of defending themselves if they required it. As to the oath of secrecy, the grand jury by their joint petition with the sheriff, in which they complained of the charges made against them, and expressed their readiness to repair to London to aid any inquiry which the House might please to go into, distinctly waived the question of secrecy; because examination could take place to exculpate them, but an examination of themselves. This petition either gave up any objection to be examined as to what passed in the jury room, or it was a dishonest attempt to deceive the House.
Sir G. Hill
thought that the evidence already gone into respecting the grand jury was by no means necessary to the Case of the sheriff. Indeed it was his opinion, that it would be greatly for the convenience House and the coun-
136
Mr. Plunkett
said, that the House had to come to a decision upon this abstract point—whether the House ought to compel a grand juror to answer? He had declared from the outset, that unless the, proposed interrogatories were put and, answered, gross injustice would be done to the sheriff, by suffering what was already On the minutes to remain there without giving him the opportunity of reply.
Mr. R. Smith
proposed to move, That, under all the circumstances of the case, it is not expedient to proceed with the inquiry with respect to any thing that passed before the grand jury."
Colonel Barry
was opposed to the expunging of any thing, from the minutes. If anything were expunged, the charge would have been published in all the newspapers, without the means of giving it an answer. He was willing to rest the case of the grand jury on what had already appealed, without pressing it further.
Mr. Peel
observed, that the committee had, in fact, nothing to do with the grand jury, but as its conduct implicated or acquitted the sheriff. He saw no reason why it should not proceed with other parts of the inquiry, regarding which all were agreed, and postpone this question respecting the grand jury, until it was found necessary to decide it.
Mr. Brougham
fully concurred in what had been said by the right hon. gentleman. The only practicable method was to postpone to the last moment the decision of the abstract question. It would thus be left open to the hon. colonel to call any grand juror he thought right to bring forward. If he did not think it necessary to produce them, the question would not arise [Hear].
Colonel Barry
added, that he should call some of the grand jurors, but not to any matters connected with what had passed before them when the bills were ignored.
Mr.
John Davis
By Colonel
Barry.
Do you know a person of the name of Addison Hone?—I do.
Is he supposed to be a man of what.are called strong political feelings?—I certainly consider him a man coming under the deno-
137
Do you recollect being present at any conversation between Addison Hone and sheriff Thorpe?—I do.
State what that conversation was?—I recollect walking with Mr. Addison Hone, some few days, probably three or four, previous to the meeting of the January grand jury. I remember Mr. Hone, having met Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, addressing him; he informed him, that he understood Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had received a communication from the crown solicitor, relative to this panel. Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, without any reply, seemed to affirm that he had, without explaining the nature of that communication. Mr. Hone then observed, that it was hot his intention to go on this jury, but that in consequence of that communication, as it was generally well known through the city of Dublin, he now declared his wish to occupy his place on that panel, and requested the sheriff to put him on it. The sheriff replied something synonymous to this, "that he was considered a party man in the city; that as there were some circumstances of a very particular nature would come before that jury, he was anxious to be free from any appearance of partiality, and under that impression he should not put him on;" I think he added, "that the same would not apply to Mr. Davis, and that he would be on the jury."
What did you conceive the sheriff meant by a party man?—I considered it applied in that sense to Mr. Hone; that he is a gentleman who has avowed his sentiments on the politics of the day; he is considered a high protestant ascendancy man. I believe there is an impression very generally prevailing, that he is an Orangeman; but I believe that he is not.
By Mr. S.
Rice.
Are you a member of the grand jury?—Of the January grand jury I was.
Do you know of a subscription that was made in Dublin, for the purpose of dressing the statue?—No, certainly not, at the time of the dressing of the statue.
You do not know any thing with regard to that subscription of your own knowledge?—Certainly not.
The right hon.
William Plunkett
On communication with the law officers, I determined to have a letter addressed by Messrs. Kemmis to both the sheriffs, for the purpose of their joining in returning the panel; and that letter, now shown to me, is the letter which was accordingly sent. [The letter was delivered in and read; and is as follows:]
Kildare-street, 24th Dec. 1822.
"Gentlemen;—In pursuance of a communication we have this day received from his majesty's attorney-general, we have the honour to inform you, that, in order to avoid any suspicion of partiality, on the approaching trials at the commission, it is expected that the panels
138
Mr.
William Carpenter
By Colonel
Barry.
Did you hear any conversation between him and sheriff Thorpe, a few days before the commission?—I did; it was in the court-house, in Green-street. Mr. Poole came to 'sheriff Thorpe, and he told him that he was informed that he was not on the panel; he said, that he was astonished, as Mr. Thorpe had premised him, about six weeks, or two, months back, to put him on the jury. Mr. Thorpe told him, that he could not put him on the jury; that the panel had been made out by his brother sheriff and himself. Mr. Poole some time after, told him, that if he put him on the panel he would not interfere with the matter which occurred in the theatre.
Did he state any particular reason for wishing to be on the grand jury?—He mentioned that there was a bill of indictment against a Mr. T. O'Meara, for perjury. He said he would be able to explain the circumstance to the jury, if he was put upon the panel.
What reply did sheriff Thorpe make?—He told him that that very circumstance would prevent him from putting him on the panel. This was about two or three days prior to the jury being sworn for the commission. It took place in the Sessions house, in Green-street.
By Mr.
S. Rice.
You never declared, that if such bills had been preferred to a grand jury, they ought to have been thrown out?—Never.
Did you belong to an Orange association at the time that you were sworn as a grand juror?—I did.
By Mr.
R. Smith.
He spoke across you to sheriff Thorpe?—Yes, he did.
Have you any previous acquaintance with Mr. Poole?—O, yes.
Have you been in the habit of private intimacy or friendship with him?—Nothing more than meeting him in the assembly, and on a committee, and oh grand juries.
Is he a man whom you reckon a warm man in politics?—I think so.
An Orangeman?—No.
Is he what you call a conciliation-man,? I believe so.
Have you and he been often on the same side at meetings of the common-council? Not on the same side.
139
You have been divided?—Always.
That made no heat of blood between you?—No.
You agreed perfectly well?—Perfectly well.
Did you not think it somewhat extraordinary, his holding this conversation with sheriff Thorpe before you?—No, I did not, at the time.
Have you often heard men talk in this way, to sheriffs, about being put on special juries, and making bargains what they would do, and what they would not?—I have heard men make the request;
Did you ever hear another man make a request to alderman Thorpe?—Never.
To what sheriff have you heard requests made?—I think Mr. White; I made a request myself to get a gentleman on the jury.—He was an Englishman, and had never been on a jury in Dublin, and he wished to get on the grand jury.
Did you ever mention this conversation, which Mr. Poole addressed to sheriff Thorpe, to any body else?—I cannot recollect.
Did Poole, soon after he had said this, go out of the box, and leave you two alone, or did you leave him with sheriff Thorpe?—When he was leaving the box, he told sheriff Thorpe he had not treated him gentlemanly.
What did sheriff Thorpe say when Mr. Poole proposed to have nothing to do with this matter of the riot, if he would put him on; did sheriff Thorpe make any reply?—He said he could not alter the panel, as it had been made out by his brother sheriff and himself.
After he was gone, had you any conversation with sheriff Thorpe about what had passed?—I had I mentioned to Mr. Thorpe, he seemed to feel so anxious, "if you possibly could, it will be as well not to have any difference between you and Mr. Poole, if you could put him on the panel? the circumstance he has mentioned, said he," would prevent my putting him on the panel.
By Mr.
Hume.
Have you any objection to state what that oath is?—I really do not recollect it, but the principle of it is this; to support the king and constitution.
Is there any thing else but to support the king and constitution: do you recollect nothing more?—I do not recollect.—[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Goulburn
objected to the question.
Mr. Hume
contended, that this was necessary to-ascertain how far the witness was bound to secresy. After his declaration, that he did not recollect what he had sworn to, his testimony ought to be received with great caution.
Mr. Goulburn,
protested against the inference of the hon. member. He should be glad to know, whether the hon.
140
Lord Milton
thought the observation of the right hon. secretary extremely weak, and beside the question. Did it follow, because hon. members might not be able to recite the oaths they had taken, that they did not know the tenor of them? He agreed with his hon. friend that this man's testimony ought to be received with great caution, after his declaration that he, did not recollect the oath he had taken. He believed it was well known that the Orange oath contained something beyond the mere obligation to support the king and constitution.
Colonel Barry
begged to state, in the first place, that he was no Orangeman. As to the terms of the oath, they were in print. The witness could have no motive to conceal what was known to almost every body. He hoped it would not be laid down, that because an individual had taken an oath as an Orangeman, he was therefore not to be believed.
[The witness was again called in.]
By Mr.
Peel.
By Sir
J. Mackintosh.—have
Does the oath which you take as a member of the Orange association, bind you to keep any thing secret and what?—It does; there are signs among Orangemen which are kept secret.
Does it bind you to conceal nothing but the signs by which Orangemen know each other?—I believe not; I do not recollect any thing; I cannot speak positively.
By Mr.
Jones.
You have been on habits of intimacy have you not with sheriff Thorpe?—Sometimes.
Did sheriff Thorpe know you were an Orangeman?—He had no reason to know that I was one.
You did not keep it a secret that you were an Orange man from your friends and acquaintances did you?—I never made it very public anything more than in society.
Did you at the same time keep it secret?-Tolerably so.
Did not your friends and acquaintances know you were an Orangeman,generally speaking?—a great number of them did.
141
Amongst those, friends and acquaintances, sheriff Thorpe was one?—Yes.
By Sir J.
Mackintosh.
Does not the oath you have taken as an Orangeman bind you to be faithful and true to all Orangemen?—It does, and it binds me as well to my brother Roman Catholics.
Does the oath contain words to this effect, "I swear to be faithful and true to all Orangemen?"—I believe it does.
You have said that you also swore to be faithful and true to all your Roman Catholic brethren, are you sure the oath contains these words, "I swear to be faithful and true to all Roman Catholics," or words bearing that import?—It is very near that I think.
You wish the committee to believe that the same words are applied to Orangemen and Roman Catholics in the oath you have taken?—No, I do not think they are exactly the same words.
Are they words of the same meaning?—No.
Do not you recollect that you just now said that they were very nearly the same?—It is really so long since I have taken the obligation that I do not recollect the words.
You have used the words, "my Roman Catholic brethren," will you say that the oath contains the words, "Roman Catholic brethren—The word "Roman Catholic" is in the obligation.
Will you state that the word "Roman Catholic," has in the oath any friendly application to the Roman Catholics, in the same way as when it is applied to Orangemen?—Not in the same way, but it is in a friendly way in the oath.
Does the oath contain any thing else about Roman Catholics?—I do not recollect.
Does the oath not contain an express declaration, that the person taking it is not, and never was, a Roman Catholic?—It does.
Are Roman Catholics once mentioned or twice mentioned in the oath?—I do not recollect.
How came you to tell the committee that the oath bound you to be faithful and true to your Roman Catholic brethren as well as to the Orangemen?—I stated the matter to the best of my recollection.
Your recollection at that period was different, from your recollection at the present was it?—It must be.
You recollected five minutes ago that you had sworn to bear friendship towards Roman Catholics, and now you recollect only to have sworn to disavow and disclaim being a Roman Catholic, how do you reconcile both those statements?—In admitting members into the lodge, they must swear that they never were Roman Catholics; that is what I alluded to.
Do you know how many Orangemen were among the; fourteen common-council-men, who served on the commission grand jury last Janu-
142
Do you know whether Joseph Lamprey was an Orangeman?—I have heard so—I believe he was.
Is Mr. George Holmes an Orangeman to your knowledge?—I have no reason to believe him so.
Do you know whether Mr. John Foster is an Orangeman?—I do not know.
Or a Protestant ascendancy man?—He would certainly drink that.
Mr. John Stephens, do you know whether he is an Orangeman or not?—I do not know.
Is he a Protestant ascendancy man?—He would drink the toast.
Is Mr. Joseph Moore a Protestant ascendancy man?—He is.
Is he an Orangeman?—Not to my knowledge.
Is Mr. Perrin an Orangeman?—I do not know.
Is he a Protestant ascendancy man?—Yes.
Is Mr. John Davis a Protestant ascendancy man?—Yes.
And Mr. Andrew Woods?—Yes.
By Sir
G. Hill.
Has there been any thing in any oath to your knowledge, taken by an Orangeman, that has been withheld from publication repeatedly?—No.
By Mr.
Hume.
By Mr.
R. Smith.
By sir
J. Netoport.
Did sheriff Thorpe in that speech pledge himself to pursue any line of conduct during his shrievalty?—To the best of my recollection he did; the only part that I recollect was, that he pledged himself to give the glorious memory.
Do you recollect whether Mr. Sheriff Thorpe pledged himself during his shrievalty to act up to the opinions of those who had made him sheriff?—I believe he did.
Whom do you consider that he meant by those who had made him sheriff?—The Commons; what is commonly called the glorious memory men.
You slated that in the conversation that Mr. Poole had with sheriff Thorpe, he said he would not interfere if he put him on the jury: what did you mean by that expression?—What he meant by that was, there were bills of indictment against those persons for rioting in the-theatre, and that was what Mr. Poole alluded
143
Do you consider yourself bound by any oath which you have taken as an Orangeman, to conceal any evidence you have it in your power to give to this committee?—Certainly not.
Was there any subscription in your lodge, for the subsistence of the traversers, the men who; were to be tried under this indictment?—Not to my knowledge.
How many members have you in your lodge?—At the time I attended, there were perhaps about 25 or 30.
Did you ever hear of any subscriptions among the Orange lodges in Dublin, for the support of the traversers?—I did, I heard of it.
Do you meet by summons?—Yes.
What are the toasts given?—"The King" is generally the first toast; and then "The duke of York" and "The duke of Clarence and the Navy."
And the usual toast of "King William?"—Yes.
You drink the usual toast, "The glorious memory?"—Yes.
Did not you state that Mr. William Poole was a conciliation man?—Yes.
Did you know what induced Poole to say he would take no part against the rioters, on the inquisition, provided he was left on the panel?—Yes; he mentioned the reason, that there was a. bill of indictment against Mr. O'Meara.
Do you know what induced Poole, a conciliation-man, to hold out an offer to sheriff Thorpe, that if he was left on the panel, he would give no vote as to the rioters at the theatre?—The only reason which I know is, that Mr. Poole has differed with the majority a good deal, in the Commons; and that perhaps Mr. Thorpe might think that if he was on the jury, there would be a difference.
Did sheriff Thorpe, when this offer was made by Poole, of not interfering with the rioters at the theatre, express any surprise or indignation?—He did; for he told him that would be the very means of preventing him from putting him on the panel.
The House resumed. The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 9, 1823.
SPITALFIELDS SILK MANUFACTURE
Mr. T. Wilson
presented a petition from the Silk-manufacturers of London and Westminster against the statutes of the 13th, 32nd, and 51st of the late king, usually styled the Spitalfields' Acts, which empower the magistrates to fix the wages of journeymen silk-manufacturers, and impose other restrictions highly injurious to the trade. In proof
144
l.
l.
The following is a copy of the.petition:—
"To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled.
"The humble petition of the undersigned silk-manufacturers, residing within the city of London, the county of Middlesex, the city and liberty of Westminster, and the liberty of the Tower of London:
"Sheweth—That your petitioners are extensively engaged in the manufacture of silk, within the city of London, the county of Middlesex, the city and liberty of Westminster, and the liberty of the Tower of London, and which manufacture is, in the opinion and judgment of your petitioners, at present so circumstanced, as to require the attention of your honourable House:
"That the silk manufacture of this kingdom, from an inconsiderable beginning, has gradually attained to great importance in a national point of view, supplying to the state a large revenue—supporting a numerous and industrious population—and affording the means of an extensive and beneficial investment of Capital. In the earlier periods of this trade, it had to contend, under the greatest disadvantages, with the rival and favourite manufacture of France. The proximity of the latter country to Italy, her domestic growth of the raw material, and the possession of machinery far surpassing, in its application to silk, any hitherto employed in this country, gave to France, for a long series of years, such predo-
145
"That, important as this manufacture is acknowledged to be, and much as it has recently been extended, it is still depressed below its natural level, and prevented, by existing laws, from advancing to a far higher degree of prosperity than it has hitherto attained; and which, under more favourable circumstances, it would, without difficulty, realize. Possessing, as this country does, access to an unlimited supply of silk from its eastern possessions, an indefinite command over capital and machinery, and artisans whose skill and industry cannot be surpassed, your petitioners hesitate not to express their conviction, that, by judicious arrangements, the silk manufacture of Great Britain may yet be placed in a situation ultimately to triumph over foreign competition; and that silk, like cotton, may be rendered one of; the staple commodities of the country.
"That, in addition to the pressure of heavy duties, imposed on the raw material of this manufacture, the London branch of the trade is further depressed by injudicious and vexatious restrictions on the wages of labour, by which the operations of your petitioners are so fettered and embarrassed, as to compel them to seek relief from your honourable House. By the 13th George 3rd cap. 68, intituled an act to empower the magistrates, to settle and regulate the wages of persons employed the silk manufacture within their respective jurisdictions," and commonly known by the name of the Spitalfields act, the lord mayor, recorder, and
146
"That, by an act of the 32nd George 3rd cap. 44, the provisions and penalties of this statute are extended to manufactures of silk mixed with other materials; and by an act of the 51st George 3rd cap. 7. the provisions for regulating the wages and prices of work of the journeymen weavers, mentioned in those acts, are extended to journey women also.
"That, since the passing of these acts, a great variety of orders from time to time have been issued by the magistrates, interfering in a vexatious manner with the minutest details of the manufacture; such as limiting the number of threads, to an inch; restricting the widths of many sorts of works; and determining the quantity of labour not to be exceeded without extra wages. That from the total omission in these acts of all limitation in point of time, within which informations may be brought, as well as from the impossibility, proved by experience, of bringing under specific regulation the infinite variety of articles to which silk is now applied, penalties may be incurred to an enormous amount, for the breach of some order of which the manufacturer may be totally unconscious.
"That, by the operation of this law the rate of wages, instead of being left to the recognised principles of regulation, has been arbitrarily fixed by the award of persons, whose ignorance of the details of this very intricate and complicated manufacture, necessarily renders them in competent to give a just decision; and the result of this mode of regulation has been to fix the labour of many sorts of goods so extravagantly high, as to drive the manufacture of them altogether from the districts within the operation of the act, to other parts of the country, which are free from magisterial interference. That these acts, by not permitting the masters to reward such of their workmen as exhibit superior skill or ingenuity, but compelling them to pay an equal price for all work, whether well or ill performed, have materially retarded the progress of improvement, and repressed industry and emulation.
147
"That these acts totally prevent the use of improved machinery; it having been ordered by the magistrates, that works, in the weaving of which machinery is employed, shall be paid precisely at the same rate as if done by hand; thus, while every other branch of our national manufactures, has enjoyed the full advantage of this powerful auxiliary, and while improved machinery: has been kept in full operation, by our foreign rivals, the London silk loom, with a trifling exception, remains in the same state as at its original introduction into this country by the French refugees. Your petitioners beg to state that they are in possession of improved machinery ready to be applied to several important works, but which they cannot use with success or profit, while under the restrictive operation of these acts.
"That the fixed rate of wages which, under all circumstances, the manufacturer is bound to pay, has had the effect of compelling him, whenever a stagnation in the demand takes place, immediately to stop his looms; and the distress consequent on such a suspension of work has been manifested by the appeals repeatedly made by the districts concerned in this manufacture to the charity of the public, and to the aid of parliament.
"That the inevitable tendency of the provisions of these acts is, to banish the trade altogether from the vicinity of the metropolis, strong symptoms of which are manifesting themselves every day. Many works of the first consequence, which would have afforded employment to thousands of hands, have already been transferred to Norwich, Manchester, Macclesfield, Taunton, Reading, and other towns, where they are performed at from one half to two thirds of the price for which under these acts they can be made an London, Westminster, or Middlesex.
"That the removal of the entire manufacture from the metropolis, which your petitioners deem inevitable if these acts be allowed to continue much longer in force, cannot but be considered as a great and extensive calamity, involving the destruction of large capitals, long invested, and hitherto productively employed; and consigning to distress a numerous population, which it would be impossible to remove, and which for a long period has depended upon the London silk manufacture for the means of subsistence. That even if the removal of the trade could be effected without entailing upon thousands
148
"That several of your petitioners were examined on the subject of these acts before the select committee of the House of lords, appointed to inquire into the means of extending the foreign trade of the country in 1821, when, after a full and complete investigation, their lordships are understood to have reported 'that unless some modification takes place in this law, it must be, in the end, ruinous to the silk manufacture of Spitalfields, and as injurious to the workmen, as it will be to the employers; which report your petitioners are informed, was; afterwards laid upon the table of your honourable House, and to which report, and the evidence on which it was founded, your petitioners respectfully beg to refer, in proof of the foregoing allegations.
"That, in the experience of your petitioners, these acts have frequently given rise to most vexatious regulations, the unconscious breach of which has subjected manufacturers to ruinous penalties; that these provisions have prevented the introduction and improvement of all machinery by which labour might have been facilitated and cheapened, and prevent your petitioners from affording relief to their workmen in times of stagnation of trade, by compelling your petitioners instantly to stop their looms; and that the operation of these acts is rapidly banishing what yet remains of the trade in Spitalfields, to places which are free from such restrictions.
"That, notwithstanding these and other grievances to which your petitioners are subjected by the operation of these acts, still it is not so much their desire to seek relief from their operation in the particulars lastly stated, as to be exempted from the arbitrary, injurious, and impelitic enactment which prevents them, while they continue to reside within certain districts, from employing any portion of their capital in such other parts of the kingdom as may be deemed most beneficial; thereby depriving them not only of the fair exercise of their privileges as free subjects, and totally preventing all the
149
Your petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray your honourable House, that for the reasons and under the circumstances hereinbefore set forth and referred to, the several acts of the 13th George 3rd cap. 68, the 32nd George 3rd cap. 44, and the 51st George 3rd cap. 7, in so far as they relate to the manufacture of silk, or of silk mixed with other materials, may be repealed: or that your petitioners may have such further or other relief in the premises, as to the wisdom of your honourable House may seem just and proper, and their case may require—
And your petitioners shall ever pray, &c.
Mr. Ricardo
could not help expressing his astonishment that, in the year 1823, those acts should be existing and in force. They were not merely an interference with the freedom of trade, but they cramped the freedom of labour itself. Such was their operation, that a man who was disposed to embark in the trade could not employ his capital in it in London; and, as it might be inconvenient, in many instances to carry that capital out of London, the trade was necessarily cramped and fettered.
Mr. Wallace
perfectly agreed in thinking the acts unjust to the merchant, unjust to the manufacturer, and, above all, unjust to the workmen. He thought them a disgrace to the Statute-book.
Mr. Huskisson
fully agreed in the propriety of repealing the acts. He could only account for the existence of such statutes by their having been passed at a time when the silk-trade was almost confined to Spitalfields. Since the manufacture, however, had been carried into other parts of the country, the provisions of those acts must be got rid of; or Spitalfields would be deserted. His attention had been drawn to the subject almost immediately upon his coming into office; but he had abstained from bringing forward any specific measure, because he wished to convince the manufacturers first of the necessity of an alteration. Some prejudice, and indeed, a good deal, still existed among the workmen; but the House really ought to act for them without reference to those prejudiced. It was his
150
Lord Milton
rejoiced in any prospect of getting rid of the obnoxious statutes, and observed upon the absurdity of raising a duty upon raw silk imported. Under the present system, a duty was levied upon raw silk imported, and, on the other hand, a bounty was given upon the exportation of manufactured silks. Now, great difficulty was found in apportioning the bounty, particularly upon goads composed of silk mixed with other material. Would it not be wise, and generally convenient, to get rid of the duty on one hand, and the bounty on the other?
Mr. F. Buxton
gave the petition his decided support, from a conviction that a compliance with its prayer would tend to better the condition of all connected with the trade, and of none more than the workmen.
Alderman Thompson
bore testimony to the pernicious operation of the law, which he hoped to see repealed, and trusted that the trade would be relieved from the duties on raw silk.
Mr. W. Williams
said, that the restraints of the existing law had driven one considerable branch of the silk-trade from Spitalfields to Norwich.
Mr. Ellice
hoped that the parties who supposed themselves interested in the existing restraints would be afforded time to petition.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he would propose his resolutions on Monday, and move for leave to bring in a bill for an alteration of the law, in the different stages of which the parties alluded to would have sufficient opportunity to present their petitions.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTCH LINEN MANUFACTURE.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Scotch linen manufacture acts,
Mr. Huskisson
said, it was his intention, in proposing that committee, to move for the repeal of several statutes, which imposed regulations injurious to the trade. These statutes had been passed at a time when the House was in the habit of interfering with the business of individuals. The 13th of George the 1st was in itself a striking instance of the absurdity of such enactments. It professed to regulate, not only the shape of the cloth,
151
Sir R. Fergusson
expressed his thanks to the right hon. gentleman for the pains he had taken to remove the vexatious enactments under which the trade had so long suffered, and declared his conviction that the intended measure would be received with satisfaction and gratitude by the people of Scotland.
Mr. Maberly
concurred in approving of the measure, but regretted that it should be found necessary to continue for a single day so useless an expence as the stamp commissioners. He trusted, however, that they would be enabled to put an end to that board in the next session of parliament.
Sir H. Parnell
thought, that as the same system must produce the same evils in Ireland, the benefit of this measure ought to be extended to that country.
Mr. Hume
agreed that it would be an advantage to Ireland; but as there were prejudices in that country which might throw obstacles in the way of its execution, he thought the right hon. gentleman had done right not to mix up the case of the two countries.
Mr. Ricardo
thought, that if it could not be done at present, it ought as soon as possible to be extended to Ireland.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House to inquire into the Conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the Chair,
Mr. John Jackson
was called in; and examined
By Colonel
Barry.
Do you recollect being present at any party, at the house of Mr. Sibthorpe?—I do. On the 17th of December there were present,
152
Did you hear sheriff Thorpe make use of the expressions, that he had an Orange panel in his pocket, or any words to that effect?—I did not.
You are very confident that no such expression was made use of that night, as long as you were there?—Perfectly so.
Did sheriff Thorpe talk any thing about the forming of a jury or a panel, or any thing else of the kind?—Not a word on the subject.
Do you suppose M'Connell could have heard any expression which you did not?—I am sure he could not.
By Mr.
Jones.
Do you mean to say, that for all those hours you sat nearer sheriff Thorpe than M'Connell did?—I mean to assert it.
Were there cards playing in this room?—Some part of the night.
Do you mean to say that you heard every syllable that sheriff Thorpe tittered on that night?—I am very certain I heard all that could have been said, unless it was whispered.
By Colonel
Barry.
By Mr.
R. Smith.
Was there no conversation at all about the riot?—There was.
Did you hear sheriff Thorpe utter any sentiment of approbation, or of commendation of what had been done?—I did not.
Did you hear any body say a word about marquis Wellesley?—Not one person.
Do you recollect holding the knave of clubs in your hand?—I did not, on that occasions.
Do you know any body who did on that occasion?—I do.
Do you recollect his playing it?—I do.
What did he say?—He made a reflection upon the lord mayor. I believe it was tantamount to damning the lord mayor.
Do not you recollect that some person said, "I wish I could have a lick at him?"—I do not recollect that part.
What sized man was he who used that expression?—Short.
What was his name?—William Graham.
Did any lady remind him that he was a very little man?—I believe I do remember an expression of that import.
What did the lady say?—That she thought his expression was very extraordinary for a man of his stature to make use of respecting the lord mayor.
Are you a conciliation-man, or a Protestant-
153
By Mr.
Brougham.
What called your attention particularly to that night, and to your relative position?—From a question I merely asked of Graham, relative to the transactions at the theatre.
What was that question?—I asked him if it was a fact that a bottle was thrown; and his answer I do not precisely recollect.
How do you happen so particularly to recollect their positions?—They were standing with their backs against the piano.
How do you happen to recollect that so particularly?—From an expression that M'Connell made use of.
What was it?—He made use of some gross reflection upon the misconduct of those that were termed the rioters at the theatre.
By Mr.
R. Smith.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
By Mr.
Goulburn.
Did you not hear some person say, "I wish the devil had the marquis Wellesley?"—I did not.
By Sir
G. Hill.
Did that tend to call your attention more particularly to all that had passed in that company?—It led me to endeavour to recollect more minutely than I otherwise should have thought necessary.
By Mr.
Thompson.
By Mr.
F. Buxton.
What was the question you asked Graham respecting the rioters?—Whether a bottle had been thrown.
What was Graham's answer?—I think he said not: that it had not been thrown.
How happens it, that you forget the gross expression made use of by M'Connell; you are not certain to the answer of Graham; and yet,
154
By
Mr. Brougham.
Did you leave the room before sheriff Thorpe?—No, after him.
You are not certain whether sheriff Thorpe was in the room when you arrived there, or whether you were there first yourself?—I am pretty sure he was.
Was Mr. M'Connel there before you arrival?—No.
Are you now as sure Mr. M'Connell came into the room after you, as you were about a quarter of an hour ago, that sheriff Thorpe came into the room after you?—I did not think it of consequence to ascertain whether it was the case or not.
Then, having forgotten the gross expression used by M'Connell, and having forgotten the precise answer to your question respecting Graham, how does it happen that your reason for recollecting the positions of the different persons in that room; was M'Connell's gross expression, and your question about Graham?—At the time, I was informed of M'Connell's giving the information that was stated to me, I endeavoured to recollect as minutely as memory would serve me, the relative position of every person, and as much of the conversation as I could recall to mind.
You never attempted to recollect the answer to the question about Graham, or the gross expression of M'Connell?—The answer of Graham about the bottle, was, as I said before, that it was not thrown.
How long have you been sure that he said it was not thrown?—Ever since he made use of the expression. I have no reason for subsequently recollecting more than I should at the moment when the conversation occurred.
Then, is your reason for now recollecting so accurately the position of different person's at that time, the conversation which you had two days after that time, respecting what passed between sheriff Thorpe and M'Connell?—The reason was, I was shocked at the conduct of M'connell, in making use of expressions that never occurred.
Which expressions you have now forgotten?—I allude to the information, I allude to the information, I ought to have said, that M'Connell had given, respecting the conversation that night.
Then M'Connell did not make use of any expressions that night?—Only such as I considered as applicable to Graham.
And those you forget?—I cannot recollect precisely; I considered, at that moment, that it was a gross expression.
Did you go away before sheriff Thorpe left the party?—After.
Who went away with your—I think Graham and M'Connell and myself went out nearly at the same time.
155
Did sheriff Thorpe go, away alone or any body with him?—His wife was with him.
By Mr.
Sykes.
Then why did you state, at the commencement of your examination, that you did not recollect what that answer was?—If I said so, I must have had made a mistake; I did not intend it.
If you do not recollect his expression, which you call a gross one, why do you term it a gross reflection?—If I might be allowed to answer in a general way, I would prefer to forget all gross expressions.
What made you term it a gross expression?—I consider all expressions gross, that are not grammatically correct, for instance.
Is that the answer you mean to stick by?—It is not a good one, but it is for want of recollecting a better.
Do you mean to say, that your credit is to rest upon the credit due to that answer?—By no means.
If sheriff Thorpe made use of the expression, that he had an Orange panel in his pocket, should you have considered that a gross expression?—I should indeed.
Do you adhere to the opinion, that yon heard, and that, having heard, you must have recollected every expression made use of in that company?—I do not mean to say that I could recollect all the expressions made use of in that company.
Mr. William Graham
called in; and examined
By Colonel
Barry.
Were you in company at Mr. Sibthorpe's, shortly after the riot took place at the theatre?—I;was.
Do you recollect who the company consisted of?r—Mr. Sibthorpe's family, myself, a Mr. Jackson, a Mr. M'Connell, and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe and his lady.
Were you or sheriff Thorpe in the room first?—Mr. Sheriff Thorpe.
Was M'Connell or you in the company first?—I believe I was.
Do you recollect sheriff Thorpe making use of any expression relative to the panel of a jury?—No.
Do you think that if any such expression had been made use of in your, presence, it would have attracted your notice?—I, should think so.
Are you very certain that no such expression was made use of by sheriff Thorpe, in your hearing?—Certainly not in my hearing.
Do you think that if it had been made use of, in the common tone of conversation, you would have heard it?—From the size of the room, I should think so.
This was three days after the riot, was not it?—It was.
156
Did you, or sheriff Thorpe quit the company first?—Sheriff Thorpe.
Did you, or M'Connell quit the company first?—We retired together, I think.
After you left the room, sheriff Thorpe and M'Connell were not together?—Not that I can answer.
By Mr.
Brougham.
Was a bill preferred against you before the grand jury, upon that subject?—Yes.
Was it ignored or found?—Ignored.
Have you been with the other witnesses at all since you came?—In the apartment in this house.
Have you ever, before any person, spoken abusively respecting those witnesses, who deposed against the sheriff?—Yes.
Do you know one serjeant Harris?—I have seen him.
Did you not speak so of those witnesses, that the serjeant said, u you deserved to be ducked?"—No.
Then what did he say about ducking you?—His words were "If you are heard to say those expressions, you might be ducked."
That was with reference to, the expressions you were using touching, the witnesses?—It might have been so.
It was after you had been speaking respecting the witnesses?—Not respecting the witnesses generally speaking, but persons similarly circumstanced.
To whom similar?—The expressions I made use of were as to a similar description to those in Dublin; that if persons in Dublin heard roe use those expressions, I might be ducked or thrown into the Thames.
Were those expressions that you talk of, which created that conversation, in the Serjeant's opinion, applied to the witnesses?—No.
To whom were they applied?—Generally to persons of bad character.
Then you talked abusively of persons of bad character in general?—Yes.
And the serjeant said, that if you went on talking against people of bad character you might, be ducked; was that so?—I should suppose it was meant so.
When you were in the witness room, had you a cane in your hand?—Yes.
With a sword in it; what is called a sword-stick?—No.
No sword-cane or sword-stick?—I had not one of my own.
Had you one in your hand belonging to any body else?—I might.
Have you any doubt you had?—No.
Were not you flourishing, and brandishing it in the witness room?—I might.
Did not you say while you were in that conversation, with that sword-cane, that you would do some execution before you left London?—I might.
Chairman.
157
By Mr.
Brougham.
Mr. M'Connell was there?—He was.
There was not any conversation about who threw the bottle?—Not that I heard.
You heard every thing that passed?—I think I did.
Did you hear Mr. M'Connell in conversation with any body?—Not particularly.
He never used any gross expression or made any gross reflections upon any body in your hearing?—No.
There were cards playing that evening, were there not?—There were.
The whole party played together, did they not, at the table?—I think so, I think I did.
Whom did you go away with?—I went to the door with Mr. M'Connell and Mr. Jackson.
And you left Mr. Sheriff Thorpe in the room?—No.
He had gone before?—Yes.
M'Connel was in the room before you came?—Yes; I think to the best of my recollection, he was.
By Mr.
R. Smith.
State what your expression was—"There is the lord mayor."
Was there not more?—"And be damned to him," I think.
Was that all?—Positively no more.
Was any observation made to you upon your saying so?—I cannot possibly recollect; there might.
You do not recollect any of the ladies saying any thing to you?—There might, I cannot positively recollect.
Was Mr. Sheriff Thorpe playing with you at that time?—I believe he was.
Did he say any thing to you?—I do not recollect indeed.
You are frequently in the habit of damning the lord mayor?—I have done so.
Did you ever damn the lord lieutenant?—Never.
You did not that night?—No.
You did not wish him at the devil?—No.
Did any man there wish him at the devil?—No.
Did you wish him in heaven?—No.
Did you hear his name mentioned that night?—I did not, certainly.
Did you hear any conversation about the riot that evening?—No.
Did nothing, pass in your company respecting the riot in the theatre?—Most certainly not.
Were, you one of those men who were sent
158
Had you any suspicion at this house of Mr. Sibthorpe's on this occasion, that you were charged with having been a rioter at the theatre or implicated in the charge of having been a rioter?—None in my life.
How long after this evening at Sibthorpe's was it that you knew you were so charged?—A week.
Are you an Orangeman?—I am.
Do you know whether the persons who were tried were all Orangemen?—One I know to be an Orangeman, Forbes, and Brownlow.—[The Witness withdrew, and the sergeant at arms was ordered to keep him apart from the other witnesses.]
The right hon.
W. C. Plunkett,
By Colonel
Barry.
What was the cause of your directing that letter to be written?—An apprehension that I entertained, that the sheriff, who, according to the routine of office, would have to return the jury, was a partizan, and had made declarations with respect to the mode of preparing the panel.
And therefore you wished that the other sheriff should join in preparing the panel?—Just so.
What nature of panel would you have wished to have had to try the issue?—I should have wished, if possible, that there should have been a panel of unprejudiced persons; if that was not to be obtained, I should wish a panel composed partly of persons of all opinions, and not confined to persons of any one opinion.
Would you have thought, that a man's being an Orangeman, would have been a sufficient objection to his serving on that panel?—I certainly would, it would have been an objection in my mind; I should have thought the return, of a jury of Orangemen would have been a gross violation of propriety, and would have excluded any reasonable chance of justice being properly administered.
Mr. Wetherell
rose to order, and objected to the attorney-general for Ireland being examined in a case which involved his professional character.
Colonel Barry
said, that he should not have examined the right hon. gentleman without first obtaining his consent.
Sir G. Hill
said, that unless the examination was to ascertain some specific fact, he must object, on the ground of public, convenience, to the attorney-general's examination in this manner. He was the law-officer of the Crown, and had, in some
159
Mr. Wynn
had no objection to the examination of the right hon. gentleman, but thought that any inquiry, having for its object the sort of jury that ought to have been empanelled, would be highly injudicious.
Colonel Barry
felt himself placed in a very painful situation, but painful as his duty was, he would not shrink from it. If the house thought fit, through any overstrained delicacy, to interfere, he must submit; but till they did, he should persevere [Hear, hear]. He now wished to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he had ever had an opportunity of seeing the rules and regulations of Orangemen?
Mr. Plunkett.
—I do not know exactly what is meant by the question; I have had an opportunity of seeing a printed book, containing the rules and regulations of Orangemen, and I have had an opportunity of seeing extracts from books, containing rules and regulations of Orangemen; in that sense I have seen the rules and regulations of Orangemen.
Mr. Wetherell,
before the house proceeded further, begged to rise to order.
Mr. Plunkett
begged his learned friend's pardon. The present investigation he conceived to be into the conduct of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, and any question touching that matter he would willingly answer to the best of his power.
Mr. Wetherell
repeated his objection, and added, that in the whole course of his parliamentary experience he knew of no case in which an attorney-general, on such an examination, seeing how intimately he must be connected with the prosecution of the inquiry, would not of necessity, be a witness against himself. His objection was to the irregularity and inexpediency of such an examination, and was not founded on any apprehension arising from his fears for the honour, the candour, or the ability of the right hon. gentleman. He was convinced it would be most unadvisable to pursue this examination.
The Attorney General
thought that his right hon. and learned friend, like any other hon. member, was liable to examination by the house, on any topic connected with the pending investigation, unless the question put should be an improper one. As far as the; inquiry. Had
160
Sir J. Mackintosh
observed, that they were not called upon prospectively to decide whether such or such a particular question would be an improper one to put to the learned gentleman, but whether, as attorney-general for Ireland, he ought to be examined at all? In his opinion, the learned gentleman ought not to be examined.
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the course of the examination pursued in order to ascertain what the conduct of Orangemen had been, was perfectly right; but it was quite a different thing to examine the attorney-general for Ireland, whether he had become acquainted with the oaths of Orangemen, and whether he had adopted any proceedings in consequence. This would be in fact nothing less than asking for the legal opinion of the right hon. gentleman on the question.
Mr. Plunkelt
said, that, in a popular sense, he had no objection to answer the question proposed to him.
Mr. Scarlett
said, it would be best to proceed in the examination, leaving it to the sound discretion of the right hon. gentleman to refuse answering any question when he saw the propriety of doing so.
By Colonel
Barry.
Would you object to stating the nature of those extracts?—I have not the least objection; I have a difficulty arising from want of memory, but I have not the least objection so far as I do recollect them.
Were they different in substance from the printed regulations which were laid before you?—No, what I mean by extracts, is names of individuals, and of acts done, resolutions entered into, and things of that description. I have had an opportunity of seeing them, but I cannot undertake to recapitulate them.
Mr.
Thomas Sibthorpe
By Colonel
Barry.
Were you present on the 17th of December when a company was assembled at your father's house?—I was.
Who were there?—My father, Mr. Sibthorpe, my step-mother, my sister, the sheriff and his wife, William Graham, and John M'Connell.
Was a man of the name of Jackson there?—And. John Jackson.
Did you ever hear that John M'Connell made an affidavit that sheriff Thorpe said he had an Orange panel in his pocket?—I did.
161
Did you hear any such expression made use of by sheriff Thorpe?—I did not.
Do you think it could have been made use of without your having heard it?—I do not think it could.
By Sir J.
Mackintosh.
Did Mr. M'Connell take any part in that conversation?—Not more than the rest; I made no remark on his taking part.
Do you remember that he said any thing gross; or threw out any gross reflections on any body in the course of the evening?—I do not recollect that he did.
Do you recollect any conversation about the lord mayor?—It was rather an observation.
By whom?—By Graham: It was during the time we were playing at cards; on throwing down the knave of clubs, he made use of the expression, "bad luck to you, Fleming."
By which he meant the lord mayor?—I suppose so.
Was there nothing said about the lord-lieutenant?—There was no conversation about the lord-lieutenant.
Was there no observation made about him?—The sheriff made an observation.
What was the nature of his observation?—That he wished the marquis Wellesley at the devil.
Was he playing at cards, or was it before or after cards, that he made that observation?—It was when going away.
Did he make that observation loud enough to be heard by every body present?—Those that were at a distance might not have heard it; those that were near him would.
Did you hear any conversation or observation made about the bottle?—No particular conversation do I recollect about the bottle; the bottle was merely mentioned as having been thrown.
Was there no question put to Graham, whether the bottle was or was not thrown?—I do recollect any.
You are not certain, though you heard that civil remark of the high sheriff respecting the lord lieutenant, that all the other persons in the room heard it?—I can only answer for myself.
Then the sheriff might have made remarks respecting the Orange panel which you did not hear also?—I rather think not, because were all seated at that time, but this was when he was about to depart.
That was his farewell remark, was ft, his farewell benediction?—I cannot say.
How do you happen to recollect so exactly, and correctly the precise time at which that remark was made?—I really cannot say how I can recollect it, but by its striking me and my keeping it in my memory.
Do you take upon you to say with absolute certainty that sheriff Thorpe did not use those words about an Orange panel?—I do most assuredly.
162
Supposing another person in the company to have stated to the committee that they heard that observation, supposing a second witness had said he had not heard sheriff Thorpe made any remark about lord Wellesley, might not the remark about the panel have been made without your hearing it?—I have said that we were all seated together during the time that remark was supposed to have been, made, but that the sheriff, was going away, and we were scattered, and possibly some might have been near and some at a distance from the sheriff when the other was made use of.
How do you know when that remark about the Grange panel was supposed to have been made?—I spoke to M'Connell about his having made oath that such conversation had taken place; I waited on M'Connell on the 26th Dec. or the 27th, having heard that he had made such an assertion, and I stated that I had not heard any such conversation take place, nor had any of our family, and that I was willing to make affidavit if necessary; and he replied that he supposed that I thought so or I would not say so.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
By Sir
J. Mackintosh.
Was there no conversation very long before that?—The whole night.
How can you say, that the remark about the panel could not have been made during the whole preceding, period of the visit, by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe at your house, and you not have heard him; what is the difference between that remark, and the other?—On sheriff Thorpe's departure, I stated, that the company were up in various parts of the room, and that no conversation occurred after that; so that it could not have occurred after that, because he went away.
Might not sheriff Thorpe have made that remark about the panel before that remark which he made about lord Wellesley?—We were seated; unless in a very low tone, or rather in a whisper, it could not have been made.
During the whole period, from the entry of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe into the room, till the moment of his going away, it could not have been made without your overhearing it?—Unless it has made in a confidential tone. The room was so small.
163
By Mr.
Peel.
Did you or hot mean to allude to a particular, time of the evening when that remark was supposed to have been made?—I said that after the observation alluding to the marquis Wellesley, Mr. Thorpe went home.
Have you read M'Connell's evidence that he gave before this committee?—I have in the paper.
M'Connell states, does he not, that it was made at a certain period of the evening?—Yes.
Does not he state that that expression was made use of by sheriff Thorpe, soon after you passed him in the room, and said to him, "When will these poor fellows be brought to trial?"—So I read.
At what time did the party begin?—About eight.
At what time did you sit down to cards?—Some short time afterwards.
How long did you continue playing at cards?—Till about eleven.
How soon after the card party had finished did sheriff Thorpe leave the room?—Almost immediately.
By Mr.
R. Smith
Was this the first time you had heard the marquis Wellesley's name mentioned that evening?—Except about the riot at the theatre, no conversation relative to him.
This was the first observation you heard made in his praise or his dispraise?—Yes.
Did not you consider it a little extraordinary that for the first time, just as a man was going out at a door without any thing to lead to it, he should say, "I wish the lord lieutenant was at the devil"?—Indeed, I do not know what I thought of it.
Is it to be understood that it was uttered just like a grace after dinner, without anything introducing to it?—Indeed I do not know.
Did not you hear sheriff Thorpe express any wish that lord Wellesley was out of the country?—No, I did not.
John Crosby Graves,
By Colonel
Barry.
You recollect the riots that happened at the theatre; on the 14th December?—Yes, I attended at the theatre on that night.
There were certain persons accused of having been active in those riots?—Yes.
164
First of all there were two persons taken up for that?—I understand three, two Handwiches and George Graham.
Did you commit those persons?—No; those persons were carried to the office of the sixth division; the police division in which the theatre is; they were there examined, and the informations taken in that office.
Do you recollect, when Forbes was first named as a rioter?—He was first apprehended in the theatre by myself.
Was he detained then?—He was not then detained; he was taken to the watch-house; he there gave bail, under my direction; and on the following morning, there were no circumstances at the time of sufficient importance, to be considered a foundation for any serious charge.
He was afterwards accused of rather a serious charge; do you recollect what that charge was?—The charge was of a conspiracy, to kill and murder the lord-lieutenant.
Was not the state of public feeling in Dublin considerably exasperated?—It was very highly excited.
In a case of high exasperation of public feeling, do you not think there is a considerable difficulty in obtaining a panel of fair and impartial men to judge a question of that nature?—I should conceive so.
Do you think the committal of Forbes, for that capital crime, tended to increase that exasperation?—It was one of many circumstances that might so contribute.
Did you commit Forbes for that crime?—I did not sign the committal for Forbes.
Was it ever proposed to you to sign his committal?—No; there were grounds why I think it was not proper for me to sign that committal, nor the other two committals for the capital charge. The two informations respecting the other prisoners, and the facts respecting them, were deposed to in the sixth divisional office of police, the College-street office; the informations against one of the Handwiches, Henry Handwich, and George Graham, against whom there were capital charges preferred, were sworn in that office; the informations not being before me, it was not for me to sign them; I sent for the magistrate of the office, before whom they had been sworn; he had the informations before him, and he signed the committals against those two men; in the case of Forbes I was myself a witness; I had apprehended him, I haft made an information which was part of the evidence to affect him, and it did not strike me as at all proper for me to be the committing magistrate.
Had you any other reason for not signing that committal?—I had made a statement in the way of deposition against him, on facts coming within my own knowledge at the time of his apprehension; and I mentioned it to my brother magistrate, as a reason why I should not be the magistrate to commit.
Did you subscribe the information upon the
165
Did you subscribe the jurat of the information upon which the capital committal took place?—I cannot say that; I subscribed one information, as to a transaction taking place in Essex-street, after the representation was over, which I believe was of as serious a nature as any other information sworn, except that another party, who was present at the same conversation, and who did not swear the information before me, did recollect that conversation, I believe, more fully, and did state something which more considerably affected Forbes, than did the informants who gave the information before me.
Did any information which you subscribed warrant a committal on a capital charge, In your opinion?—If I had had the case before me in the ordinary way, simply upon the informations that were sworn before myself individually, I should not have shaped a capital committal on anything which had been deposed to before me.
Was it proposed to you to commit upon the capital charge upon those informations?—I got no immediate direction upon the subject; one of my brother magistrates came into the office and stated, that it was directed that three of the persons charged were to have capital committals made against them; he came from the council-chamber, and he stated that it was by the attorney-general, or by the law officers, I do not know which.
Were you required, or desired, to sign those capital committals?—No, that was all that passed upon the subject, in the way of a direction; the committals were then framed accordingly.
Would it be likely for a sheriff to talk of his having a panel in his pocket, before the offenders had been committed?—I should think, speaking
â priori,
William Leadour
By Colonel
Barry.
Shortly previous to his death had you any conversation with him?—I had; in the beginning of March, I called upon him for the purpose of getting a book of mine which I heard he had: I found him in a very dangerous state of health; when alone in his room, and speaking with respect to the termination of the trials for the riots at the theatre, he said, "The lads have come off much better than might have been expected, they little knew that it was poor James Ormsby, who will be soon going to Davy Jones, who threw the pieces of wood."
166
Did he die shortly after?—In the course of a month.
Was he a low sallow man?—He was.
Do you know whether he had made that communication to any body else?—I have heard he told it to George Graham, the person who was accused of having thrown those missiles.
Do you know why your friend supposed those lads had got off better than might have been expected, if they were not the persons?—I should presume by their not having been found guilty.
At the time you had the conversation with Ormsby, did he appear to you to be apprehensive of his approaching dissolution?—I am decidedly of opinion, that it was under that impression he made the declaration to me.
By Mr.
Goulburn.
Was he in the habit of attending the theatre?—I cannot say.
Had you seen him frequently before this?—I had seen him as a visitor in the prison of Newgate, where the traversers were confined; I went to see Mr. Forbes at the time he was confined there.
Did Ormsby go there for that purpose?—No but for the purpose of seeing the Handwiches.
Do you suppose he would state to Handwich that he threw the rattle?—Indeed, I would suppose so.
Do you think it likely Handwich would keep that secret?—I think it probable he would.
Was not it possible to get evidence, that Ormsby had thrown the bottle?—I was not in the theatre, and cannot state what passed there that night.
Do you remember making any inquiries about a person of the name of Farrel?—I do perfectly.
Who was examined as to the throwing the bottle?—Yes.
What inquiries did you make concerning him?—Sometime in the last week of December, a person called on me and stated, that he had heard Farrel say, at the door of the police office, in College-street; that, thank God, his oath was taken, and now they should have satisfaction of the bloody Orangemen. I having a wish that matters should be set in a fair way, and that the parties accused should be honourably acquitted, inquired who Farrel was, I found out his occupation and residence; and the person who made this communication to me, I requested he would go to his abode to recognise him; on the day of the trial, he went there, and returned to me, and told me, it was the same person; and that if he would come forward and swear that Handwich was the person who threw the bottle, he was ready to swear that he had made use of this expression at the door of College-street police office.
Was that person examined?—He was not called.
167
By Mr.
Brougham
You are what, is commonly called an Orangeman?—I am.
Are you a purple-man?—I am.
You have taken the Orange oath?—I have.
And the purple oath?—Yes.
Were you intimate with Mr. Ormsby?—was not; I had seen him about a year back; but I never spoke to him in my life, till the time the traversers were in confinement.
At that time Mr. Ormsby was very ill?—He was but was able to be out.
Then when he talked about the Mr. Jones, in the way you have described, he had not the prospect of death?—I did not mention Mr. Jones.
Davy Jones?—Yes; that was in the month of March; I am speaking of the last week in December.
When had you that conversation with him?—The time he made use of that expression to me, was the first week in March.
Was he very ill then?—Very ill indeed; he was sitting up to have his bed made, he never left his room after that.
Was he in that state of mind, that a person usually is in the prospect of dissolution, when he used the expressions which you have just stated?—I consider him to be perfectly in that state of mind, so much so, that a clergyman had been with him, I believe, an hour before.
What made you so anxious that the prisoners should be honourably acquitted?—Being a particular acquaintance, I felt sorry that an imputation of the kind should be made against them.
You felt no peculiar interest in consequence of their belonging to the same system as yourself?—Certainly; I considered that the same odium would be brought against the system, and that, together with my individual feeling for them, roused me to exertion in their favour.
Robert Gilbert
By Colonel
Barry
Do you recollect any person coming to the gaol of Newgate, for the purpose of seeing the prisoners who were confined for being concerned in the riot at the theatre on the 14th of December?—I do.
Do you recollect any person pointing out one of them, as the man that threw the rattle?—I do.
Who was that person?—I have heard since that it is a Mr. Lewis.
Whom did he identify as the person who threw the.rattle?—A man of the name of Ormsby; a man in the last stage, as I thought it the time, of a consumption.
Major Tandy was present at this?—He was. When did this take place?—I think the day or the day but one after the prisoners were by committed.
168
Lewis pointed out Ormsby as, the one Who threw the rattle?—He did; there were about ten prisoners in the yard where the man was; I was asked to show the prisoner Graham which I declined doing: I said it was not my practice to show any man singly, but I would show the yard where he was; I brought them up to an eminence and said, "Gentlemen, the prisoner is in that yard." Ormsby was talking to Matthew Handwich, and he pointed over his finger and said, "That is the man." I was greatly astonished, and after some little delay, said, "Sir, I think you are mistaken, for that man is not one of the prisoners." He then seemed to be more positive as to his dress than to his features.
You are sure that major Tandy was in a situation to hear all that passed?—Certainly, he was not further than this gentleman from me.
Did not you point out Graham to Lewis?—Not till after he had asked me if I would show him, and I said I would then.
You are positive he pointed out Ormsby in the first instance?—Certainly.
What passed when Lewis pointed out Graham?—There was some conversation between him and major Tandy, which I did not mind; Mr. Tandy being a magistrate I did not interfere between him and Mr. Lewis.
Did not Mr. Lewis say something to you upon the subject?—No, I think not.
Did any other persons apply to you to point out Graham to them?—No, not Graham.
Or Forbes?—The prisoners in general, I was asked to show them all; I recollect on new year's night there came the crown solicitor to the gaol, with a gentleman whose face was covered so that I could not see, an he asked me to bring the prisoners, and to place them in a situation with other persons, that they should be inspected. I brought them all down into one of my own apartments, and placed them in a room, and the gentlemen walked up into the room, and the gentleman who came to identify them, I recollect, identified a man of the name of Davern, who was in custody for forgery for a length of time before; I then told the gentleman he must have been mistaken, for that person was in custody for a long time before the riots in the theatre; he then requested I might bring down Forbes and show him; I told him I did not think that would be right, that he was in a most conspicuous place in the room, and I did not think it would be treating him well to show him singly.
Did you afterwards learn who that gentleman who was muffled up was?—A Mr. Vignoles, one of the lord-lieutenant's aide-de-Camps.
Did not you consider it a circumstance of some considerable importance, when Lewis pointed out Ormsby as the person who had thrown the rattle?—I did.
Was the circumstance of its being in major Tandy's hearing, a circumstance that made you think it was unnecessary to make it known to persons in authority?—Yes.
Major Tandy is a police magistrate?—Yes.
169
On what day did this take place?—I think a day or, two after the prisoners were fully committed.
By Lord
Milton.
When Lewis stated, that Ormsby was the person who had thrown the rattle, did he state it upon his own knowledge or common report?—On his own knowledge.
Did he state, that he had seen it?—He did; that he was in some situation in the boxes, that he could see him and had a clear view of him.
He was quite certain Ormsby was the person who threw the rattle?—Yes, he seemed to be quite certain at first; but when I told him, he was not one of the prisoners, he seemed not to be so certain as to his features, but more certain to his dress.
When you told him, that Ormsby was not one of the prisoners, some doubt was thrown upon his mind whether he was the person?—Certainly: and I thought him quite mistaken myself at the time.
Did not Mr. Lewis ask you whether Graham had not changed his dress?—He did.
Did you ever mention to the Handwiches, or any of the prisoners, the fact that Mr. Lewis had pointed out Ormsby?—I went down immediately, and said, "What is your name?" He said, "My name is Ormsby." I said, "There was a gentleman after pointing you out as the person who threw the rattle; were you at the theatre that evening?" He said, "I was at the theatre." I observed while I was talking to him he seemed a good deal agitated. I said, "When you were at the theatre, had you this coat on?" He said, "No, I had not this coat upon me." I asked him this, in consequence of the gentleman seeming to speak more to his dress than to his person.
Did you ever mention to the prisoners that Ormsby had been pointed out as the man?—I did.
Did sheriff Thorpe ever visit the prisoners in gaol, the traversers?—He did.
By Mr.
Ellice.
You were not called?—No; they told me, if that gentleman was produced, it would be then necessary to call on me.
They did not think it necessary to show that Ormsby had been pointed out as the person who threw the rattle?—I suppose they did not, or they would have produced me.
Do you mean to say, you communicated to them before the trial, that a gentleman brought there by major Tandy, had identified another person as the person who threw the rattle, but that they did not produce you?—Yes.
Were the prisoners visited by their counsel or agents between the day of which you are
170
Who were they?—Mr. Fearn was one; and Mr. Chambers was the other.
You were in court when the case was before the petit jury, in February?—Yes; I am obliged to attend all the trials.
Was any thing said about this on that trial?—No, not a word.
By Mr.
Denman.
Who told you that the person who pointed out Ormsby was Mr. Lewis?—It was Mr. Stodart, a police magistrate.
Henry Cooper,
By Sir
J. Mackintosh.
Did you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe settle the panel immediately after the receipt of Mr. Kemmis's letter?—I attended the Sheriffs office, and retired into a room from the public office, and there we examined the panel which he produced.
Was that immediately after receiving the letter of Mr. Kemmis?—I think it was the day after I received it; but I cannot be particular as to dates.
Have you reason to believe, that you lost no time in settling the panel after receiving that letter?—The regulation of the panel Was for the purpose of giving it to the sub-sheriff for his record panel; I think there was no alteration from that, whatever.
Was not that panel settled before Mr. Poole came to you, and had that conversation with you?—I am almost certain it was not.
The House resumed. The Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 12, 1823.
NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO FRANCE
Earl Grey
rose and said, that when he recollected the importance of the war now carrying on by France against Spain—when he adverted to the consequences likely to result from it, and the manner in which it would affect this country, as well as the dangers which threatened the peace of Europe, he was assured their lordships would feel with him the necessity of having before them every paper on a subject of such para-
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
summum bonum,
sine qua non
182
183
184
bruta fulmina,
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
The Earl of Liverpool,
in rising to oppose the motion, said, he believed he should be able to convince their lordships that the noble earl had laid no parliamentary ground for it. There were some points on which he felt it necessary to give a short explanation before he entered into the general question. With regard to the capture of the Spanish corvette by
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
de facto
199
200
Lord Holland
said, that the speech of the noble earl who had just sat down, was one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard. In one part of his speech the noble earl had endeavoured to persuade the House that it was neither wise nor prudent for England to go to war in support of the just cause of Spain; while another part of it consisted of a pompous description of the great success which had attended our arms during the last Spanish war. In another part of his harangue, the noble earl had told a British House of Lords, that a naval war was of no use; that the value which had heretofore been attached to the wooden walls of Old England, was entirely an antiquated notion; that to talk of giving a maritime support to Spain, was nothing but a farce; and that this country could only hope to ob-
201
202
"Let but Achilles o'er yon trench appear,
Proud Troy shall tremble and consent to fear."
203
204
The Earl of Liverpool
was not aware that any stipulation existed.
Lord Holland.
—Does the noble earl mean to say, that no stipulation does exist?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that no stipulation existed.
Lord Holland
supposed, that the noble earl's information upon that point came from the same "good men and true" on whom in other matters he had relied. But, if there was not an open stipulation by the continental powers, to aid, might there not be an. implied one? The declaration, if it
205
eo termino?
206
207
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that agreeing with the noble earl opposite most fully as to the systematic design of the allied sovereigns, he must still contend that it was impossible not to discover in the French government a spirit, not only of hostility to the liberties of mankind, which it felt in common with the allied sovereigns, but a lust of aggrandisement more particularly opposed to the feelings and interests of this country. It was, therefore, an inconsistency irrecoricileable, not only with the conduct of the noble earl in the management of the late war, but irreconcileable with the principles of his whole life, to hear the noble earl make the admissions he had made, and not arrive at the same conclusion with those with whom he (lord E.) concurred. The noble earl heed not rest his inferences on the foreign policy of these sovereigns. It was neither at Portugal or Naples, at Verona Troppau, or Laybach, that such a determination was manifested; it was discoverable was the internal regulations of he respective governments of these mili-
208
209
210
Lord Calthorpe
said, he deprecated war as much as the noble earl opposite could do. He looked at it in no other light than as a resort in case of necessity; but he could not help thinking that that necessity had arrived. The course which ministers had taken was not at all surprising. They knew that war would be against the feelings of the country; and they knew also that, by avoiding it they should gain a momentary triumph. His belief was, that the hope of this triumph—and he would call it a delusive triumphs-had led them too far. Their wish for peace had been too anxious, and too openly displayed. In the commencement of the late negotiations, a tone hot of anger, but of just and firm remonstrance, not of menace towards France, but of friendly expostulation; would have produced beneficial effects. If it had been neglected, England would not have been compelled to go to war. But, it would not have been neglected, if it had been urged with an eye to the condition of France, who was then vacillating between doubt of her own subjects on the one hand, and fear of the consequences of her oppression on the other. The noble lord at down, with professing his belief, that it would be impossible for England long to remain in amity with states which discovered opposition to every thing in the shape of rational liberty.
211
The motion was negatived without a division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 12, 1823.
LAW OF PRINCIPAL AND FACTOR-PETITION FOR AN ALTERATION THEREOF.
Mr. J. Smith
presented a petition from the Merchants and Bankers of London, praying for an Alteration in the existing Law of Lien upon Goods sent on Foreign Ventures. He stated his intention of moving for a select committee to inquire into this subject.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that the law, of which this petition sought an alteration, had prevailed ever since the merchant law had been a part of the English code. It did not permit factors to pay their own debts with the produce of goods confided to them by employers in other countries. The learned gentleman proceeded to argue, that this law had been borrowed from the maxims of the civil law, which prevailed all over the continent, and that therefore, as it corresponded with the regulations abroad, there could be no reason for altering it as regarded commercial convenience, and Still less on the score of honesty and good policy. Nothing could be more just than that factors should be restricted from exceeding the authority of their principals, and nothing more likely to prevent frauds. He must object to any alteration in the present law.
Mr. Baring
said, that the effect of the law as it at present existed, was to prevent the circulation of goods. Its operation had been a source of complaint from the earliest period that he could recollect any thing of business. British merchants were not generally thought more fond of encouraging frauds than the members of his learned friend's profession. The error in his learned friend's argument had arisen from his not understanding the nature of trade. He had thought that there were two sorts of persons—merchants and factors; but in commerce merchants were factors, and factors were merchants, both purchasing goods upon commission. The great inconvenience felt from the present system was, that money could not be raised by the hypothecation of goods, because it was not known to whom they belonged. The object of the proposed alteration would be, to establish the principle, that
212
Mr. Huskisson
agreed with the hon. gentleman as to the importance of the subject. He held a petition, which he should present in the course of the evening, from the merchants, and nearly all the persons of capital in the town he had the honour to represent, the prayer of which was similar to that now before the House. They were unanimous in their wish that the existing law should be altered. He trusted that the learned gentleman would, for this reason, not oppose the appointment of a committee. He did not wish that the principle of the law should be altered; because he felt, I that whatever good a change of that kind would bring with it, would be greatly overbalanced by the evil which it would create. The hon. gentleman said, that the alteration which was proposed would merely have the effect of preventing a factor from paying his debts with the goods of his principal. If that were all, there would be no necessity for referring the question to a committee. But there I were, in fact, other considerations which a committee might with propriety inquire into. Great inconvenience arose from the present state of the law; and he knew that judges on the bench, when deciding on particular cases, had alluded to the injustice which was connected with it. But it was not necessary, in removing these inconveniences, that the principle of the law should be altered. If they considered the subject in a committee up stairs, it would be only necessary to inquire whether the law might not be so altered, as to prevent the frauds which now prevailed under it.
213
Mr. Scarlett
observed, that many merchants received large quantities of goods from foreign consignors, and was it fitting that they should be met by the exclamation, when they sustained a loss—"Oh, you should have taken due caution before you advanced money;" while no such caution was required from a London banker.
Mr. Ricardo
said, he would put the case in this way: suppose an individual employed him as an agent, to dispose of goods, and that he was dishonestly inclined, and defrauded his principal; in that case, who ought to be the loser, the man who said, "I will not pay a single penny without the goods are delivered lo me;" or the man who did not make any inquiry, but lent his mono}' upon mere representations? It was not desirable that either party should lose; but one must suffer, and the sufferer ought to be the individual who did not use proper caution.
Mr. J. Martin
could see no reason why the same rule should not apply to bills of exchange. He admitted, that persons advancing money had a right to know whether the property really belonged to the individual. But this information could not always be obtained; for he had known many cases where the most solemn assurance was given, that certain property belonged to particular individuals, when, in fact, such was not the case.
Ordered to lie on the table.
IMPORTATION OF TALLOW—PETITION
Sir T. Lethbridge
presented a petition from the butchers of Leadenhall-market, complaining of the glut of Russian Tallow in the market, and praying for a further import duty on that article. He should be glad to know from the president of the Board of Trade, whether ministers had it not in their serious consideration to add considerably to the present import duty on tallow? It was quite monstrous that foreigners should be allowed to glut the British market with their produce.
Mr. Huskisson
regretted that the chancellor of the exchequer was not present to answer for himself. The hon. baronet must see that the placing an additional duty on tallow was a financial, not a commercial, measure.
Mr. Hume
considered the principle laid down by the hon. baronet as extremely objectionable. The imposition of an ad-
214
Mr. Monck
condemned the system by which individuals sought to support a system which operated beneficially for themselves, but was injurious to the country in general. He hoped ministers would turn a deaf ear to petitions of this nature.
Sir T. Lethbridge
argued, that the additional duty would not fall on the consumer.
Lord Milton
said, if the additional duty did not fall on the consumer, it was quite clear that the alteration would be of no use to the butchers of Leadenhall-market.
Mr. Ricardo
observed, that the principle advocated by the hon. baronet might be applied to every foreign commodity. As the hon. baronet had discovered so easy a way of reducing the national debt, by throwing the burthen of taxation entirely on foreigners, he ought to become chancellor of the exchequer without delay; for he was afraid they had never yet found a chancellor of the exchequer who could impose taxes without inflicting serious burthens on the people.
Ordered to lie on the table.
BEER DUTIES BILL.]
Mr. Denison
rose to present a petition on a subject which deeply interested the middle classes of society. The petition came from the Table Beer and Ale Brewers of London, a most respectable body, who had embarked millions in the trade. As the law now stood, the brewer paid an excise duty of 2
s.
s.
s.
s.
215
l.
l.,
Mr. Ricardo
could see no reason why the tax should not be imposed on the malt. If that were done, individuals would be at liberty to brew what quality of beer they pleased. The hardship was very great on the poor man, who was obliged to purchase his beer at a high rate from the public brewer; whereas all those who possessed facilities for brewing were exempted from the burden.
Mr. Maberly
said, the bill was most unjust towards the brewer. It took from him, in the first place, the sale and consumption of the ordinary sort of beer, and next prevented him from making up his loss, by declaring that he should not brew any beer of the intermediate kind, unless he built new premises. The bill, it appeared, was an experiment. To the brewer it was certainly a very expensive one. He must either submit to lose his trade, or he must erect new buildings at great cost. If he right hon. gentleman had gone into a revision of the excise laws, it must have struck him that the duty on beer was improper. The duty ought to be placed on the malt. The duty
216
s.;
l.
Alderman C. Smith
could not see why the brewers should not be allowed to brew the new beer as well as table beer. He hoped the bill would not pass.
Mr. Bennet
was surprised that the chancellor of the exchequer should persevere in a measure, in favour of which not one voice had been raised, and which bore on the face of it the greatest injustice. In order to condemn it, it was enough to say, that it was a measure to fix the price of an article of trade. By retaining the duty on beer, instead of converting it into a duty on malt, the rich man escaped with less burthen than the poor man.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that upon the last discussion he had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to reply to all the objections started by the hon. member who had last spoken; and, as other opportunities of discussing the measure would arise, he did not feel himself called upon to enter upon it at present.
Mr. Hume
said, that a capital of upwards of one million was embarked in the trade in question, and therefore it required more consideration than was intended to be given to it. He maintained, that a sum of 250,000
l.
Mr. R. Colborne
thought that the bill had been introduced more with a view to benefit the public than to increase the revenue.
Mr. F. Palmer
was of opinion that the bill, with certain modifications, would be better than the continuance of the existing law.
Mr. Monck
said, that the bill, in its present state, inflicted injustice not only on the brewers, but on the public. He wished to see it modified.
Mr. Maberly
wished to ask whether there would be any objection to the appointment of a committee, to consider the propriety of placing the duty upon malt, and thereby saving, in the ma-
217
l.
Mr. Brougham
expressed his surprise and regret that no answer had been given to the question of his hon. friend. The House were guilty of a crying injustice to the poor, in thus continuing to make the labouring man pay 50
s.
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he would be ready to meet the arguments of the gentlemen opposite when the bill came regularly under the consideration of the house.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SPITAL FIELDS SILK MANUFACTURE.]
Mr. F. Buxton,
seeing the president of the Board of Trade in his place, begged to ask him a question or two upon a subject, in which the interests of a large and respectable portion of the inhabitants of this metropolis were involved. He understood it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman to introduce a bill for the repeal of certain restrictions upon the silk manufacture. What he requested of the right hon. gentleman was, that he would first consent to the appointment of a committee of inquiry up stairs, or if he refused that, that he would not press the measure until after the holidays.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he certainly would not oppose the appointment of a committee if he thought it could be productive of any beneficial result, but he could entertain no such opinion. He had been in constant communication with the parties who opposed this measure, and had uniformly held out to them the same expectations; therefore, the measure now in contemplation could not be said to have come suddenly upon them. Fom all he had been able to learn, he felt convinced that the trade would be much more flourishing than it was at present, if the restrictions in question were totally removed. If he obtained leave to bring in the bill to-night he would move the second reading on Friday, and proceed in the other stages after the holidays. He did this from a conviction, that any delay would only have the effect of keeping
218
IRISH INSURRECTION ACT.]
Mr. Goulburn
said, that when he last proposed to the House the propriety of continuing the Insurrection Act, he had ventured to express a hope that it was a measure which was not likely to be again called for. He had ventured to make that statement, not upon his own authority, not upon any vague and uncertain accounts, but upon the reports of men best acquainted with the state of the country, and upon whose judgments he could most firmly rely. It was with sincere regret that he now felt it necessary to recommend a further continuance of the provisions of that act. From the returns before the House, it appeared that the disturbances, particularly in one district, continued to increase; that there was still manifested among the peasantry the same disposition to outrage, the same hostility to property, the same imposition of illegal oaths, the same general contempt of the laws of their country, and the same wish to substitute laws of their own. He lamented that, notwithstanding the liberal and laudable exertions of the people of this country to relieve the distressed peasantry of Ireland, and, notwithstanding the praiseworthy liberality of the Irish resident gentry in seconding the efforts of the British people, there still prevailed, in certain districts, a state of insubordination which imperiously called for the further continuance of this extraordinary power. He begged to be understood as not advocating this measure as one by which a country ought to be permanently governed. On the contrary, he considered it objectionable, taking it in the abstract, and only to be justified by the emergency of the case. The simple question then for parliament was, did a sufficient urgency exist to justify the continuance of this law? It was not his intention to go at length into a detail of the outrages which formed the justification of the measure; for these were developed in the papers which had been laid upon the table or the House. In these papers, the state of parts of Munster was described; and it was difficult for gentlemen to picture to themselves the condition of the resident gentry in the disturbed districts of Ireland, who were endeavouring to maintain themselves amid this state things
219
220
221
Lord Althorp
said, he could not remain silent consistently with his feelings of public duty. Year after year measures of severity had been introduced, yet, so far was the tranquillity of Ireland from being restored, that her disturbances had been increased, and her misfortunes aggravated. It was the duty of the House, with the experience they had had since the Union, to look more deeply into the state of Ireland, and to take other and different measures to cure her disorders. He confessed he felt disappointed at the speech of the right hon. gentleman. He thought the right hon. gentleman would have entered more at large into the question, particularly after the expectation held out, that the situation of Ireland would be discussed. Measures of coercion had failed. It was therefore the duty of the House to adopt towards Ireland acts of justice, of encouragement, and of conciliation. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the present was not the time for discussion. Was there not time, at all events, between this and the first of August? Could nothing be done during that time, to ascertain the real causes of the deplorable state of things in Ireland?
222
223
Mr. John Smith
rose to second the amendment. He said, he could not but express his surprise at the course which the right hon. Secretary had pursued. The right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to impress upon the House the necessity of suppressing the riots and outrages which now prevailed in Ireland. Those riots he admitted ought to be put down, but the right hon. gentleman had not said a word as to the cause of those disturbances. It was melancholy to reflect that, in looking to the history of Ireland during her long connexion with this country, he found that she was always discontented, always the prey of factions, and that the laws were constantly set at defiance. This was not the case in any other part of the united empire. It was not the case in Scotland. When that country was visited with almost a famine in 1817, there was no riot, no disturbance. That extraordinary people, as he must call them, had looked upon the calamity under which they were suffering as a dispensation of Providence. What was the cause of this difference between the two countries? It was this—in Scotland the people had the benefit of moral and religious instruction,
224
l.
l.,
225
226
Mr. Robertson
said, that in his opinion all the troubles of Ireland arose from the persecution of the Catholic religion. Whilst a great portion of the population were kept aloof from the privileges of the constitution, it was impossible to hope for permanent tranquillity. The renewal of the Insurrection act was only throwing a firebrand amongst the already inflamed population of that country. They must go deeper and reach the causes of the disaffection. It was the moral principle of man which was at work in Ireland, which forbad him to rest satisfied with degradation unjustly inflicted. They could hardly expect, indeed they ought not to hope, that the country would be at rest while those degradations were continued. He would show, by a reference to past events, how little measures of coercion were calculated to supply the place of fair and equal laws. At a time when all the monarchs of Europe were leagued with the church of Rome against the Protestants, how had they succeeded? Not one Dissenter had been reclaimed to the Catholic worship. Charles 5th had tried in vain the united power of the church decrees, his own political importance, and the vast wealth which he had
227
Sir N. Colthurst
said, he was perfectly sensible of the kind motives by which the hon. member who spoke last was actuated, but when rebellion was at the door was not the proper time to talk of conciliation. It was the duty of the house to arrest the evil, before it went further. Within the last fortnight, a number of armed men, amounting to at least a hundred, headed by a person of a better description, had appeared within four miles of Cork, and, though pursued immediately by the military, there had been no detection. It was evident that the ordinary course of law was not sufficient: 180 persons had been discharged at the assizes for want of evidence. From eighty to one hundred burnings had taken place, and there had been but one conviction. If the Insurrection act had been enforced with firmness, Ireland would not be in its present state. The Irish government had shown a culpable lenity towards the disaffected, and had thereby paralyzed the efforts of its servants. The people, instead of feeling gratitude for that lenity, mistook it for a manifestation of fear. He referred the House to the representations made by the grand juries, to show how extensive and systematic was the plan upon which
228
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that the facts stated by the hon. baronet would rather influence him to support the amendment. If poverty and distress were now more general throughout Ireland than ever, and if measures of severity similar to the present had been passed for the last twenty years without any success, what, he would ask, could be hoped for from the present motion? For the eighteen or nineteen years which he had sat in that House he had heard the same complaints, and the same measures of severity had been always proposed. These measures had been reprobated by every hon. member (with the exception of one), who now sat on the Treasury-bench. He had heard them reprobated by the attorney-general for Ireland, who had characterised them as the extinction of the constitution, and had affirmed that proscription and death were not fit engines of government. Why, he would ask, was the right hon. gentleman's present conduct inconsistent with his former sentiments? Within these six years he had deprecated measures similar to that proposed this night. Within that period he had maintained, that Catholic emancipation was the sweeping measure, the
sine qua non,
229
Mr. Plunkett
said, that as he had been much misrepresented, but no doubt unintentionally, by the noble lord who had just sat down, he must take the liberty of addressing a few words to the House upon this question. He could not be fairly charged with inconsistency for the support which he was now giving to this bill, inasmuch as he had advocated it last year, and also in 1806, when he was connected with the duke of Bedford's administration in Ireland. He allowed that it contained a most unconstitutional principle, seeing that it annihilated the trial by jury; and he lamented, as much as any man could do, the melancholy necessity which compelled the government to inflict it at present upon Ireland. Still, the measure was to be only of a temporary nature, and was much better than the introduction of martial law, which appeared so desirable to the hon. member for Cork. The introduction of martial law, he, for one, did not like; because, it was sure to produce irritation, and it could not be attended, either directly or remotely, by any conciliatory or beneficial consequences. The great evil under which Ireland at present laboured, was the reluctance felt by individuals to come
230
sine qua non
231
232
Sir J. Newport
agreed, that his right hon. friend had no wish to curtail the necessary powers of the government; but the question was, whether the powers now demanded were necessary? In 1803, the Habeas Corpus act had been suspended; and martial law had been introduced. The same had been repeated in the following year, and an hon. friend (Mr. Elliott) had then implored the House to observe carefully what they did; another hon. member had observed that the minister stopped the constitution with as little ceremony and as little regard for the current of public opinion, as a miller would stop his wheel. Had not this been true? He had then asked, as he did now, whether such measures were necessary for the safety of Ireland? And, in putting that question, he had been supported by Mr. Windham, Mr. Fox, and a noble duke then a member of that House, and he was answered with—"Grant us the power; trust to us for the fair and proper use of it." In 1810, the Insurrection act was renewed, and on all occasions they had been referred to to-morrow and to-morrow; which to-morrow, he was sorry to say, never arrived. In each successive case, the language of ministers at the time they asked for those extraordinary powers had been this:—"Put down the disturbances, and then inquire into the causes from which they originated;" and afterwards, when they had quelled the disturbances for a time, and were reminded of their promises about inquiry, the answer had been "The disturbances are now happily over—why should we agitate the country by inquiring into the cause of that which at present has fortunately no existence?" Against such conduct he had been remonstrating for the last twenty years, and he would repeat what he had often said before, that they would never succeed in tranquillizing
233
Lord Ennismore
said, he considered that the Insurrection act ought to be passed, but with considerable amendments. In some parts of Ireland many were prevented by fear from becoming public prosecutors. The act was not, as it stood at present, sufficient. But one punishment existed in it, and that was transportation for seven years. Now, that would be a heavy punishment to a man who was a husband and a father of a family; but to a single man it was inconsiderable. He insisted that the lord lieutenant ought to be invested with power to put any district under martial law; for that measure was the only one held in terror in Ireland. The people feared a trial before a tribunal which was not to be influenced by the ingenuity of barristers or attornies. Such tribunals were necessary in such a country. He could assure the House, that not a night passed last winter without excesses of some kind or other. He, therefore, thought that government should be enabled to use more vigorous measures. The absentee system was, he admitted, one great source of misery to Ireland; but it should be recollected that gentlemen who continued to reside there were obliged to keep their doors and windows barred, and sat down to dinner with fire-arms on their table. The lower classes in Ireland were certainly possessed of warm and generous feelings, but they lived in a state of entire ignorance of the power and resources of this country. They attributed every tiling to fear; and considered every act of this country as resulting from that cause. It was with sorrow that he felt obliged to state a fact which would, at first, seem hardly credible, but he could assure the House of its truth, and it resulted from the opinion which the peasantry of Ireland entertained of this country. They actually considered that the subscription which had kept so many thousands from starving during the last summer, was the result of fear, and not of benevolence. Before tranquillity could be expected to prevail in Ireland, it was necessary to strike terror into the lower orders. They must be made to know that the law was strong, and that they could not break through it. When this was done, measures of conciliation ought to be tried. In those mea-
234
Lord Milton
rose, for the purpose of cautioning the House, and particularly the gentlemen of this country, not to listen too eagerly to such representations as those which had been made by the noble lord; and which really appeared to have been made for the express purpose of hallooing on the government to acts of tyranny against the people. The noble lord must forgive him if he said, that the speech he had just made was another inducement to him to disbelieve the representations of the magistrates of Ireland. He was himself not unacquainted with Ireland. The barony with which he was more particularly connected Was not at all disturbed; and yet the magistrates had thought fit to put in force the constabulary act, and had accompanied it with a declaration that the barony was in a state of tranquillity, but they had taken this step for purposes of precaution. He did not look upon the emancipation of the Catholics as the panacea for all the evils which afflicted Ireland. He wished to see this notion, which was a delusive one, dispelled. Those evils arose from the ignorance of the population. He would intreat the House to compare the state of education in the North with that in the South. They would find that the state of tranquillity very much corresponded. They ought to devise some means of educating the lower orders; for until the barbarity which was the result of this ignorance was removed, they might rule Ireland by terror, but they would never produce tranquillity. The noble lord had said a good deal about the spirit of the lower orders in Ireland; but he had omitted to state that for which they were proverbial—the kindness of their hearts. The fact was, that they were a people to be governed by love, and not by fear. The tranquillity of that country was to be secured by inspiring confidence between the different classes
235
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, there were two propositions before the House—that for the continuation of the law, and the amendment. Besides these, there were the recommendations of his noble friend who spoke last but one. He would defend that noble lord from any personal imputation, in consequence of the proposal which he had made; but he could not accede to that proposal. He would not have the coercion, enforced by this act, either increased or diminished. He considered it under existing circumstances a necessary measure; but, at the same time, he regarded it only as a temporary one. He thought that martial law should not be introduced but under the most urgent circumstances; and he therefore deprecated all allusion to it. It was beneath the dignity of parliament to hold out threats which it did not mean to put in execution. It had been complained on the other side of the House, that government had resorted to measures of coercion for the last twenty years. He would appeal to every candid man, whether every measure which had been suggested for the relief of Ireland had not been attended to with the utmost anxiety. It had been alleged that partiality existed in the appointment of sheriffs. The first act of the administration with which he was connected, had been to assimilate it as much as possible with the practice of England. Similar measures had been taken with respect to grand juries, the powers of which were said to be abused. The illicit distilleries were, at another time, alleged to be the cause of some of the disturbances. This had been partly remedied by the consolidation of the exchequers, and would be still further relieved. He sincerely believed that most of the evils which at this moment disturbed Ireland sprang from the maladministration of the common law of the land. So highly did he think of that law, that he had no doubt if it were vigorously and impartially administered, there would be no necessity for recurring to other means. It was for this reason that he wished to see the magistrates aided by an active and responsible body of police. The deficiency of magistrates had also been alleged as one cause of the disorders. This, too, had received the attention of the government. The lists of the various counties had been made out, for the purpose of revising them, and this
236
l.
237
Mr. Spring Rice
contended, in opposition to the assertions of the right hon. gentleman, that, dividing the interval since the Union into two periods, the latter commencing with the administration of the marquis Wellesley, there had not been, in the former period, any thing done by the government, worth mentioning, for the tranquillization of Ireland. It was not by Insurrection acts that that desirable object was to be secured. Something must be done in the south of Ireland to give increased means of employment to the people, or they must be enabled to emigrate to seek employment elsewhere. The increase of local taxation was an evil of great magnitude. It was hardly credible, that, within the last ten years, the local taxation of the city of Dublin had increased from 2,400
l.
l.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
supported the original proposition, and defended the conduct of the different governments of Ireland, who, he contended, had used their best efforts to tranquillize that unfortunate country. He expressed his astonishment, after the manner in which that House and the people of England had commiserated and relieved the distresses of Ireland, to hear it asserted that Ireland had only known England in her coercive character. The misfortunes of Ireland were to be attributed, not to the conduct of those by whom she had been governed, but to moral causes, which no government could effectually control.
Mr. P. Moore
said, he had uniformly opposed this bill, and must continue to do so. With all the exertions of all the governments of Ireland, that country was now in a ten times worse state than ever. Instead of passing this act, he would rather throw the marquis Wellesley upon his own resources, by giving him a discretionary power to act as he thought fit.
Mr. Becher,
if he could get nothing better, was bound to support the measure, bad as it was, as one of necessary pro-
238
The House divided: For the original motion 162. For the amendment 82.
List of the Minority.
Abercrombie, hon. J.
Grenfell, P.
Allen, J. H.
Gordon, R.
Baring, sir T.
Griffith, J. W.
Barnard, vis.
Haldimand, W.
Barrett, S. M.
Heron, sir W.
Becher, W. W.
Hill, lord A.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Bentinck, lord W.
Hornby, E.
Benyon, B.
Hume, J.
Byng, G.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Carter, John
James, W.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Jervoise, G.P.
Cavendish, H.
Johnson, W. A.
Chaloner, R.
Kennedy, J. F.
Clifton, visc.
Knight, R.
Colborne, N. R.
Lamb, hon. G.
Creevy, T.
Langston, J. H.
Davies, T.
Latouche, R.
Denison, W. J.
Leycester, R.
Denman, T.
Leader, W.
Duncannon, visc.
Maberly, J.
Ellice, E.
Maberly, W. L.
Fergusson, sir R.
Martin, J.
Foley, J. H.
Milbank, M.
Folkestone, visc.
Maxwell, J. W.
Glenorchy, visc.
Milton, visc.
Grattan, J.
Monck, J. B.
239
Moore, P.
Robarts, G.
Newport, sir J.
Robinson, sir G.
Normanby, visc.
Russell, lord J.
O'Callaghan, J.
Robertson, A.
Ord, W.
Scott, J.
Osborne, lord F.
Smith, J.
Palmer, C.
Smith, W.
Palmer, C. F.
Smith, T.
Pamell, sir H.
Stanley, hon. E.
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Whitbread, S. C.
Philips, G.
White, col.
Philips, G. H. jun.
Williams, J.
Power, R.
Wood, M.
Price, R.
TELLERS.
Poyntz, W. S.
Althorp, visc.
Ramsden, J. C.
Rice, T. S.
Ricardo, D.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, May 14, 1823.
FOREIGN WOOL TAX—SIR J. SINCLAIR'S
Sir J. Sebright
presented a petition from sir J. Sinclair, praying that the duties on foreign wool might not be repealed. He stated, that the petitioner felt convinced that if he could have an opportunity of exhibiting to the House the fine cloths which he had caused to be manufactured from English wool, it would go a great way towards convincing them how needless the importation of foreign wool was. It had been proposed to him to bring down a piece of cloth with the petition, and to cause it to be laid upon the table, for the inspection of members. To this he had replied, that the proposition was not a regular one. But there was another course, to which there could be no objection, and that was, for the petition to present him with a coat of the nest cloth made from English wool, in which' costume he would appear before the House on presenting the petition. The proposition being, acceded to, he was enabled to appear before them, as they now beheld him, and he trusted in no very discreditable condition. He begged leave to bring up the petition; and when he had committed it to the care of the House, he should wait a reasonable time in the lobby, to give those gentlemen who wished to satisfy, themselves upon the subject, an opportunity for examination.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a committee to inquire into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the chair,
240
Mr.
William Lewis
By Colonel
Barry.
Do you recollect going shortly after the riots to the gaol of Newgate?—I do. I Was called upon to go to the gaol of Newgate, to see if I could identify any of the prisoners that were in custody for the riot at the theatre.
Who went with you?—Major Tandy. I was shown the yard in which the prisoners were. I did not point out any person there, that threw the rattle form but I did point out the person of a man, who answered the description of the person, that I thought threw the rattle from the gallery.
Did you ever afterwards hear who that per son was?—I never saw until I saw it in the papers at Shrewsbury.
It was not George Graham?—I do not know that it was not George Graham.
You did not point out a. person that you thought was the person who threw the, rattle?—I did in this way; the man that I though threw the rattle, was a man dressed in a particular garb, and the dress of that man answered my view of him in the gallery; but I could not identify his person.
Were you told afterwards, that that was not the man?—I was not I was told that he was not then a prisoner.
Do you recollect afterwards being shown Graham?—I believe I do.
And you did not identify him?—Certainly not.
Do you now take upon yourself to say, that the man you pointed out to the under goler, was the man who threw the rattle?—I do not.
Do you now undertake to say, that George Graham was not the man who threw the rattle?—I do not.
Mr.
Joseph Henry Moore,
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Were you aware that certain prisoners were committed capitally, for the play-house riot?—Such was the public report of the legal proceedings; I knew nothing until I heard it declared by the judge, that it had been withdrawn in a negative kind of way; I can answer that the court declared that the capital charge had been withdrawn. Until after the counsel for the crown declared that it was withdrawn, my impression was, that we were to try a capital offence.
Were not the jury sworn before the counsel for the crown stated that?—I cannot undertake
241
Did you attend in court under that impression?—Certainly I did.
The right hon.
William Conyngham Plunkett
By Colonel
Barry.
Do you recollect whether you challenged on the part of the crown, any, or how many, of the persons so on the panel?—I am almost certain there were challenges made on the part of the crown; how many, I cannot recollect.
Do you recollect the name of Barrett Wadden?—I recollect his name perfectly.
Do you recollect that he was the only challenge made on the part of the crown on that occasion?—I do not recollect that his name was called; I did not recollect having heard his name till the present occasion.
You stated on a former day, that you had seen the rules and regulations and extracts from the books of the Orange societies, would you have the goodness to state whether it was previous to, or subsequent to, the riot at the theatre, that you saw those extracts?—Certainly subsequent; I never had communication with the person from whom I received them, till long subsequent to the riot at the theatre.
John Crosby, Graves,
By Colonel
Barrry.
What was the conduct of the grand jury to you; did they behave with courtesy and fairness to you in your examination?—I conceive so, certainly.
They showed no disrespect or impatience during your examination?—Certainly not.
Have the goodness to state any thing which comes within the question put to you?—On going into the grand-jury room, a statement was made to me; "it is unnecessary to interrogate you, Mr. Graves; you will have the goodness to state what evidence you think material which you can give." I did make such a statement of the facts within my knowledge, and the jury heard them with courtesy and politeness.
Do you recollect, at any period subsequent to the 4th of November, the persons that were around the statue being dispersed by the military, and some persons being wounded in that transaction?—I recollect hearing of the circumstance.
Have you any doubt that some persons dressing the statue were dispersed by military force* without any orders from the civil power?
242
Do not you conceive that would be an additional cause of irritation?—I certainly should contemplate it as one;
Have you ever seen the almanack for the year 1823?—I have or rather the chronicle which is placed at the close of the almanack; it is bound up with the almanack.
A sort of annals of Dublin?—Yes.
That is furnished to the different offices at the expense of government, is it not?—It is. It is stated to be published by authority.
Did you ever see the account of the business of the theatre, as affixed to those annals as published by authority?—I did see two versions. One of the copies contained one reading of it, and another another, varying in the phrase. I recollect one stating that on the night of the riot at the theatre, a heavy piece of timber, and another stating that a heavy log of wood, was thrown at his excellency.
What did it say besides the piece of wood?—A quart bottle, I believe.
Did it not state a certain description of persons it was thrown by?—Assassins, I think.
And they added that he providentially escaped its taking effect?—I think that was the statement.
You were at the theatre that night?—Yes.
Did you see such a heavy piece of timber, or heavy log of wood thrown at the lord lieutenant on that night?—No; I believe that occurrence, whatever it was, took place while I was in the act of taking Mr. Forbes, whom I had apprehended by myself and another magistrate in conjunction with me, from the theatre, to the watch house; I believe it occurred just in that interval, I did not see it.
Do you believe there was ever such a thing thrown?—I do believe a piece of timber; as to the weight of it, I have a pretty correct notion, but I can have no doubt that a piece of timber was thrown; I saw it produced upon the trial, and I saw it in the police-office.
Did it deserve the appellation of a heavy log of timber?—I think that was an exaggeration. I saw it in the police-office, and then measured it. It was precisely the head of such a rattle, as is bought in the toy-shops to go to a masquerade; less than a watchman's rattle, it weighed eight ounces and a half.
Was it proposed to you at any time, or in any place, to sign any informations respecting the persons who were accused of rioting at the theatre, or of conspiring to kill and murder the lord lieutenant, without having the "informant before you, or without examining him as to the facts staled in his information?—No; it never was proposed to us to swear those informations at all, until subsequently to the committals, when we had the witnesses before us, and when we were directed to have the witnesses before us in the first instance; we had, at the police-office, before us, in the ordi-
243
Are you to be understood, there were no informations before the committals?—I have I stated, that there were some informations in the police-office, one of the principal ones against Forbes I had myself signed; others were sworn before other magistrates; but there was a great body of other examinations not at all before us.
Did you, in any case, refuse or decline to sign any information on any account?—No.
Any committal?—I stated the facts, with respect to the committals, upon the last occasion; I did put over on another magistrate in my office the duty of signing the committal, for the reasons which I stated on my last examination; and in point of fact, I did not sign any committal.
Was it proposed to you at any time, or in any place, to sign any informations respecting the persons who were accused of rioting at the theatre, or of conspiring to kill and murder the lord lieutenant, without having the informant before you, or without examining him as to the facts stated in his information?—I have before said no.
Were you ever called upon to attest any information which you were not suffered to read?—No.
By Mr.
J. Daly.
When you were there, were you inclined to believe there was any attempt at assassination?—I can state the facts that I saw, I did not see the bottle till it was held up; it was held up, and there was a cry of shame; T did not see the fact of the bottle striking, that circum stance induced me to leave the part of the house where I was, intending to go the gallery to from, whence the bottle was thrown; in so doing, I observed that the noise and disturbance, the riot as I considered it, extended to the boxes, in those boxes I apprehended an individual, one of three in the act of using whistles; I took that individual to the watch house, and it was during my absence from the house, that the rattle, the piece of timber was thrown.
While you were, at the theatre, did you conceive there, was a plan or a plot for assassination?—No.
You were absent at the time the rattle was
244
By Sir
J. Newport.
Have you ever known any disturbance occasioned on the ceremonies of dressing the statue, by firing off guns and pistols in the streets, and alarming the inhabitants of College-green and its vicinity?—I have reason to know that the thing took place, that there was noise and letting off of guns; and confusion, and a crowd of people assembled, some of whom felt disapprobation, and come approbation.
Were any of the depositions laid before the grand jury?—I believe not; they are not, according to the existing law, laid before the grand jury unless they are called for, which was not the case here.
Did you see any of the placards that were thrown about the theatre?—I did.
What was printed on those placards?—A magistrate sitting in the box in which I did, alderman Darley, left the box, on an intimation of what appeared on one of those placards, and went up with a view to ascertain who bad distributed them; that he failed in; he came down, and showed me three of them; on one of them there is printed, "No Popery;" on another, "The Protestants want Talbot, as the Papists have got all-but;" and "Fleming though he has got the mace, may find it hard to hold his place;" another was, "Ex-governor of the bantams must change his morning-tone."
By Dr.
Lushington.
Do you know that any riot or disturbance ever took place on the day when the statue was dressed?—Nothing that I know of, of any importance, until the July immediately preceding its being discontinued; I did hear of such a thing occurring on July 1822, that there was something of riot, a good deal of confusion and one or two persons hurt.
Christopher Galloghly
By Colonel
Barry.
Were you a witness before the grand jury, in January 1823?—I was.
How did the grand jury conduct themselves towards you when under examination?—As I conceive, as a grand jury ought to do.
Was it with civility and patience?—Yes.
They heard your whole story?—Yes.
Did anything whatever offensive happen to
245
Did you see much of the riot we have heard so much of?—No, I did not.
You apprehended some of the rioters?—Yes, I was with alderman Darley, when he apprehended Henry Handwich. There was a great deal of noise in the gallery, and some said that Handwich should not go; others said that Handwich must go; Handwich said he would go with alderman Darley.
Had you ever any conversation about the bottle, of which so much has been said?—I had; I was placed outside of the theatre with other peace officers; Crosby, a peace-officer, came and said, there was a bottle thrown; I proceeded with Crosby and Irwine to the gallery, and we mentioned that we heard a bottle was thrown, they all said that no such thing was thrown from that quarter of the house. I mentioned to Handwich, surely no person would be so daring, as to throw about at the representative of majesty; Handwich said, "no person there would throw it;" I replied, "if you had seen any person I conceive it was your duty to take him into custody;" and several said, they would have taken any person into custody, that they had seen throw the bottle.
William Irwine
By Colonel
Barry.
Were you a witness before the grand jury, in January 1823?—I was.
How were you treated, when you were brought into the grand jury room?—With civility, as gentlemanly conduct as could be.
The House resumed. The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
STATE OF NEWFOUNDLAND.]
Mr. Hume
, in pursuance of his notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the State of the Colony of Newfoundland. The subject was one of very considerable importance, and lie hoped to be able to convince the House of the necessity of giving immediate attention to it. His object was to obtain a committee to inquire into the present state of the revenues, fisheries and laws of that island, which had been much neglected of late. A bill had been passed (49 Geo. 3, c. 26) for the establishment of a supreme court of justice, and, as far as the enactments had been carried into effect, had been productive of good; but its jurisdiction and benefits were limited, and the anomalous system of surrogate courts was allowed to continue in the other parts of the colony, although the inhabitants had memorialized the government, and peti-
246
247
248
249
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
250
outfish
251
l.,
252
Mr. Wilmot
declared his intention of opposing the motion for a committee, because the reasons on which the hon. I member for Aberdeen had proposed it were incorrect in point of fact. With regard to the surrogate courts, he had himself brought in a bill to amend their constitution, and had stated in bringing it in, that it was his intention at a future stage of it, to propose a clause to extend the jurisdiction of the supreme court, and only to use the surrogate courts at those places which were at a distance from the town in which it held its sittings. The hon. member for Aberdeen had said, that Newfoundland had as good a claim to a separate civil government as Prince Edward's Island. In that argument he did not think the hon. member had been very fortunate; for he believed that at present the inhabitants of Prince Edward's Island, were desirous of being released from the shackles of a local legislature. Besides, there were circumstances in Newfoundland to prevent such a legislature from being established. There were no roads in the island; and, in winter, there was no communication with the capital except by sea, which was not at all times free from danger. In summer, all persons of property on the island—and those were the individuals out of which the local legislature, if it ever existed, must be selected—were busily engaged in carrying on the fishery.—The hon. gentleman proceeded generally to contend, that in no view had a case been made out for a committee. With respect to the hon. member's specific charges of abuse, if they had been put into a tangible shape, he (Mr. W.) might have been prepared to answer them. As for the fees complained of in the sheriff's court, there was a regular table of them. Why had not the hon. member made a motion for papers? The fishery treaties might, or might not, be objectionable; but if they were faulty, a committee was not the course to set them right. The hon. member complained, and
253
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that although he entertained the highest respect for the character of sir Charles Hamilton, he would nevertheless give his vote in favour of the present motion. He must confess, that, in the whole course of his parliamentary experience, he had never known a case that called more strongly for a committee. Every fact stated by the hon. member for Aberdeen had been admitted. And how had he been answered? Why, the hon. secretary, in substance, had said, "Oh, I know that the grievances you mention exist, but trust to me for the remedy." Trust to the hon. secretary, who had not long filled his present office, and who, in the course of the next session intended to produce a bill for removing the evils that now oppressed the island He was not totally ignorant of the state of Newfoundland. He had been the representative for Poole in three parliaments, and in that character had become acquainted with many circumstances illustrative of the state of the island, its government, and resources. Its inhabitants had once been nearly reduced to starvation; and the present lord Bexley, then chancellor of the exchequer, had been obliged to send them food for their support. As to the "administration of justice, be knew that, in many instances, midshipmen of seventeen years of age had been appointed surrogates. The hon. secretary had asked, why the hon. member for Aberdeen did not make a motion for papers on every one of the grounds of complaint? Now, really, the hon. member had made a sufficient number of motions;
254
Captain Gordon
reprobated the bringing of charges forward against officers, who were not present to defend themselves.
Mr. Bright
thought it possible that all the charges might not be proved; but he knew enough of the colony to induce him to support inquiry. He would not ask, whether this or that officer had acted improperly, but whether the system: wag liable to abuse? Of the state of the colony very little was known in this country. I Further information ought, therefore, to be afforded. He would banish, the names of all the parties from this motion, and would ask, not who had committed wrong, but what wrong had been committed? He hoped the hon. member for Aberdeen I would not allow the bill to pass, without I again bringing forward the question of inquiry.
Mr. Butterworth
supported the motion.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the House would have to decide whether the intended bill was likely to be beneficial or otherwise to the island. To enable them to do this, every possible information ought to be laid before them.
Mr. Hume
, in reply, maintained that nothing be had advanced had been answered: and asked, whether an, inquiry was to be refused where the interests of, more than 800,000 subjects were concerned?
255
The Mouse divided: Ayes27, Noes 42.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Rice, T. S.
Blake, sir F.
Ricardo, D.
Bullerworth, J.
Robarts, col.
Creevey, T.
Rickford, W.
Denman, T.
Russell, lord J.
Ebrington, visc.
Scarlett, J.
Folkestone, lord
Stanley, lord
Gurney, H.
Taylor, M. A.
Glenorchy, lord
Whitbread, S. C.
Leader, W.
Whitmore, W. W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Wood, M.
Monck, J. B.
Wilson, W. W. C.
Maberly, W. L.
TELLERS.
Newport, sir J.
Hume, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Bright, H.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 15, 1823.
SLAVERY.]
Numerous petitions, from various parts of the kingdom, were presented, praying for the Abolition of Slavery.
Mr. Baring
presented a petition from the agents of the West India colonies against any interference with the existing laws respecting Slavery. The hon. member said, he would not then express any opinion upon the question which was to be discussed that evening; but he could not refrain from observing, that it was one of the greatest importance, and involved the security of property to an immense amount, belonging to subjects of this country, as well as the lives and means of subsistence of all the West India colonists. The petitioners had no objection to the amelioration of the condition of the slaves. Indeed, they considered that amelioration as essential to the welfare of both parties; but it was another question, whether property, which had been acquired under the sanction of that House, should be taken away. If that property was to be said to be stamped with the character of immorality and injustice, he should be glad to know what improved morality and justice there was in the arbitrary deprivation of property, the acquisition of which the laws had allowed? He had always been a
256
The several petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
LAW MERCHANT.]
Mr. J. Smith
moved for a committee, "to inquire into the state of the Law relating to Goods, Waves, and Merchandize, intrusted to Merchants, Agents, or Factors, and the effect of the Law upon the Interests of Commerce, and to report the result of that inquiry with their opinion thereon, to the House."
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, he could not allow the motion to pass without returning his thanks to the hon. member who had brought it forward.
Mr. Marryat
doubted the expediency of altering the law on this subject. A great deal had been said about the situation of merchants and factors, but the truth was, that neither merchants nor factors were materially interested in the question. Those who stirred in this matter were the brokers, who were in the habit of advancing large sums of money on goods, without inquiring of those from whom they obtained them, whether they were their own property or not. By such practices they sometimes made great gains, but being exposed to occasional losses, they came to parliament to ask that they might be screened from the effects of their own imprudence by an alteration in the law of the land. He contended, that the evils under the law might be easily obviated.
Mr. Sykes
thought that some alteration in the present law was absolutely necessary, as he had known instances in which the grossest frauds had been committed with impunity.
Mr. Robertson
was opposed to the measure, and deprecated the intention of giving the consignee the power of making immediate money of the goods of the consignor under certain circumstances.
Mr. J. Smith
said, that all he wished
257
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.*]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose, and addressed the House nearly as follows:—
*From the report published by the Society for the Mitigation and gradual I Abolition of Slavery.
258
259
260
261
262
"1st, A boy, about fifteen years of age: a large iron chain round his neck, fastened with a padlock, total weighing 22 lbs.
"2d. Two girls, of twelve years of age, much marked by the effects of the cart-whip; fastened together with iron chains round their necks, padlocked, weighing 18 lbs.
3d, A full grown man, after a severe flogging with the cart-whip, loaded with an iron collar and chains, weighing 21 lbs.
"4th, An old man, apparently sixty years of age, after having been severely beaten by his master, was placed in the stocks, with an iron collar round his neck, and chains, weighing 20 lbs.
"5th, A boy, about twelve years of age, loaded with an iron collar, chains, and log of wood, weighing 26 lbs."
263
264
265
266
267
268
ipso facto
269
270
271
you
they
272
primâ facie
onus probandi
He stole him
273
"1. That the slave should be attached to the island, and, under modifications, to the soil.
"2. That they cease to be chattels in the eye of the law.
"3. That their testimony may be received,
quantum valeat.
"4. That when any" one lays in his claim to the services of a negro, the
onus probandi
"5. That all obstructions to manumissions should be removed.
"6. That the provisions of the Spanish law (fixing by competent authority the value of the slave, and allowing him to purchase a day at a time,) should be introduced.
"7. That no governor, judge, or attorney-general should be a slave-owner.
"8. That an effectual provision shall be made for the religious instruction of the slave.
"9. That marriage should be enforced and sanctioned.
"10. That the Sunday should be devoted by the slave to repose and religious instruction; and that other time should be allotted for the cultivation of his provision-grounds.
"11. That some (but what I cannot say) measures should be taken, to restrain the authority of the master in punishing his untried slave, and that some substitute should be found for the driving system.
274
275
Mr. Secretary Canning
said:—Sir, the appeal to his majesty's ministers wish which the hon. gentleman concluded his speech, makes me feel it my duty to address myself to the House at this early I period of the debate, for the purpose of stating, without reserve, the opinions entertained by myself and my colleagues with respect to this most important, and I must say, at the same time (notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. gentleman), this most fearful question.—I never in my life proceeded to the discussion of any question under a stronger impression of its manifold difficulties: not indeed in reference to the principles on which my opinions are grounded, nor with respect to the practical conclusion to which I may think it expedient to come; but on account of the dangers, which, even after all that the hon. gentleman has said to the contrary, appear to mc to attend a discussion, in which one rash word, perhaps even one too ardent expression, might raise a flame not easily to be extinguished.
276
juxta
277
278
279
Non meus hic sermo:
280
bellum servile
281
282
283
284
venditioni exponas
285
1st. "That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for ame-
286
2nd. "That, through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious and temperate, enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in the character of the slave population, such as may prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of his majesty's subjects.
3rd. "That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of this purpose, at the earliest period that shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property."
287
Mr. Wilberforce
rose and said:—Before, Sir, I enter into any discussion of the question before the House, I think it necessary to say a few words in vindication of the line pursued by my hon. friend near me (Mr. F. Buxton) on the present occasion; more particularly with reference to the proposition with which my hon. friend commenced his speech. My hon. friend addressed himself to a British parliament, and fully, fairly, and candidly, told, the House what were his real intentions in submitting his motion to its consideration—a gradual but total extinction of slavery in the colonies of this country. With powerful eloguence and the justest
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
Mr. C. Ellis
said:—Sir there is something is a scenting in the peculiar cha-
296
297
298
they
299
300
301
*
*
302
venditioni exponas
venditioni exponas
303
l.
.
l.
l.
304
stimulant
305
306
ad invidiam
per se
307
villeinage
308
Mr. William Smith
said:—Not withstanding there may have been something objectionable in the tone and manner of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, I have on this account nothing to retort, but I am ready to give him all imaginable credit for the sentiments he has himself declared, and on which, I hope, he has consulted the opinions of a large number of persons, who in a resistance to a proposition of this nature would be extremely ready to join him. In many of the facts he has stated, and in much of the reasoning he has advanced, I am much disposed to agree, and in nothing more than what was insisted upon so strongly by my hon. friend who began this debate, that this, the first, and every other step towards emancipation must be gradual. But still there is this great distinction between us, more material than I wish it were, that while I admit, on the one hand, that the emancipation of the negroes must be gradual, I think at the same time it is absolutely necessary, that it should be rendered certain. It is upon the uncertainty of what has been proposed to us this night by the right honourable gentleman on the other side, that I feel myself most dissatisfied. The hon. gentleman who spoke last has referred to a measure taken by himself, or at his suggestion, many years ago, which unquestionably did him great honour at the time: he has acknowledged, that, because the execution of his proposition was left to the legislatures of the West-Indies, it did not effect all the good he had intended towards the negroes. Now, on this particular point, I must beg leave to call the attention of the House, and of the right hon. gentleman, to a circumstance which he may have forgotten. On the 19th June, 1816, an hon. relative of the hon. gentleman on the other side proposed a resolution, from the conclusion of which I will read the following words: "And that his royal highness will be pleased to recommend, in the strongest manner, to the local authorities in the respective colonies, to carry into effect every measure, to the local and to promote the moral and religious improvement as well as the comfort and happiness of the negroes. Here, then, we get into this dilemma either the colonial assemblies have carried those ameliorating measures into effect, or they have not; if they have not, may arose from one of two causes—either that the have one of two causes—either that the parties were inattentive to the recomendaiton
309
sine qua non
310
Mr. Ellis.
—My observations were directed against the policy and consequences of interference.
Mr. William Smith.
—I understood him to protest, or to say what nearly amounted to a protest, against any interference on the part of the legislature here on behalf of the slaves. If I was mistaken, I am glad of it; and I would rather take his interpretation of his own words, than attempt to put my own sense upon them. But if we are to be threatened with consequences, and to be talked to of the impolicy of interference on the part of the British parliament, if the proceedings of the colonists should be too dilatory and inefficient to meet the just expectations of this country, and if we are to forbear because we are so threatened, I fear that the conclusion of our undertaking for the benefit of the negroes is by no means so near as we could desire. Daring the first period of our labours, we know from the hon. gentleman himself, that they did not satisfy his own expectations; and, during the latter period, we are equally sure that they did not satisfy ours. What better ground of confidence do we now possess? I must indeed think that, after all we have seen upon this subject, after all the experience we have had during a long series of years, We are entitled to demand some greater security than the right hon. gentleman, in his resolutions, has given us.
311
312
Sir George Rose
said, that although the turn the debate had taken induced him to address himself to the House far more briefly than he had originally intended, there still were considerations which he deemed it indispensable to lay before it. These arose from the altered state of Christianity amongst the slave population of the British West-India settlements, which, whilst it is by no means such as it undoubtedly ought to be, is yet not so hopeless as it has been represented, and by no mean authorities. Even the University of Cambridge; with its petition, has declared, in speaking of the negroes, that "religious Instruction is nearly altogether precluded"—a Statement in no wise warranted by the case. He begged the House, however, to believe, that very far from considering the progress made, as that which ought to satisfy those interested in that highly important matter, he looked upon it but as the earnest of what remained to be done by the West-Indian proprietors, and as the proof of what may be effected. Being by inheritance one of these proprietors, he had, from the moment of becoming such, felt the immensity of the responsibility which devolved upon him as charged with the spiritual welfare of the negroes on the property in question; the small extent of it being of course no measure of that responsibility; and he was led to state circumstances which had occurred to himself, as testifying powerfully to the beneficent effects of religious instruction, both to the slaves themselves, and to their owners. Inheriting a small landed property in one of the lesser islands, he at once ascertained that, both from local circumstances, and from the duties of the parochial clergy to their white and coloured flocks, and from their being too highly educated for the missionary task among human beings so utterly ignorant, narrow-minded, and thoughtless, as the unconverted negroes are, he could not obtain spiritual aid for them from the clergy of the church of England. He then solicited it of the Moravian brethren; doing so with the concurrence of respectable persons in the island, whose co-operation he was most
313
314
315
l.
l.
l.
316
Mr. Bright
said:—But for the turn the debate has taken, it was my intention to have gone at full length into the subject; but after what has already passed, I shall not occupy the House for many minutes. It cannot be denied that the question is of the highest importance to the interests of a large class of his majesty's subjects; I mean the West-India planters; who, think, have to complain of a good deal of unmerited obloquy thrown upon them out of doors. I believe that the conduct of the planters has been much misrepresented; that justice has not been done them generally in this country; and I believe that they have been occupied as actively as was possible, under the circumstances, in ameliorating the condition of their slaves. I believe, that by numerous authorities this could be shown to be the fact; but I will not enter into that subject at the present moment. The West Indians have a just right to complain that their remonstrances and representations have not been duly attended to at home, and that many mis-statements have gone abroad as to the actual condition of things in the colonies. Some individuals who have been instrumental in putting forth these mis-statements ought to have been better informed. I will read a passage from a publication upon this subject, winch, as I contend, is wholly unfounded; because I will afterwards submit to the House a direct contradiction of it. [The hon. gentleman here read a quotation from a tract in his hand, stating that the fines upon manumission had been nearly doubled.]
l.
l
s.
l.
l.
l.
317
l.
l.
l.
s.
318
Mr. Sykes
said, I am most happy to hear the statements of the right. hon. member opposite (sir G. Rose), with respect to the amelioration of the condition of the slaves in the West Indies; but I confess I should have received still greater satisfaction if the right hon. gentleman had been more explicit as to the mode, time, and manner, in which the future emancipation of the slaves is to be attained In this respect the House is as yet left in almost total darkness. It was my intention to have taken a fuller share in to-night's debate, and to have entered largely into, a subject, in my view, more interesting than any that has engaged the
319
320
Mr. Marryat
said:—It is far from my wish, Sir, to detain the House; but I am anxious to correct a mistake into which the hon. member opposite has fallen. I understood the hon. member for Hull to say, that the evidence of negro slaves is wholly excluded from courts of justice in the West Indies. Now, I feel it my duty to set him and the House right upon this point. In how many other islands the testimony of slaves is admitted I know not; but this I well know, that no longer ago than 1818, a law passed in the island of Dominica, making the evidence of slaves admissible; and I am happy to state further, that this law has been taken into consideration by the committee of West-India planters and merchants in this metropolis; and they having found that no
321
322
Tobago.
323
324
325
326
Mr. Brougham
said:—Sir, I am quite sensible that at this late hour of the night it would be unbecoming in me—it would be acting in contradiction to the general sense of the House—were I either to go into much detail on this important question, or to resist the adoption of the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite. But, I confess, I
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
my
334
335
336
337
villenage in gross
villenage regardant
villeins in gross.
338
Mr. Bernal
said:—I had thought, Sir, at the commencement of this debate, that to all appearance, we were advancing to-
339
340
341
l.
de homine replegiando
342
Mr. Baring
said:—Having, Sir, been alluded to by my hon. friend who opened the debate, I cannot avoid stating to the House how strongly I feel the necessity of something being done, and something considerable, on the present question. I feel that it is one of the greatest possible importance and delicacy; but I fear that hon. gentlemen around me, whose feelings I respect, have been led away by the ardour and fervency of those feelings to exaggerate the real facts, and to underrate the many difficulties and dangers which must accompany any alteration in the present system. I am anxious to state
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
Lord Althorp
said:—I am anxious to address one or two observations to the House upon this important question. I certainly think that the planters of the West Indies have a fair claim upon this House for compensation in the event of the adoption of the plans proposed by the hon. mover. With reference to what has fallen from my hon. friend who spoke last, relative to the cultivation of the colonies by free labour, I differ from him, in supposing that the conversion of the slaves into freemen would be such an immense loss to this country. I; however, look at this
350
351
Mr. Fowell Buxton
replied as follows:—I had made up my mind, Sir, not to trouble the House with a single observation in reply. I had already trespassed long on your attention; and I was abundantly contented to rest the defence of the statements with which I opened the business, on the powerful speeches of my hon. friends. In this determination I should have persevered, had it not been for the speech of the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. Baring). That gentleman has charged me with inconsistency—he has accused me of using one sort of language on this question, and another upon subjects where my own interests are concerned. He tells us, that I was sufficiently mindful of the rights of private property, when that property was my own; but that I never even whispered a syllable about
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
venditioni exponas
Mr. Canning.
—I wish to make myself intelligible to the hon. gentleman and the House. If I am asked, whether I can maintain the proposition that the progeny of slaves must be eternally slaves—the hon. gentleman must feel that I am not at liberty to throw out a hasty opinion upon that, I readily admit, most important question; but my opinion certainly is, that the time must come when that object must be attained. I cannot now, however, state a distinct opinion further than this, that the progeny of slaves must not be eternally slaves.
360
Mr. F. Buxton
said—Then I am to understand that the day will arrive after which every negro child born shall be free. That being settled, my next question is, when will that day arrive?
Mr. Canning
—I say I abjure the principle of perpetual slavery; but I am not prepared now to state in what way I would set about the accomplishment of the object. I abjure the principle, but I am not now prepared to give my opinion upon the question, because my mind is not yet made up, and I am unwilling to say any thing to night which may reduce me hereafter to the necessity of qualifying any statement I may make.
Mr. F. Buxton.
—I am fully satisfied with the answer the right hon. gentleman has been kind enough to give to my questions, and I feel obliged to him for the very candid and decisive manner in which he has expressed himself. I now beg leave to withdraw my motion; but I wish it to be distinctly understood, that, in case a difference of opinion arises between the government and myself, I shall reserve to myself the liberty of bringing the matter forward on a future occasion.
nem. con.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 16, 1823.
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARQN O'GRADY.]
Mr. Wynn
brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Conduct of the Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer.
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he had, two years ago, submitted to the House a motion on this, subject. The proposition he had then brought forward was, that the papers on the table of the House contained grave charges against the high law officer alluded to. Those papers were referred to a committee, who had affirmed his proposition; and the labours of the committee which had recently examined the subject had terminated in the same result. He hoped the report would be seriously examined by the House and by the member of his majesty's government, and
361
Mr. Secretary Canning
observed, that if, by what the hon. gentleman had said, he meant to affirm this proposition, that when a member of the House of Commons made a charge against an individual, which charge was afterwards made good, he was at liberty to abandon it, and that it must then be taken up by the executive government, he asserted that which was neither parliamentary in practice nor in principle. He had never heard, when Mr. Burke had made his charge against Warren Hastings, that he had brought it to throw the ulterior proceedings on the executive government. He had never heard it argued, when Mr. Whitbread succeeded in his charge against lord Melville, that he had done all which he had a right to do, and that it was for his majesty's ministers to follow up the proceedings. If the case before the House was that of a removable officer, then he perfectly admitted that, as members of the executive government, not as members of the House of Commons, ministers would be bound to deal with that removable officer. But certainly it was not for them to proceed with charges which honourable members had originated, and pushed to a certain extent. There were two ways of proceeding in cases like the present—by an address of that House, or by impeachment; and he thought that either mode was better in any other hands than in those of ministers. He would tell the hon. member, therefore, distinctly, that in this case he certainly would not move a step; and he would advise none of his hon. colleagues to do so. If the hon. member would not come forward, he must reconcile himself to the circumstance in the best manner he could.
Sir J. Newport
contended, that, as these proceedings grew out of the investigation of a commission appointed by the Crown, in consequence of an address of that House, his majesty's minister sought now to take the business up. His hon. friend had sufficiently shown that he did not shrink from responsibility, since he had originally moved for a committee. A second committee had now reported; and both of them bore him out in the charges he had made.
Mr. Wynn
said, there was not a single instance in which the executive government as such, had been called on to originate criminal proceedings. No case
362
Mr. Abercromby
said, that in this case a commission had emanated from the Crown, which had for its object to protect the administration of justice. That commission had discovered certain things which had a direct tendency to pervert justice, in the proceedings of a learned judge. Charges had been exhibited against him, and those charges had been affirmed by two different committees. The question then was, by whom were the further proceedings to be carried on? The right hon. president of the Board of Control said, "If this business is taken up by government, it will be viewed by the gentlemen on the other side of the House as a party question." Now, that was his (Mr. A.'s) case. He thought it unfair, that the individual accused should be supported by the weight of government, and that only the opposition should be left to oppose him; because, although the right hon. secretary had stated that government would take no part in the business, yet every man's experience must tell him, that even when such a declaration was made, the influence of government was likely to operate against a particular party.
Mr. Secretary Canning
positively denied this. He declared, upon his honour, that he knew nothing of the individual, or of the facts of the case; and he also declared upon his honour, that if the hon. accuser determined to proceed, he would diligently attend and give the inquiry a fair and impartial hearing. But he could not
363
onus
Mr. Wynn
called on the hon. member for Limerick to say, whether he had shrunk from his duty in the committee, or had evinced any unfair or improper bias. The learned member for Calne would have known this if he had not absented himself from the committee: any accusation of neglect of duty came with a very bad grace from that learned gentleman.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that the right hon. gentleman's attention had been zealous and uniform, and had only been equalled by the candour which he had displayed. In answer to what had fallen from the right hon. secretary, he must observe, that making a charge was one thing; but when that charge was confirmed, the prosecution of the case was another. He never did nor would shrink from his duty, however painful; but he must enter his protest against the fairness of casting a proceeding like this on an individual.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he had cast no reflection on the right hon. president of the Board of Control. What he had said he had used as a general argument. He had, however, heard one thing which he did not expect; namely, that the right hon. secretary was a favourer of this proceeding, provided it was in the hands of an individual.
Mr. Canning
disclaimed being a favourer of this proceeding. He felt neither favour, affection, nor partiality of any kind respecting it.
Mr. Denman
described the proceedings which bad taken place under the commission of inquiry, and asked whether, after a report was laid upon the table respecting them, the business could stop there. And yet, before that report was read, before its contents could be appreciated, the right hon. secretary volunteered a declaration, that government would institute no ulterior proceedings thereupon. Suppose it should prove a case of an officer of high judicial rank acting in a manner utterly derogatory from his station and dignity, were they to be told that government would not then take some step in the business, and that it must drop, unless some private member undertook the ulterior course, of moving for parliamentary impeachment?
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he understood the hon. member for Limerick entertained doubts himself of the pro-
364
Mr. S. Rice
denied that any change had taken place in his opinion upon the subject, or that he thought the case in the least less clear than he did on the first day of his mentioning it. Directly the reverse was the fact; and it was on that ground that he considered it the duty of those who were bound to watch over the administration of justice, to take steps to vindicate the purity of that administration on the present occasion.
Mr. Peel
said, he was really ignorant of the merits of the case; for, owing to the part which his duty had compelled him to take in Ireland, respecting an office held by the chief baron's son, he had, from delicacy, absented himself from the committee which sat to make this inquiry.
Mr. R. Smith
entertained a notion, that there might be a mode of obtaining the ends of justice in this case by another form of proceeding. The chief baron of the Exchequer, like all the other judges, held his office,
quamdiu se bene gesserit
se male gesserit.
scire facias
365
scire facias
Mr. Wetherell
entertained doubts, whether the act of the late king respecting the judges, did not virtually repeal all previous powers which the Crown might have possessed over judicial offices. With respect to the call upon government to institute an impeachment, he thought it most unconstitutional. He was glad that the right hon. secretary had discountenanced it; for if there was any case in which the House ought to be considered as dispersed into individuality, it was that of impeachment, where every member had the right to exercise his judgment firmly and singly. He meant to pronounce no opinion upon the merits of this case.
Mr. Hume
was astonished at the doctrine of the right hon. secretary, that government ought never to be called upon to proceed against individuals charged with crime. Suppose a judge were reported by a commission to have acted corruptly, and suppose that report were substantiated, and nevertheless no member was disposed to bring it forward, was it not the duty of government to consider what ought to be done? Was such an individual to remain in the seat of justice with such a charge hanging over his character? It would be monstrous to affirm such a proposition.
Dr. Lushington
maintained, that if any judge or other officer were proved guilty of peculation and abuse, and his majesty's government had the means of bringing him to justice, they ought to do so. He could not make up his mind, however, to say that government ought to originate a proceeding in parliament; because, undoubtedly, that would be calculated to produce a bias on the minds of honourable members. With respect to the affair under present consideration, it was evident that it could not rest where it was. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it the duty of his hon. friend to bring the subject under discussion, and to leave the House to dispose of it at their own discretion; When it was considered what must be the general feeling, when an officer of so high a rank as the chief baron of the Exchequer had a suspicion thrown on his character and how injurious such a state of things must be to
366
Mr. Canning
begged to repeat, that all which he had said went upon the assumption, that a parliamentary impeachment was expected on the part of the government. With respect to the process by a writ of
scire facias
The report was ordered to be printed.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on tin's bill,
Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald
said, he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of recording his opinions upon this question, which, looking to the interests concerned in it, yielded not in importance to any which had been discussed within the walls of that House. He wished, before the House went into a committee, to point out the view which he took of the measure, and the consequences which were likely to result from the proposed alteration. It was admitted, on all hands, that in every proposal for; a commutation of tithes, it was held that the clergyman was strictly entitled to a fair equivalent. Now, he contended, that the proposed bill would have the effect of aggravating the evils which existed in Ireland. It would not relieve the distresses of the people, but would, on the contrary, augment the revenues of the clergy; It would give the clergy a right to claim an equivalent—not for what they now enjoyed, for to that he should not object—but an equivalent for tithes which had never been enforced, and which, if they ever existed, had lain dormant for a great length of time. The bill contained one clause of so objectionable a nature, that he considered it necessary to call the attention of the House particularly to it. In page 13, it was enacted, "That it shall be lawful for any umpire so to be appointed as aforesaid, and such umpire is hereby authorized and required to ascertain and fix the amount of the yearly sum of money to be paid as a composition for and in satisfaction of all tithes payable in such parish," &c &c.
367
368
Mr. Goulburn
said, it was with feelings of deep regret that he found himself opposed upon this subject to his right hon. friend; but when he heard him declare, that in his opinion this bill was unjust in its principle, that it would be oppressive in its operation, and that it would augment, instead of diminishing the discontents and disturbances which now prevailed in Ireland, however he might regret a difference on any point with his right hon. friend, yet he had too great a regard for the honour and character of his right hon. friend, to entertain a wish or an expectation that, viewing the subject in this light, he should permit any considerations of personal regard to himself to prevent him from stating his sentiments to that House, with all the power and authority which belonged to his statements. On the other hand, he was sure that, however unfavourably his right hon. friend might think of this bill, he would do him (Mr. G.) the justice to believe, that nothing but a sincere conviction that it was calculated to remove at least a part of the evils complained of, and to produce a beneficial effect in Ireland could have induced him to propose it to the House. During the period that he had filled the office of chief secretary, he had often been called upon to state the opinions and views of the government with respect to a commutation of tithes. He had for some time forborne to answer these calls, or to indulge any expression of opinion favourable to such a measure, because he did not think it consistent with his duty, though it might have been easy and popular, to raise an expectation which he might not have the means of gratifying. Enough had fallen from his right hon. friend, to shew that, if the Irish government were disposed to court popularity, if they were willing to consult their own ease at the expense of what they considered their duty, they might at once accomplish their objects, by abandoning that part of the bill which it now seemed was objectionable both to the country gentlemen and to the clergy of Ireland. To himself no course could be more agreeable than that which should save him from the attacks with which he was menaced from both of these parties, and should also relieve him from a more immediate evil, the opposition of his right hon. friend. But, in the conduct of this measure, and of all other measures that had been confided to him, involving great
369
370
371
372
373
374
Mr. Wetherell
objected to the principle of the bill, because it deprived the clergy of their character of freeholders, and gave them a character of pensioners on the state, levying their pensions by a machinery something like that of the poor-rates in England. It remained to be proved, that the evil was so large and comprehensive that they should cut up by the roots all the sacred principles on which property, civil and clerical, was founded. The proposition in the bill was entirely new; as Mr. Pitt, who contemplated the commutation of tithes, never intended to deprive the clergyman of his territorial character; but proposed to give him land instead of tithe. It was an objection to this bill also, that while it professed to be a measure of conciliation, it forced the parties,
nolens volens
in vinculis
brutum fulmen
vestigia nulla retrorsum
in rem
primum mobile;
summum jus
bonus
in solido
375
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that his right hon. friend (Mr. V. Fitzgerald) and his hon. and learned friend who spoke last agreed in nothing but in their desire that the bill should he withdrawn for the present session. He must, however, protest against the postponement of the measure, because he was satisfied that no additional information could be obtained thereby. The argument of his hon. and learned friend went to prove, that no commutation could be effected without danger under, the auspices of the government, and yet his hon. and learned friend had declared, that he should have no objection to a commutation of potatoe tithe. With regard to the compulsory clause, it was not necessarily connected with the bill, and if the House should hereafter be of opinion that it ought to be omitted, the remaining parts of the bill might still be beneficially carried into effect.—The right hon. gentleman entered into a variety of details with, regard to the mode of collecting tithe, in various parishes in Ireland, with a view of showing the practicability of an amicable adjustment between the clergy and their parishioners. He approved of the plan of appointing parochial commissioners; for it was impossible that the government could efficiently discharge the duties which would devolve upon the commissioners, from a want of local knowledge, and their limited acquaintance with parochial details. If this measure should not produce universal harmony and conciliation, much substantial good would, he believed, be effected by it. He therefore gave his cordial support to the motion for going into the committee.
Sir J. Newport
agreed, that it would be most impolitic to allow the bill, to remain over to the next session. He expressed his firm conviction, that unless some measures were adopted by parlia-
376
Colonel Barry
objected to the compulsory clause, but approved of the general principle of the bill, which he thought would be highly beneficial to the interests of the Irish clergy.
Mr. Abercromby
thought, that if the compulsory clause were struck out, all the evils which the bill was intended to remedy would be left in full activity. If that clause therefore were rejected, he could not give his support to the bill.
Sir John Stewart
deprecated the idea of raising obstacles to the fair operation of the bill, from which, with some modification, much good would result to Ireland.
Colonel Trench
said, the great difficulty lay in this, that the tithe was chiefly payable by Papists to Protestants. He had great hopes of the hill, which he trusted would come out of the committee more perfect than it was at present.
The bill was then committed
pro formâ.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 21, 1823.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT—WESTMINSTER PETITION FOR THE REPEAL
Mr. Hobhouse
presented a Petition, which was signed by between 2,000 and 3,000 respectable tradesmen of the city of Westminster. They prayed for a repeal, or a considerable alteration, of the Insolvent Debtors' act. The House was aware that from the time of passing that act, petitions had poured into the House from all parts of the country, praying for its repeal. The petitioners saw nothing in the existing law which could recommend its continuance. They did not merely complain of it, but they had taken the liberty of pointing out the manner in which they conceived the grievances it occasioned should be remedied. The petition had been very maturely considered at two numerous meetings of the inhabitants of the city which he had the honour to represent; and persons whose opinions were upon most other occasions opposed, had in this instance agreed upon the resolutions which were embodied in it. The suggestions to which he wished more particularly to draw the attention, of the
377
Ordered to lie on the table.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
The Lord Mayor
presented a petition most numerously and respectably signed by many of his constituents the working silk-weavers of Sudbury, against the repeal of the act called the Spitalfields act, and which had for its object to regulate the price of labour in that trade. His lordship stated, that they were apprehensive the consequence would be, to reduce their means of subsistence, and consequently to increase the poor-rates. The act had been passed in consequence of great disputes between the masters and men, and since that period the silk trade had flourished, and the men had been satisfied. At all events, whatever might be the original policy of the measure, it ought not to be interfered with without great caution, and opportunity for all parties interested to be heard fully on the subject.
Mr. Calvert
recommended that time
378
Mr. Ricardo
thought that this petition, coming from a district which was free, and praying that a restriction might be continued upon another district, was a most powerful argument in favour of the very measure which it opposed.
Mr. W. Smith
thought, that as the petition concerned the interests of a large body of industrious and ingenious men, their opinions and even prejudices ought to be attentively listened to.
Mr. F. Buxton
presented a similar petition, which, having lain for signatures only three days, had received 11,000, Females had not been permitted to sign, nor any person under the age of 20. It came from the journeymen silk-weavers of London and Middlesex. Its object was, to represent to the House the dismay and alarm which had been caused in the minds of the weavers of Spitalfields, by the bill which was appointed to be read a second time that day. It stated, that the journeymen weavers had derived great benefit from the effects of the existing laws, of which he thought they were competent judges, and which they said did not repress industry in any shape. It stated, that the poor-rates in the neighbourhood from which this petition came amounted only to 3
s.
Mr. Hume
said, he regretted that the right hon. proposer of this measure was not in his place, to vindicate the broad and general principle upon which it was founded. He was willing to give the petitioners credit for very honest intentions, but he thought they did not understand the operation of those principles to their own advantage or disadvantage. They thought, for instance, that the existing law had been beneficial to them, when it had, in fact, been; for the last forty or fifty years, diverting the trade to Sudbury and to other places. He was satisfied that, in proposing the present measure, his majesty's ministers had conferred a benefit on the country at large.
Mr. F. Buxlon
admitted, that the pe-
379
Mr. Ellice
said, he agreed that all the restrictions on trade which had been alluded to had probably better be removed. But, how were they proceeding? They were, however, proceeding to remove a law which, as the workmen conceived, afforded them protection, while they allowed the Combination act, and the act against the emigration of artisans, to remain in existence, which statutes, as every one knew, operated severely against certain of the working classes. The weavers undoubtedly believed that the bill which was about to be repealed afforded them some protection; and they saw none of those evils which the master-manufacturers apprehended would flow from suffering it to continue in force. They were the persons chiefly interested; and he thought their call for some delay was not unreasonable. There were some restrictions, he was aware, on the master-manufacturer, with respect to the mode of carrying on his business, but these were very easily evaded. It was said, that the existing act was a deviation from general principles; but where it suited particular interests, the House frequently deviated from such principles. That was the case with respect to the corn-laws, and the laws affecting other branches of trade, by which the workmen were grievously oppressed. So that the mere deviation from general principles, in this particular case, was not of itself a sufficient reason for repealing the act. The workmen were seriously aggrieved by the emigration laws, which prevented them from carrying their labour to other countries, as the master-manufacturer was enabled to carry his capital. Let it net, therefore, go abroad, that the House would interfere with those acts which the workman thought beneficial to his interests, and not redress the grievances which grew out of measures which he felt to be oppressive. He would ask the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), whether he could not, without interposing any great impediment to the progress of this bill, give a little more time for the con-
380
Mr. Haldimand
said, he would support the bill introduced by the right hon. gentleman, because he believed if the existing acts were not repealed, the silk-trade in Spitalfields would be extinguished altogether in the course of a very few years. He stated this, not upon any general principle, but as a mere matter of fact. An allusion had been made to the petitioners, as not understanding political economy; but the resolutions and the petition which they had agreed to at a public meeting, contained some of the strongest principles of what he supposed they considered political economy that were ever promulgated. They approved of the doctrine, that the magistrate should fix the prices, and that no one should work for more or less than he settled. This was a monstrous proposition. The price was not to be determined by the number of labourers, as compared with the demand, but by the magistrate; who, it must be presumed, possessed some in tuitive mode of judging what was exactly the proper rate. Their observations on machinery were equally unsound; and their complaint, that, if the present bill were passed, the wages of the Spitalfields weaver would suffer the same reduction as had taken place in Coventry and else where, was really absurd. Their argument went to this—that the rate of wages there should continue the same, whether the price of provisions remained as it was now, became lower, or was doubled. Whoever drew up that petition had made out a better case for the repeal of the present bill, than those persons had done who had petitioned the House to effect that object. It was a remarkable circumstance, that since that bill had been passed, the rate of the weaver's wages had risen, but had never fallen. No instance of a fall had occurred, although the wages in other branches of the trade had been reduced. Some years ago the masters had called for the repeal of this bill; and he believed there were very few of them at present who did not wish for its removal.
Mr. Ricardo
said, in answer; to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman, that if they waited until they could, at one
381
Mr. W. Smith
said, the reason why he called for delay was, to allow time for the prejudices of those who disapproved of the bill to subside, or be overcome. In conversing with some of the petitioners, he had found them prejudiced, but reasonable; and if delay were granted, perhaps those prejudices might be removed, and the bill be passed without opposition.
Mr. S. Wortley
concurred in opinion
382
Mr. G. Philips
wished the measure not to be hurried through the House. It ought to receive a calm and deliberate consideration. He thought the existing act was injurious to the workmen; but, on that very account, he thought delay ought to take place, because he was desirous that the necessity of the repeal should be manifested to the workmen themselves. It was said, that the combination acts were injurious; but it should be recollected, that there was now a bill before the House to put an end to them. No body of men had suffered more than the Spitalfields weavers; and, in his opinion, their sufferings had been chiefly occasioned by the law which the right hon. gentleman wished to repeal.
Mr. Huskisson
said, there was one singular feature in this discussion; namely, that not one of those who had taken a part in it, had contended for the principle of the bill which was about to be repealed; and yet, when not a single member was disposed to maintain the proposition, that the principle was a good one, they were asked to appoint a committee to investigate this subject. What would be the use of such a proceeding, when every man was precisely of the same opinion? He had heard, many complaints from time
383
384
Mr. Calcraft
was of opinion, that it would be unadvisable to proceed further in this business, without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. Let them first be heard, and then the House could decide upon the merits of the case—that a course which, though it should ultimately prove adverse to the view at present taken by the petitioners of their interests, would, he had not a doubt, be acquiesced in by the parties at issue.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that he was requested by one of the most respectable persons engaged in the silk trade in Ireland, to express a hope that the bill would not be hurried in its progress through the House. The Irish silk-trade suffered regulations analogous to that carried on in Spitalfields, with the additional control of the Dublin society.
Mr. F. Buxton
called the attention of the House to the standing order, which precluded them from receiving any measure for imposing a new restriction upon trade, or altering any thing relating to trade, without its being previously submitted to a select committee. With respect to the disputes-among the workmen, he had the authority of Mr. Hall, who had resided forty years in Spitalfields, to say, that within his memory there had only been two instances of applications to the magistrates by the workmen.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that at that moment an application to the magistrates was pending respecting the price upon the manufacture of a particular article. With respect to the standing order, whatever
385
Mr. S. Worthy
contended, that the standing order was applicable to the present case.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explained the origin of the standing order. A bill imposing certain restrictions on trade had found its way through that House to the House of Lords, where it was objected to, and the Lords came to a resolution, that no such bill should be agreed to, but after the reference of the subject to a committee. The House of Commons then came to a similar resolution. However the order might be worded, its object evidently was, to prevent the introduction of new restraints upon trade, and not the removal of those which already existed.
Lord Milton
thought the petitioners ought to be heard. In a case in which the interests of so many persons were concerned, it would not be right to dwell on what might be the original intent of the standing order. And after all, the repeal of restrictions on trade was, in fact, the introduction of a new regulation with respect to it.
Mr. Ellice
urged the propriety of postponement. It would be hard on the petitioners, if now, for the first time, the standing order was considered inapplicable to the present question.
Mr. F. Buxton
presented a similar petition from the tradesmen of Spitalfields, expressing their apprehension, that the result of the repeal of the existing law would be, the increase of the poor-rates, and praying the House not to pass the bill without the fullest examination. In his opinion, inquiry was indispensably necessary, to pacify the opponents of the repeal if they were wrong, or to do them justice if they were right.
Mr. Philips
thought the standing order bore upon the present question.
Mr. Wallace
was satisfied that, whatever was the wording of the standing order, it had no real application to the principle of this bill, and he should regret extremely to see it impeded upon such a pretence. If the House yielded to the present application, the result must be the loss of the bill for the present session.
386
Mr. Maxwell
thought it might he safely presumed, that the petitioners had good reason for their opposition to the present bill. He certainly hesitated to say, that he approved of the repeal. At any rate, he was persuaded it ought not to be an isolated measure; He was one of those who thought that some regulations respecting wages, and among others, that of fixing their minimum, would be serviceable to the community at large.
Mr. Huskisson
admitted, that if a doubt existed respecting the operation of the standing order, it ought to be considered before they proceeded further. It had not, however, been previously acted upon; and its effect, if used in the manner now proposed, would be, to paralyse all the proceedings of that House in matters of trade.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he rose, much against his inclination, to state his opinion with respect to the meaning and construction of the standing order, because he was decidedly favourable to the bill, and as decidedly opposed to any thing which might oppose its progress. But, unfortunately, they were bound to consider the orders of that House, according to their general and plain import. For himself, he considered the removal of any restraint upon trade as much a regulation of such trade, as the imposition of any restraint could be. He had heard his hon. friend (Mr. Maxwell's) observation, about a minimum of wages, with regret. If his hon. friend's view were correct, he ought to apply his minimum equally to prices and to rents; not that such an extension of the application would correct the principle. On the contrary, it would expose its absurdity.
Mr. Baring
rather preferred the formation of a committee. It did not follow that such a committee should enter into a protracted inquiry. With respect to the standing order, he saw nothing of absolute wisdom in it, and thought it ought to be repealed. With respect to the petitions, they did not weigh much with him. They came from a set of persons who were either labourers in the trade, or tradesmen and shopkeepers with whom those labourers dealt, and who would, of course, join in the prayer of their customers.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that though this standing order had been introduced on the 23rd of June, 1820, it had never been acted upon. He would, to-morrow, move,
387
Ordered to lie on the table.
PRETENSIONS OF RUSSIA—NORTH-WEST COAST OF AMERICA.]
Sir J. Mackintosh,
seeing the secretary of state for foreign affairs in his place, wished to put a question to him on a subject of high importance, and nearly connected, not only with the honour and dignity of his majesty's crown, but with the interests of all lawful and practical navigation. It would be recollected, that in the course of the last session, he had addressed a similar inquiry to the late marquis of Londonderry, with respect to certain wild, monstrous, and extravagant pretensions of the emperor of Russia, to exclusive authority over vast dominions by sea and land, on the north-west coast of America; those dominions embracing on shore, several extensive territories now occupied by subjects of his Britannic majesty, and others which were possessed by citizens and subjects of the United States of America: and by sea, including an extent of ocean, stretching from the north-west coasts of America, to the north-east coasts of Asia. On the occasion to which he alluded, the noble marquis informed the House that he had, by the command of his majesty, protested on the part of the British government against those principles of dominion which had been recently set up by Russia, and which he justly described as principles that were injurious to the maritime rights of all commercial I nations, and especially obnoxious to those of the first commercial nation in the world. Since that period, however, and indeed but a few days since, information had been received in this country from America, that Russia no longer rented upon unwarrantable pretensions; but, that Russian ships of war had been actually employed to warn off the ships of all countries, from the whole extent intervening between Nootka Sound and Japan, as part and parcel of the Russian empire. He had been informed, that they had driven away American vessels which were sailing in those latitudes; and the same principle of exclusion would extend to any British ships which they might find there, as matter of course. Doubtless, as a preliminary step to that universal dominion by land and sea, which
388
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that to the question of fact which had been put to him by the hon. and learned gentleman, he could only reply, that his majesty's government had hitherto received no information upon the matter, except through that channel by which the statement in question had been published to all the world. He had, therefore, no means of verifying the fact on which the hon. and learned gentleman's inquiry was founded. In the second place, as to the situation in which this country stood with Russia, in respect of the general question, it was true, that they had entered a protest against her claim, upon the first promulgation of those principles. That protest had been renewed, both at the congress at Verona, and in subsequent negotiations. Those negotiations were still pending, and in activity at the court of St. Petersburgh.
IRISH TRADING VESSELS—HARBOUR
Mr. S. Rice
begged to call the attention of the late and present president of the Board of Trade to the petition which he held in his hand. That the trade of Ireland should, in all respects, be put on the same footing with that of the rest of the empire, so far as was consistent with a due regard for the revenue, was a principle not to be disputed. It would, however, surprise the House to learn, that the trade of Ireland was subject to a charge amounting to not less than one-sixth on the average of all freights. To show this, he need only instance the trade between Liverpool and Dublin, or Belfast. The vessel from Liverpool to Dublin would have to pay light and harbour dues only once in the year; whereas, the vessel coming into the port of Liverpool, from Belfast or Dublin, would have to pay the same dues
389
l.
l.
Mr. Wallace
agreed perfectly in the principle, that the trade of Ireland ought to be placed on the same footing as that of England. The matter had already been made the subject of inquiry. The result to which his majesty's government had come was, that the trade of Ireland ought to be placed on the same footing as the home trade of the rest of the empire. He trusted that the committee would speedily be enabled to report on the matter.
Mr. Ellice
begged to make a remark on the charges to which our shipping was subjected in the colonies. The charge on a ship of 300 tons, in one of these colonies, amounted to nearly 10
s.
s.
Mr. Huskisson
thought, that nothing could be more desirable than to reduce, as far as was practicable, all charges on vessels trading to our ports, and those of our own colonies. He had heard that these charges were very excessive in many of our colonies; but he apprehended, that the greater portion of them had been imposed by colonial legislatures, without the interference of the government at home. He perfectly agreed, that the trade between this country and Ireland should be placed upon the same footing as the trade between any two ports of England.
Sir J. Newport
was extremely happy to hear what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman. He had, twenty times, at least, endeavoured to impress on his majesty's government the justice and necessity of placing the trade of Ireland on the same footing with that of the rest of the empire.
390
TAX ON TALLOW CANDLES.]
Mr. Sykes
said, he rose, in pursuance of a notice he had given on a subject upon which he had once before addressed the House. He was not disposed, however, to be very sorry for his disappointment on that occasion, being convinced that he now stood on more favourable ground than he did last session. At that time, the language of government was, that the condition of the community would only be rendered worse, by any attempt to relieve the distresses of the country by reducing taxation. He was now, however, happy to say, that the government asserted principles of a more pleasing sound, and more beneficial nature. In his majesty's speech from the throne, at the commencement of the present session, it was announced that a large reduction of taxes would take place; and ministers themselves had announced the fact, that the only mode in which the condition of the most suffering of all the interests in the community could be ameliorated, namely, the agriculturists, was by reducing the taxes. Parliament, therefore, had now come to the right and sound conclusion as to the means of relief. That they consisted in a remission of the taxation by which the country was oppressed, was a point that he should assume to have been generally conceded. The only remaining question, therefore, regarded the mode and objects of that reduction, and whether such reduction had yet taken place, as the country had a right to demand at the hands of parliament. He, for one, was free to acknowledge his great obligations to the government for having repealed a large proportion of the assessed taxes; but he must be allowed to say, that the relief which they had proposed to give by such repeal, had not been felt in the right place. It was not a relief directly or immediately to the agricultural interest, nor such as would diminish the expense of raising the produce of the country; for as to taking off the taxes on carriages, hunting horses, &c., in what way could that enable the industrious farmer to bring his produce to market at a cheaper rate? But, while he suggested this, he meant not to say, that the ar-
391
l.
l.
l.,
l.;
l.;
392
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
393
l.
l.,
394
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he would state, as briefly as possible, the grounds on which he thought it highly inexpedient to repeal the duty. The first was, that the revenue of the country was not at present in a condition to spare 350,000
l.,
395
l.,
s.
396
l.
Mr. Curwen
said, he was opposed to the duty on candles, because he thought it pressed with great severity upon the poorer classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had completely blinked the question. He had talked of the relief afforded to the country from taxation; but that relief was almost confined to the richer classes. The labouring poor felt little benefit from it; but relief to those classes was of importance; for unless the labourer was relieved from some of the
397
Mr. Monck
supported the hon. mover, who, in his opinion, had made out as complete a case as had ever been submitted to the consideration of parliament.
The motion was negatived without a division.
CRIMINAL LAWS.]
Sir J. Mackintosh,
after a few preliminary remarks regarding the difficulty of attracting the attention of the House to so hacknied a subject as that upon which he was about to address it, said, that the first public discussion at which he had been present after his return from India, was a discussion in another place, upon a measure of his late lamented friend, sir Samuel Romilly, tending to ameliorate the existing state of our Criminal Laws. In the course of that discussion, he had heard it stated, in an excellent speech made in favour of the principle for which he was now prepared to contend, that if a foreigner were to form his estimate of the people of England from a consideration of their penal code, he would undoubtedly conclude that they were a nation of barbarians. This expression, though strong, was unquestionably true; for what other opinion could a humane foreigner form of us, when he found, that in our criminal law there were two hundred offences against which the punishment of death was denounced, upon twenty of which only, that punishment was ever inflicted—that we were savage in our threats, and yet were feeble in our execution of punishments—that we cherished a system, which in theory was odious, but which was impotent in practice, from its excessive severity—that, in cases of high treason, we involved innocent children in all the consequences of their father's guilt—that in cases of corruption of blood, we were even still more cruel, punishing the off I spring, when we could not reach the
398
habeas corpus,
399
400
401
Graia pandetur ab urbe.
402
403
Opinionum
404
405
arbitrio judicis.
Magna Charta:
406
407
408
409
s.
l.
s.
s.
l.
to
l.
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
felo de se
417
Insontes
Projecêre animas. Quam vellent ætlierc in alto
Nunc et pauperiem et duros perferre labores!
Fata obstant, tristiquc palus inamabilis undâ
Alligat, ct novies Styx interfusa coercet."
insontes
418
419
1. "That it is expedient to take away the punishment of death in the case of larceny from ships, from dwelling houses, and on navigable rivers.
2. "That it is expedient to repeal so much of the statute 9 Geo. 1, commonly called the Black Act, as creates capital felonies, excepting the crimes of setting fire to a dwelling house, and of maliciously shooting at an individual.
3. "That it is expedient to repeal so much of the statute 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, commonly called the Marriage Act, as creates capital felonies.
4. "That it is expedient to repeal so much of the statute 21 Jac. 1. c. 26, relating to fines and recoveries; of 6 Geo. 2, c. 37, relating to cutting down banks of rivers; of 27 Geo. 2, c. 19, relating to threatening letters; of 27 Geo. 2, c, 19, relating to the Bedford Level; of 3 Geo. 3, c. 16, relating to Greenwich Pensioners; of 22 Geo. 3, c. 4, relating to cutting serges; and of 24 Geo. 3, c. 24, relating to convicts returned from transportation, as subjects persons convicted of the offences therein specified, to the punishment of death.
5. "That it is expedient to take away the punishment of death in the cases of Horse Stealing, Sheep Stealing, and Cattle Stealing.
6. "That it is expedient to take away the punishment of death in the cases of Forgery, and of uttering forged instruments.
7. "That in the case of all the aforesaid offences, which are not otherwise sufficiently punishable by law, the punishments of transportation for life or years, or of imprisonment with or without hard labour, shall be substituted for death, in such proportions and with such latitudes of discretion in the judges as the nature and magnitude of the respective offences will require.
8. "That it is expedient to make provision that the Judges shall not pronounce sentence of death in those cases where they have no expectation that such sentence will be executed.
420
9. "That it is fit to take away the forfeiture of goods and chattels in the case of Suicide, and to put an end to those indignities which are practised on the remains of the dead, in the cases of Suicide and High Treason."
The above resolutions being read, and the first of them put from the chair,
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose. He began by reminding the House of the extent to which the resolutions, nine in all, went; namely, at once to do away with capital punishments, in a great variety of offences to which those resolutions referred. The first suggestion which he would make to the House upon them would be this—were they not of sufficient importance to require a distinct and separate consideration, and whether the hon. and learned gentleman ought not to have taken the ordinary course of asking leave to bring in a bill upon each of the divisions of his resolutions, rather than have had recourse to the mode which he had taken? For only let the House consider into what inconveniences it might be drawn. By assenting to the resolutions of the hon. and learned gentleman, it would affirm all the propositions laid down in them; and if it allowed a bill to be brought in pursuant to those propositions, the result might be, that finding the bill not worthy of being supported throughout, it would feel itself compelled to abandon it. While the resolutions professedly followed the report of the committee on criminal law, it took in cases not referred to in that report. There was the offence of sheep, cattle, and horse stealing, not referred to in the report, in which the resolutions proposed to do away the capital punishment. That the hon. and learned gentleman had been misled by the report was plain; and being so misled as to facts and cases wholly omitted in that report, which he made without any notice given to the House of the objects of his resolutions, was it fair that they should be called on to give a distinct opinion upon so many important alterations of the law? Suppose the House to affirm the resolutions that night, and afterwards to find themselves unable to assent to the bills brought in pursuant to them, would not that be an inconvenient situation for the House to be placed in? Was there nothing inconvenient in the rejection of a bill brought in to remedy defects, which, as the Journals of the House would show, had been fully and clearly admitted? He
421
422
423
424
lettres de grace,
425
426
s.;
427
l.
l.
s.
s.,
428
429
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose, amidst loud cries of "question!" He observed, that the lateness of the hour alone prevented him from replying at length to the speech of the right hon. secretary. All he should then say was, that that speech had greatly disappointed him. He contended, that the recorded pledge of the House could be most imperfectly redeemed by the measures proposed by the right hon. gentleman, under the operation of which
430
Mr. Scarlett
said, he could not concur with his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, as to the impression which the speech of the right hon. secretary was calculated to make. It was with great satisfaction that he had heard that speech, and he could not but rejoice, that the efforts to ameliorate our criminal code, which had been so long and so strenuously made, had at length succeeded, and that his majesty's ministers not only acceded to the principle, but proposed to sanction a series of measures in conformity with that principle. He could not, however, agree with the right hon. gentleman's reasoning with respect to the discretion vested in the executive power as to the punishment of death. If that were admitted, it would apply to every crime. He had not seen the resolutions of his hon. and learned friend before that evening. He was ready to support any measure which went to the mitigation of the punishment for forgery; but he did not see the necessity, because he did not see the advantage, of the House being at that time pledged to any specific mode of mitigation, the principle being already admitted. For his own part, he was desirous of having an opportunity of saying, upon each resolution, whether he would adopt the previous question or not; and his hon. and learned friend must not think that, because he did not approve of every part of his resolutions, he was, therefore, unfriendly to their principle. He rejoiced that the day had at length arrived when those principles which his late lamented friend, sir Samuel Romilly, had long endeavoured to introduce met with the general concurrence of the government. His majesty's minister had confessed himself a convert to the opinion, that severity of punishment was not the most expedient method of repressing crimes; that punishment ought to be consonant to the feelings and sympathies of mankind; and that those feelings ought
431
The Attorney General
observed, that even the sweeping resolutions of his hon. and learned friend would be inefficient to their proposed object. How did his hon. and learned friend propose to meet the case of larceny in cottages left unprotected in the day time, to which the existing law affixed a capital punishment? He complained that his hon. and learned friend had taken the House by surprise, in not having stated previously the specific nature of his motion, even to his own friends. The House, he thought, would require some notice before they would Consent to adopt resolutions, each of them involving topics that would require separate discussion.
Mr. R. Martin
begged leave to suggest to his hon. and learned friend, that if it was his intention to follow up his resolutions with bills, it would be injudicious to risk the fate of those bills by pressing the resolutions to a division. Many members who would vole against the resolutions might vote for every one of the bills. If, however, his hon. and learned friend persisted in dividing the House, he would vote with him.
Sir J. Mackintosh,
in reply, said, that he would trespass but a few minutes to explain the part which he should take with respect to the resolutions. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend, in rejoicing that the principles of his late lamented friend, sir S. Romilly, had been adopted to any extent; but he would have rejoiced still more, if they had been adopted more extensively; for, with the exception of one bill, the whole appeared to him to be a delusion. The conduct of his majesty's ministers upon this subject reminded him of an expression of a friend of his, with respect to another person, that he was a great friend to general principles, but had an exception for every particular case. With respect to the first resolution, he would ask, how often had the House of Commons voted for the very measure to Which it pointed? Would the right hon. gentleman advise the House to undo what it had done? To retrace its steps and forfeit its pledge to the country? In proposing the resolutions, he only wished to take the sense of the House in a popular way. The question was precisely the same as if he had moved for leave to bring in a bill; at the utmost, it only
432
The previous question, "That the question be now put," being put, the House divided: Ayes, 76. Noes, 86. Majority against sir J. Mackintosh's motion, 10. The previous question was then put on the other eight resolutions, and negatived.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Leader, W,
Allen, J. H.
Maberly, J.
Astley, sir J. D.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Baring, A.
Marjoribanks, S.
Barrett, S. M.
Martin, J.
Benett, J.
Milbank, M.
Benyon, B.
Milton, visc.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Blake, sir F.
Montgomery, J.
Brougham, H.
Martin, H.
Browne, D.
Newport, sir J.
Calvert, C.
Normanby, visc.
Campbell, hon. G. P.
Nugent, lord
Carter, John
O'Callaghan, J.
Cavendish, H.
Osborne, lord F.
Chaloner, R.
Palmer, C. F.
Colborne, N. R.
Philips, G,
Denman, T.
Philips, G. H. jun.
Duncannon, visc.
Price, R.
Ebrington, vise.
Poyntz, W. S.
Ellice, E.
Ramsden, J. C.
Evans, W.
Rice, T. S.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Ricardo, D.
Foley, S. H. H.
Ridley, sir M. W,
Folkestone, visc.
Robarts, A.
Frankland, R.
Robarts, G.
Grattan, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Griffith, J. W.
Scarlett, J.
Gordon, R.
Smith, J.
Grant, G. M.
Smith, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Smith, hon. R.
Hume, J.
Stanley, lord
Handley, H.
Tennyson, C.
Knight, R.
Tierney, right hon. G,
Leonard, T. B.
Tynte, C. K.
Lloyd, sir E.
Vernon, G. V.
433
Wells, J.
TELLERS.
Wharton, J.
Buxton, T. F.
Whitbread, S. C.
Calcraft, J.
White, col.
PAIRED OFF.
Williams, John
Russell, lord J.
Wood, M.
Pares. T.
Wilson, W. W. C.
BULL-BAITING AND DOG-FIGHTS.]
Mr. R. Martin
Mr. Brougham
said, he was a friend to the principle of any measure calculated to put an end to animal or human sufferings; but it was an objection
to
Mr. R. Martin
said, that the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman was most absurd. It was as much as to say, that if five hundred persons were cast upon a rock on a desolate island, and all could not be saved, the attempt should not be made to save any of them.
Mr. Peel
objected to the motion, because it belonged to a class of subjects which he did not think fit for legislation in this manner.
Mr. John Smith
said, that so far as dog-fighting was concerned, he would vote for the bill. He understood that, in the very neighbourhood of the House, amusements, as they were miscalled, of the most gross and brutal kind were carried on. Such proceedings ought to be discouraged; and the motion of the
434
Mr. W. Smith
was happy that his hon. friend had introduced this subject. He hoped it would be successful, because he was convinced that a bill of this nature would be advantageous to the character of the lower classes of Englishmen. The practice of bull-baiting, dog-fighting, and badger-baiting, did not, whatever might be said to the contrary, add to the real courage of Englishmen. But it tended to keep up and extend a brutal ferocity, which was not advantageous to the country in any point of view. The argument which was founded on the impropriety of interfering with the amusements of the poor, while those of the rich were left untouched, would, if examined, be found fallacious. The pain which animals suffered in the one instance, was incidental and unavoidable, and the rich man would be better pleased if he could prevent its occurrence; but, in the other instance, the degree of pleasure in the spectator was proportioned to the quantity of suffering which was inflicted on the animal. If the conduct of those who pursued such pastimes were examined he believed it would be found that their proceedings during the night were just as cruel and as lawless as they were through.out the day.
Sir M. W. Ridley
could not agree with the hon. gentleman, that dog-fighting or bull-baiting had such a tendency to render men savage and ferocious. In his younger days he had witnessed some of these exhibitions; and as they had not made him ferocious, he thought they would not have a different effect on the people in general. Such subjects as these he considered to be far beneath the dignity of legislation. If the House entertained such questions, they would next be called on to provide a fit punishment for the slaying of cock-chafers and the destruction of flies.
Mr. R. Martin
wished to know whether leave would be given him to bring in a bill merely to protect dogs; and whether, if he withdrew his motion now, he would be allowed to bring it forward at a more advanced period of the session? [Cries of "No, no."]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
expressed a hope that his hon. friend would not be prevailed upon to withdraw his motion. The same arguments had been urged against his former bill, the effects of which were
435
Mr. Brougham
wished to ask his hon. friend, whether he had ever taken the trouble to analyse the component parts of the company at a horse race?
The House then divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 47.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 22, 1823.
AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he would beg leave to ask the noble earl opposite, whether any communication had been made to him of any treaty, convention, or stipulation for the military occupation of Switzerland by the Austrian army. He was not enabled to state that such an arrangement had been concluded; but it was reported throughout the country that such was the case, and even that the treaty was signed in March last. It could not escape their lordships, that this was a question of the highest importance to the affairs of Europe, and one on which it was particularly necessary the House should be informed.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had never even heard of the report to which the noble marquis alluded, until within the last half hour from the noble marquis himself. After that, it was hardly necessary for him to say that he had no knowledge, either personal or official, of any treaty, convention, or stipulation, of the nature stated by the noble marquis.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday May 22, 1823.
STANDING ORDER RESPECTING BILLS ON TRADE.]
Mr. Huskisson
said, he had given notice yesterday that he meant to call the attention of the House this evening, to the objection which had been taken against proceeding with any bill intended for the regulation of trade, unless the subject were first referred to a select committee, in conformity with the Standing Order of that House, agreed to on the 23d of June, 1820. After the best consideration he could give the subject, it
436
437
Mr. Stuart Wortley
contended, that this order was introduced for the very purpose to which it was now applied; namely, to prevent any new regulation, or any alteration being made in the laws which related to trade, without due notice being given to the parties concerned, so that they might be heard at the bar. The old order applied to regulations respecting foreign trade and the general commercial policy of government; but the new one referred to the regulation of any branch of our domestic trade. There was a bill
438
Mr. D. Browne
defended the standing order, and argued that its provisions ought to be complied with. In that part of the empire from which became, he had never heard any person say, that the taking off the stamp from linen would not be ruinous.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said; the standing order in question was introduced, not to prevent parliament from removing restraints on trade, but to prevent them from suddenly, unwisely, and improvidently imposing restraints on it. If, when it was before the House, he had imagined, that it would hinder them from taking away restrictions, he would have opposed it, instead of giving it his Support. [Hear.]
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he was in correspondence with every part of Scotland in which the linen trade was carried on, and he had not heard a voice raised against the measure introduced by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Calcraft
contended, that the standing order was imperative. Why not, then, yield to it, and particularly when the object was, to promote a bill which seemed to give general approbation? The right hon. gentleman said, that this order was a most indiscreet tampering with the right principles of trade. He was glad to find this new light broken in upon him, and was sorry it had not shed its rays before he introduced his naval and military pensions' bill. The right hon. gentleman might take credit perhaps for having given up the lottery; but the fact was, that the lottery had given him up. The current report was, that the usual contractors had lost so much money by the scheme, that they would have nothing more to do with it. Unless some doubt could be fairly thrown upon the words of the standing order, why refer it to a committed?
439
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as to the lottery, the only thing that had occurred was a five minutes' hesitation on the part of the lottery-office-keepers, whether they would bid or not.
Mr. Brougham
was ready to give the principal members of his majesty's government some credit for the adoption of more liberal principles respecting trade. He considered the present bill just, necessary, and expedient. He rejoiced in the conversion of ministers to these principles; particularly in the conversion of the fight hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson); and still more in that of the more illustrious convert near him (the chancellor of the exchequer). The former, it was true, had always entertained liberal opinions upon such matters, without acting upon them; but there was no saint in the calendar whose conversion was more marvellous than that of the chancellor of the exchequer. That right hon. gentleman had on a proposition on the subject of free trade, passed to the order of the day. With reference to the standing order, he thought it would be better to refer it to a committee.
Lord Milton
asked, whether it would not be the shorter course at once to give a select committee upon the bill, rather than on the standing order?
Mr. Ricardo
was glad to see this contest for the adoption of liberal principles in matters of trade. He hoped they would persevere in getting rid of such obnoxious and impolitic regulations.
Mr. Canning
thought, that the best course would be at once to settle the application of this standing order, by referring it to a committee.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND.]
Mr. Brougham
said, that seeing the right hon. Secretary for foreign affairs in his place, he wished to ask him a question, founded upon intelligence which had reached him from sources which, if not authentic, were at least entitled to great attention. His information related to alleged occurrences respecting Switzerland, and was a further apparent development of the system of the holy alliance. Notwithstanding all that the Swiss cantons had done to court the favour and avert the anger of the allied powers, by refusing a domicile within their territory to those political refugees who sought an asylum within them
440
441
Mr. Canning
said, that if the least part of the lesser statement of the hon. and learned gentleman was much too much, it might be a satisfaction to him to know, that that least part was much more than his majesty's government were informed of.
THE GREEKS AND TURKS.]
Mr. Hume
said, it had been reported that British cruisers had upon several occasions of late not respected the Greek flag, in the actual blockade of some Turkish ports, and had gone so far as to compel Greek ships to give up English vessels which they had taken in the act of conveying supplies to Turkish forts. He hoped that, at least, the British Government would act an equal part between the Greeks and Turks in the present contest.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that in one or two instances the government had been informed of a violation of the Greek blockade; but that, in one instance especially, which came to their knowledge a fortnight ago, they had immediately sent out most positive orders, that the British cruisers should respect alike the blockades of both powers [Hear!].
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
Sir Robert Heron
said, he thought it would be convenient for the House, and a measure that would relieve very many individuals from much anxiety and inconvenience, if the House would name some definitive period for considering the order of the day oh this matter. There were upwards of fifty witnesses in town, at a great expense to the public, and much inconvenience to themselves; and several of them, perhaps, with little public advantage, and little probability of being asked many questions. He did not wish to anticipate any interrogatories which hon. gentlemen might be disposed to put to them; but every one, who had at all attended to the course of this inquiry, must have observed how languidly it went on. At present, there appeared no chance of again pursuing the inquiry on any but a very distant day. Under these circumstances he wished the House to come to some decision; so that the inquiry might either cease at once, or be brought to a speedy determination.
Colonel Barry
said, that however it might appear to the hon. baronet, the fact was, that the last day's: proceedings had elicited matter of the greatest importance.
442
Sir R. Heron
disclaimed any intention of reflecting on the mode in which the right hon. gentleman had conducted the inquiry. Would Monday next be an inconvenient day for resuming it?
Mr. Abercromby
could not help saying that the House had been placed in a very unpleasant situation in this business. It had been conducted in a manner very unlikely to attain the ends of justice, but much calculated to produce inconvenience and expense to the public. At the suggestion of ministers, all public business had, for a time, given way to this inquiry. At the same time, he hoped the matter would not be allowed to die a natural death, but would henceforth be prosecuted with vigour.
Mr. Grattan
thought it highly expedient that the House should come to a decision upon this important question as speedily as possible; because, independently of the inconvenience which it occasioned to the House, it was productive of much irritation in Dublin.
Colonel Barry
said, that he himself had never postponed the inquiry a single day.
Mr. Calcraft
thought, that if the right hon. gentleman would propose to go to the order of the day, that would soon bring the business to an issue.
Colonel Barry
said, that from the first of these proceedings, he had never once moved the order of the day. The inquiry had been brought on by gentlemen on the other side, and it was for them to move the order of the day upon it.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he would them tomorrow, at an early hour, move the Order of the day on this inquiry, and take the sense of the House upon the matter. The present course of the proceeding was quite intolerable.
HALF PAY OF THE ARMY IN IRELAND.]
General Gascoyne
, in rising to submit a motion "for an Address to his Majesty, praying that he would direct that the warrant of the 6th of March last, be reconsidered, and that payment to Half-pay officers resident in Ireland be paid in British currency," said, he was aware that to induce the Crown to exert its interference in this case, very strong grounds must be laid for such an address. He
443
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the House ought to take care not to be led away by individual cases, and to neutralize in de-
444
l.,
l.
After a short conversation, general Gascoyne consented to withdraw his motion.
EAST AND WEST INDIA SUGARS.—
Mr. W. Whitmore
, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had
445
s.
s.
446
l.
l.
l.:
l.
447
448
449
ad valorem
s.
450
451
Mr. C. Ellis
, after complimenting the hon. gentleman on the talents he had displayed on this and on previous occasions, said, he thought that the present question was peculiarly unfit for reference to a committee. It was not a matter of detail where local and practical information was required from witnesses acquainted with the commerce or situation of the West Indies: it was a question of state policy and high principle—of regard for vested interests and antecedent claims—in a word, whether this country would make the sacrifice of its West-India colonies for the encouragement of a new commercial speculation. Among the arguments which it had been of late the fashion to introduce on this subject, he must beg leave to protest against those which supported the system of a free, unrestricting, and unlimited commerce. He did not mean to enter into the merits of the general theory, but he denied its applicability to the present question. What the East-India interest required was, not the freedom of trade; they required an equalization of the duties on East and West-India sugar; but they left in full force the prohibitory duties on foreign sugar. They asked for merely so much as would enable them to supplant the West-India colonists in the home market, and afterwards to retain to themselves the exclusive supply of the sugar consumed in this country. As to the argument founded on the indefinite increase of the demand for British manufactures in India, he thought it could not be fairly introduced into this question. Undoubtedly, the demand for British manufactures might be partially increased by the ruin of the West-India colonists; but
452
453
454
Mr. Keith Douglas
said, he was quite ready to concur with the observations made by the advocates for the doctrines of political economy. He had no doubt that, if the principle could be universally applied, every branch of human industry might be accommodated in a convenient manner, by enabling the inhabitants of all countries to purchase the articles of which they stood in need at the cheapest rate and without restriction. But, as this universal application was, if not impossible, at least not practicable, he besought the House to recollect that the existing commercial interests of this country were founded upon different principles. The eminence to which that branch of those interests now under discussion had risen, was to be attributed solely to the colonial compact sought to be broken down by the present motion. If the East-India sugars should be admitted to equal privileges which this compact had granted to those of the West Indies, the ruin of the latter colonies would be effected. He would draw the attention of the House to some facts which would illustrate the view he had taken of the interests of the colonies. The value of British and Irish manufactures exported to the West Indies might be estimated at the annual average of 3,560,000
l.
455
l.
s.
456
l.
l.
Mr. Robertson
contended, that the consumer was benefitted by the present state of things, and that the East Indies produced instances of more degrading slavery than the West. The population of India was divided into four classes, of which the Soudah was the scum, and the Bramin the head. The lowest cast could no more rise to a higher, such were the institutions of the country, than a horse could become a man. The incapacity of India under this wtetched system of slavery was such, that she could not even compete with the free labour of Italy for silk, though India had three crops in the year and Italy but one, and the production of sugar required still more exertion. From the destruction caused to the roots of the canes by the white ants, it would be impossible ever to make the growth of sugar in the East Indies sufficiently productive. Though, in 1792, an attempt was made to establish a colony for the growth and manufacture of 6ugar, China, Batavia, and Java, still continued to supply Bengal and Madras with that commodity. It was not for the interest of the consumer that the present system should be changed, and it would be worse for India herself.
457
Mr. Ricardo
congratulated the House upon the comfortable information contained in the speech of the hon. member who bad spoken last, and who had shown, that, what with the white ants and other difficulties, it would be impossible for the East-India planters ever to compete with those of the West-India colonies. The inference from which was, that there was nothing to fear from allowing them the advantage required. On this occasion he would take the liberty of quoting a speech of the hon. member for Sandwich (Mr. Marryat) in 1809, which was marked throughout by its strict adherence to the true principles of political economy. In that speech, the hon. member had contended for the policy of admitting the conquered colonies to an equal participation in the trade with the other colonies of England. The question at that time was, whether the colony of Martinique should be allowed to send its sugars to the British market on the same terms as the other colonies, and the hon. member had then clearly shown, by a train of the soundest reasoning, that the price of sugar oh the continent regulating the price in this country, it could be no disadvantage to us that the sugar of Martinique should be sent here. Here the hon. member read the passage of the speech to which he had alluded. He then went on to contend, that the same argument (substituting the East Indies for Martinique) would apply to the question before the House. The sugars of the East Indies would not exclude those of the West. He would maintain, that there ought to be no restrictions on the imports of any of our colonies—that it would be an injury, as well to the colonies as to the mother country, and that therefore we ought to get rid of them altogether. It should also be recollected, that if the proposed measure gave advantages to the East-India trade which it did not possess before, there were disadvantages under which that trade still laboured, which went to counterbalance them. Ah hon. member had talked of our compact with the West
458
459
Mr. Marryat
said, it was extremely amusing to hear hon. members, proprietors of East-India stock, declaiming in that House on the advantages of a free trade, at the very moment that they themselves were interested in one of the most outrageous monopolies that ever existed in any country in the world. He should be glad to hear that some of those liberal principles had found their way into Leadenhall-street, and that that company had consented to the opening of a free trade with China; but as this was not done, he thought that those concerned ought to be silent on the subject of monopoly, of which
460
461
Mr. Ricardo
, in explanation, observed, that he had never possessed a shilling more than 1000
l.
Mr. Wilberforce
wished to remind the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, that the motion which he opposed did not call for any decision as to the question of equalization of duties, but was limited to the propriety of referring the subject, for examination to a committee of that House. Some members had rested their resistance to the motion, on the ground that, if, carried into effect, it would produce the ruin of the West-India colonies. To them he would say, "Establish that conclusion in an examination before the com-
462
463
Mr. Huskisson
said, he did not rise at that late hour to trouble the House at any length on the subject, but simply to state his reasons for dissenting from the motion. He did not partake of the fears and alarms of the hon. member for Seaford, neither could he participate in the sanguine expectations of the hon. mover, if his motion were adopted. His hon. friend who spoke last had truly observed, that this was merely a motion for inquiry; and, if he could have entertained a doubt of the inconveniences which would result from going into that inquiry, the speech of his hon. friend would have satisfied him, that when once the committee should be formed, instead of the inquiry being confined to the mere commercial question respecting sugar, it would be conducted solely with a reference to the fearful and delicate sub-
464
465
466
s.
467
Mr. Money
rose amidst general calls of "question," and proceeded to speak in favour of the original motion, but the impatience of the House rendered the hon. member inaudible.
Mr. Forbes
strongly advocated the cause of the East-India sugar grower. He asked, whether the present president of the Board of Control had not stated to the late chairman of the court of directors, that it was the intention of ministers to sanction the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the whole question of the sugar duties? He saw more clearly than ever, that the West-India interest in that House was paramount to every other.
Mr. Wynn
said, that being called on in this distinct manner, it was necessary for him to say a few words. He wished his hon. friend had given him an intimation that he meant to make the reference he had done, because he would then have recurred to the note which he had written to the late chairman of the East-India company. He must now observe, that he distinctly understood, when the late chancellor of the exchequer had spoken of a committee, that that committee was only to inquire into the additional duty of 15
s.
The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 161.
List of the Minority.
Astell, W.
Maberly, J.
Alexander, J.
Maberly, W. L.
Alexander, J. D.
Marjoribanks, S.
Baillie, col. J.
Martin, J.
Baring, sir T.
Money, W. T.
Bentinck, lord W.
Munday, F.
Browne, Dom.
Pitt, J.
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.
Porcher, H.
Cole, sir C.
Ricardo, D.
Corbett, P.
Smith, R.
Downie, R.
Smith, W.
Evans, W.
Stanley, lord
Forbes, C.
Wigram, W.
Grant, right hon. C.
Wilberforce, W.
Hume, J.
Wells, J.
Kech, G. A. L.
TELLERS.
Kemp, T. R.
Whitmore, W.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Buxton, T. F.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 23, 1823.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY
468
The House having again resolved itself into a Committee to inquire into the Conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the Chair,
Major
Henry Charles Sirr
By Colonel
Barry.
Do you recollect the 14th Dec. last, when there was a riot at the theatre?—I do.
Was the state of public feeling in Dublin, at that time much agitated?—On that night it was, and previous to that it was.
Do you recollect any of the causes which led to that irritation?—I believe, the prevention of the dressing of king William was one.
Do you imagine that that irritation was much increased by the committal of some of the persons supposed to be concerned in that riot, under a capital charge?—Undoubtedly.
You are one of the magistrates that committed one of those persons under the capital charge?—I am.
Can you state the circumstances under which you made that committal?—Under the directions of the attorney-general, the solicitor-general, and Mr. Townsend.
Had you, at the time you made that committal, informations before you, to convince you that it was a capital crime that he was charged with?—There were a variety of informations taken on the subject; I was not aware at the time that it was a capital charge, until I was desired to make out the committal.
You are understood that you made that committal in pursuance of directions from the law officers of the Crown, without having informations before you, convincing you that they authorized a committal for a capital crime?—I did not know the extent of the offence until I was desired to make out that committal, from the variety of informations which were taken in the head police office, and having been laid before the law officers it was necessary to get their opinion upon it before the committal was finally made out.
Are you to be understood, that you saw all the informations which were taken upon the subject, previous to your having committed the person?—I saw several of them; I do not believe I saw all.
Where were the witnesses chiefly examined?—Some at the head office of police, and some in the under secretary's office at the castle.
After the witnesses were sworn, was not the magistrate directed to leave the room?—Sometimes he was, sometimes not.
Were the informations which were taken during the absence of the magistrate, afterwards laid before the magistrate for his perusal?—Several of the witnesses examined at the castle were afterwards re-examined in the office and their informations taken.
Was that after they were committed on the capital crime?—I believe not.
469
After Forbes was committed?—We had taken informations prior to his committal.
Were the persons bound over to prosecute previous to his committal?—I believe they were.
By you?—By me, whenever I took the informations, certainly; three magistrates are in the office; it will sometimes fall to the lot of one, sometimes of another, to take the informations.
From your own judging of those informations which you saw, you conceived Forbes had made himself liable to be committed for a capital offence?—I conceive, from the high authority from whom I received the directions to make out the committal, that there was sufficient.
If you had not received those directions from high authority, would you have committed Forbes for a capital offence?—I believe not.
By Mr.
Jones.
What had been your private education?—Military.
Were you then acquainted with what would amount to an act of high treason or a capital offence of that description?—In some instances I might be.
In the present instance were you in doubt?—In the present instance I should not have thought there was any thing of high treason in it.
Should you have thought there was sufficient to amount to a capital offence, or had you doubts upon that subject?—I had doubts, certainly.
In consequence of those doubts, did you submit it to the law officers of the Crown?—I was guided by them.
In consequence of the doubts you entertained as to the offence amounting to a capital charge or not, did you take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown?—No, it was not in consequence of that.
In consequence of what was it then that you took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown?—It was in consequence of what was done, certainly, that I received the orders of the law officers of the Crown.
By Mr.
Brougham.
What are the committee to understand by your saying, that you received the directions of the law officers of the Crown?—It was considered as a Crown prosecution, and immediately under the direction of the officers of the Crown; and as magistrates, we receive their instructions, from time to time, on the informations that were taken.
You are understood to say, that this was a criminal case, in which the Crown was one party: are you in the practice in such cases, of acting by the instructions of that party?—Certainly.
In your capacity of a magistrate?—Certainly.
As a justice of the peace?—Yes, as a justice the peace.
470
How long have you been a justice of the peace?—As a police magistrate, nearly fifteen years.
Before that period, in what capacity did you serve?—I was likewise a magistrate.
For how many years before those fifteen years?—About nine years.
During the whole of that period, has it been your practice in your official situation as a magistrate, to act according to the directions of the Crown?—No.
Since when did you commence this practice?—It is the practice in Crown prosecutions.
Has it been your practice, during the whole of those 24 years, in cases where the Crown is the party prosecuting, to take the instructions of the officers of the Crown?—No doubt.
Do you mean, that you never exercise a discretion yourself, or that in all cases, whatever your opinion might be, you have held yourself bound by the instruction of the Crown lawyers?—There are some cases that I should suppose do not require their advice.
Suppose they have given you instructions, and that your opinion was different, has it been your practice to follow your own judgment, or the instructions of those officers?—Whenever it was my duty to resort to them, I always considered from such high legal authority, that I was correct in attending to their advice in preference to my own.
What do you mean by the term resorting; did you go to them yourself personally?—Undoubtedly.
Did you state the case, and receive their instructions?—Certainly.
Was this ever in writing, or by verbal communications?—Verbal communications, or through the solicitor of the Crown.
Are you to be understood, that whenever it becomes necessary to resort for instructions to the Crown lawyers, you go to the solicitor for the Crown?—Occasionally, as it may be necessary.
Did you ever go directly to the Crown lawyers, without going to the solicitor?—It might so happen.
What do you mean by those cases in which you deem it necessary to have recourse to their instructions?—Only in cases of state affairs.
Is that your rule in all political prosecutions?—There may be some minor offences that it would not be necessary to do so.
Suppose a man were arrested on a charge of sedition?—Certainly, I should apply for instructions; I would take the informations without hesitation.
Should you in that case proceed according to their instructions, in preference to your own judgment?—It would be their duty to proceed; it would be my duty to take the informations, and act as a magistrate.
What do you mean then by acting by the directions of the Crown solicitor?—Of course the Crown lawyers must be consulted upon it in cases of treason.
Do you mean, that suppose a person were arrested for sedition, before you made out a
471
Would you in any cases of importance?—Not in regard to committal always; I would take it from the body of the information; I should not hesitate in committing, on my own judgment, where a case was so strong that there could be no doubt upon it.
On what cases is it that you describe yourself as being used to follow the instructions of the Crown lawyers?—In such a case as the present I acted immediately under their advice.
In cases where you follow the instructions of the Crown lawyers, what is it you do according to their instructions?—I act according to the instructions I receive.
What do you call acting according to the instructions you receive; do you mean to say I you ever follow their instructions upon the: question whether you should commit or not?—I should not hesitate in the committal. Nor whether I should take an information or not.
On what questions is it you have taken their instructions?—I conceive have done my duty when I have taken the necessary informations and committed.
You commit according to your own judgment, and you take the information according; to your own judgment?—No doubt.
In what respect is it you follow the instructions of the Crown lawyers?—I do no more than that, it is for them to proceed.
What do you mean by following the instructions of the Crown lawyers?—As to the extent, if the information goes against several individuals, as to the extent of arrest, perhaps, how far each may be involved; some may be more deep than others, and it may not be wise in: some instances to arrest, perhaps.
If you have taken the information against the whole number, and made out the warrant of commitment against the whole; what further question remains for you?—If they are in; custody, it is a different matter.
If they are in custody, how do you then follow the instructions of the Crown lawyers?—I would commit certainly; it will be for them to prosecute the entire, or not.
Suppose a question were to arise, whether you should hold a person to bail, or to commit him to custody; should you follow the instructions of the Crown lawyers?—Certainly.
Supposing a question should arise, as to the amount of bail to be taken; should you follow I their instructions?—I should think it right so; to do, in political offences.
Suppose the question were to arise, whether a man should be committed or not for an alleged seditious expression; would you take the instructions of the law officers of the Crown I upon that?—I would take the advice of the assistant barrister in the office, upon that occasion.
By the assistant barrister is understood one of the three magistrates, of whom you are one?—Yes.
472
Suppose the question were to arise, whether this is a treasonable offence or not, and you had doubts in your own mind; would you also take the advice of the assistanvbarrister?—Certainly.
Suppose the question to arise, whether it was a misdemeanor or a treasonable offence; would you, in that case, take the assistant barrister's advice?—Certainly.
Suppose the question to arise, what amount of bail you should hold them to; would yon, in that case, take the assistant barrister's advice?—I should certainly take the advice of my brother magistrates, in that case.
Suppose you, among yourselves, have no doubt, should you act without going further for advice?—If we had no doubts on our minds, we would act.
Do you mean to say it is only incases where you and your brother magistrates differ, or where you doubt, that you go to the law officers of the Crown?—Either that, or to counsel.
Do you mean to say, you ever go to other counsel as well as to the law officers of the Crown?—We do.
You are not to be understood, that you take instructions from the law officers of the Crown only in those arduous cases to which you have alluded, but from lawyers indiscriminately?—Certainly.
Has this been your practice during the whole of the fifteen years?—It has.
Did you ever, during those fifteen years, take the advice of a lawyer, for a prisoner?—No, I do not know that I did.
But very often of the Crown lawyers, you say?—We have occasionally of the Crown lawyers.
What other lawyers, besides the Crown lawyers, have you ever consulted during those times?—There are banisters appointed as assistant barristers to the police establishment.
Are those for the prosecutors?—For police prosecutions.
Are those barristers counsel for the prosecution always?—Where it becomes necessary to employ counsel for the police, they are called in.
That is where you, the police, prosecute yourselves?—Where we prosecute ourselves.
Have you ever consulted them on any of the arduous cases of a political nature to which you have referred?—I believe we have.
Suppose information were laid, that an individual had used a seditious expression, drank a disloyal toast, for instance; how would you proceed in that case, after taking the information?—It might be a case to make the party find security only to keep the peace it might not amount to a treasonable act.
Should you, in a case of that sort, consult the Crown lawyers?—We might make a report upon it to the government.
Suppose the Crown lawyers were to desire you to commit the person for a political offence; would you commit him, although in
473
But suppose your opinion was, that he ought not to be committed, and the Crown lawyers directed you to commit him, would you commit him, or not?—If they desired me to commit him, I think it is very likely I would, if he was to be tried for the offence; but I would think such an offence as that would be bailable, and I would be bound to take bail.
If you felt you were bound to take bail, and the Crown lawyers directed you not to take bail, which should you do?—I think I should be bound to take bail in a bailable offence.
Suppose any political character of note were denounced to you, by an information, as having been guilty of an act of sedition, should you, in that case, go to the Crown lawyers as a matter of course?—No, not as a matter of course.
However high the political character was, against whom the information was brought?—No, I should think it was most likely I should make it known to the government of the country.
Supposing the government were to direct you to commit that person, should you follow their directions as a matter of course, without exercising your own judgment?—I should certainly follow the direction of the government of the country, and I would use my own discretion, as far as I was capable of judging for the best.
Supposing your own discretion led you to say, that he ought not to be committed, but for the directions of government, would you feel yourself still bound, by the positive direction of government?—If it was not a bailable offence, I should certainly commit.
Suppose, upon the evidence laid before you, you considered he ought not to be committed for this state offence; and suppose the government directed you to commit him, not-withstanding your own opinion of the offence not being a bailable offence, what should you do?—I think if the government ordered me to do it, I would do it.
Have you ever been directed by government, in cases of state offence bailable, to take a great amount of bail, and done so?—I believe, I have.
Do you upon the question of the amount of bail, consider yourself bound in the same way by the directions of government in state offences?—In state offences, certainly.
By Mr.
Peel.
Are you not required to do so by the act which constitutes you police-officers?—Certainly.
Are there not some cases in which you cannot act, without consulting the attorney-general?—There are.
474
Do you recollect some cases of admitting of approvers in cases of high treason?—I cannot do that without his approbation.
Should not you be subject to a penalty of 100
l.
Do you recollect any instance in which, being of opinion yourself, that a moderate sum should be taken, by way of bail, the government required you to take a larger amount of bail?—No, never.
Or their directions as to the amount of bail?—No, certainly not.
By Mr.
G. Lamb.
You did not make up your mind at all, as to what offence you meant to commit for?—No.
Did you ask the law-officers of the Crown for their opinion?—I waited upon them for their opinion and received their orders upon the subject.
By Mr.
Bright.
On that business?—Yes.
Were you sent for on the first occasion, or did you go of your own accord?—I cannot tell.
Did the first communication upon this business come from you, or from the Crown officers?—I think it is more likely that it came from myself, or from the office.
State what passed at that first interview?—I generally showed the informations that I took to the Crown-officers.
Had you taken any informations at that time?—I am sure I had.
Did you show them to the attorney and solicitor-general?—Undoubtedly.
Was there a conversation at that time between you and the solicitor and attorney-general?—There must have been something said, but I cannot recollect what it was; it must have been upon the examinations, but there were so many taken that really and truly I cannot recollect it.
Did you receive any instructions at the time with respect to the examinations?—I do not recollect that I did.
Did you receive any instructions at the time with respect to the committals?—No.
When did you see the officers of the Crown again?—I saw them very frequently.
When did you receive directions from them?—On the committal of the parties.
Of what parties?—Of Forbes, Graham and Brownlow.
What directions did you receive?—To com-
475
Was anything said about bail?—Nothing.
By Mr.
S. Wortley.
For a capital offence?—I did.
Had you at that time read over all the informations?—Not the entire of them.
Had you signed any depositions or informations?—I had.
Had you signed any depositions or informations that you had not read?—No, never.
Did you hear the depositions given by the witnesses?—I did certainly.
Did you sign any deposition that you did not hear given by the witnesses?—The depositions that I took must have been read to the witness, or he must have sworn that he read them.
Do you recollect having seen any deposition which was not sworn to by the witness in your presence?—Oh! certainly not; he must have been sworn to them, before I signed them; I could not be guilty of such an act.
Do you distinctly recollect, that you did sign no deposition to which you had not seen the witness swear?—Certainly I do not.
In point of fact, for what offence were those persons committed?—Forbes was committed for a conspiracy to murder.
Upon the informations themselves, were you, in your judgment, satisfied, that there was sufficient evidence to commit him upon that charge?—Not as to a conspiracy to murder; I was not capable of judging, for I had not seen all the informations.
Upon the informations before you, was there sufficient to induce you to commit them for a conspiracy to murder?—Not upon those that were taken before me.
How did you proceed, previous to signing the committal?—I heard a great number of persons examined upon oath.
Upon the whole examination before you, were you satisfied there was sufficient to induce you to commit them for a conspiracy to murder?—In my own mind I certainly should not, if it was left to myself, have committed for such an offence.
For what offence would you, in your own judgment, have committed?—For a conspiracy to riot, and a riot.
Then how came you, thinking in your own judgment there was not sufficient to commit for a conspiracy to murder, to commit for that offence?—I had the legal instructions of the law officers of the Crown; I concluded, from the importance of the informations they had before them, that it amounted to that.
In point of fact, you committed for a conspiracy to murder, on the instructions of the law officers of the Crown, and not from your own judgment on the informations laid before you?—Certainly.
By Mr.
Bright.
476
Is it your habit, in Crown cases, to commit without hearing the whole of the informations?—One information may justify a committal.
Supposing that one information should not justify a committal, would you commit without hearing the whole of the informations?—Certainly not.
In this case, did you hear the whole of the informations?—They were not all taken before me, or in the office.
How came you then in this case to commit, without hearing the whole of the informations?—I did not think it was necessary.
You did not consider that it was a case of a capital offence?—I must have considered it so, when the attorney-general considered it so, his opinion was superior to mine.
But not in your own judgment?—I should not have thought it so, until I heard the attorney-general declare it.
How was it you did not hear the whole of the informations read to you, prior to your committing for the capital offence?—There were several informations taken at another office that I did not see, I saw copies of them certainly.
Did you see the copies of the whole of the informations?—I will not pretend to say that I saw them all, for they were very numerous.
Do you not consider it your duty as a police magistrate, to see the whole of the informations?—Probably it would be better if I did.
Has it been your habit prior to this, to see the whole of the informations previous to committing for a grave offence?—Certainly, all informations taken at my own office, at the head office, where the committal is issued from, certainly.
Then this is the only instance to your recollection, that you have committed for a grave offence, without seeing the whole of the informations?—I do recollect, and I do believe, that I read the informations, on better recollection.
Did you read the whole of the informations?—Yes, it is so distant I cannot speak positively, but I am inclined to think that I read them.
Then you correct the prior testimony you have given?—It is so far back I cannot say; and I do assure the committee, I must hope for excuse, I have not been very well and my memory is not so perfect as it used to be, after a very serious fit of sickness, and I should plead that excuse.
By Sir
J. Newport.
By Mr.
Brownlow.
Joseph Gabbett,
By Colonel
Barry.
477
Was there a good deal of irritation of the public mind, previous to the riot at the theatre on the 14th December?—A great deal, of which I was personally a witness.
Will you mention the nature of those facts to which you were personally a witness?—There were several attempts made, to dress the statue; there was a deal of excitement of the public feeling produced by the presence of the police, for the purpose of preventing the dressing of the statue; that collected of course crowds, and excited a great deal of feeling in the public, on the one side of the Orange party, who were anxious to maintain the point of dressing the statue in opposition to the lord mayor's proclamation, and the order of the government; and on the other hand, irritation in the minds of those who pursued that measure, and crowds collected by day and by night round the statue.
Do you recollect any persons having been wounded by the military round the statue?—I do.
Was there any civil power present, when the military rushed out upon them?—Not at the commencement of the business.
There were two wounded by the military, were there not?—There was a man that came before meat my office on the following morning; it did appear, that one or two persons, I think two persons, were wounded by the bank guard upon that occasion. It appeared, that a number of persons had come to the statue in the course of that night, and that some of them had actually mounted the statue and thrown a cloak round it; the bank guard came out upon the occasion, and endeavoured to disperse them; it appeared, that those persons were in liquor, and they gave some opposition to the military, and made use of some insulting expressions to the military; and it so happened, unfortunately, that one or two persons were on that occasion wounded by the bayonets of the military; on the alarm being communicated at the office to which I belong, one of our police officers went down; I believe one of those persons had been wounded before he went down; I made a report of it, and I believe there was an investigation upon it at the barracks.
Were you present at the inquiry which after-wards took place?—I was.
What appeared upon the subject of the orders to the military, as to their acting?—Upon the investigation which took place at the barracks, at which I attended, it appeared that there had been some orders; there were two orders for the direction of the officers of the guard, and the order was issued from the governors of the bank, and that confined the attention of the guard to the defence of the bank.; but there was another, order under I which they appeared immediately to have acted, which charged the bank guard with the protection of the statue from being disfigured;
478
Do you know whether they were written orders, or verbal orders?—They were orders of long standing; the officers upon that inquiry were not able to traee the origin of that second order to which I allude, the order giving the protection of the statue in charge of the military.
Do you know whether it was written or printed?—I do not recollect that I saw it, but it was an order of some long standing; I was present when sir Colquhan Grant, through whom these orders were to pass, said he knew nothing of it. The officers on that court of inquiry disclaimed having any knowledge of it until it became a subject of inquiry.
Sir Colquhan Grant is commanding officer of the garrison?—It was through him the order should have passed, if it had been a recent order; I do not exactly know his department.
What did you understand by an order of long date?—The officers who attended upon that court of inquiry, stated to me that they had referred to the orderly-book, and were unable to trace it, and I heard sir Colquhan Grant disclaim having any knowlege of any such order.
Then in fact there was no record of the order shown to you at all?—The officer of the guard stated to me that there was such an order; he stated that to me the following morning, and that there was an inconsistency between that order and the other order for the government of the bank guard, and I reported it at the head office, and through them to the government.
Was there, in point of fact, any specific order ever shown to you upon the subject?—According to my recollection, it was read to me upon that occasion by the court of inquiry, and I have no doubt there was such an order, both from the report of the officer of the guard, and the officers on the court of inquiry.
You cannot form any opinion as to the date of that order?—No; if there had been a date to it, there would have been no difficulty in tracing it to its origin.
Did you attend the court of inquiry?—I was called upon as a magistrate, and attended there, while the officers of my office were under examination.
Were there any informations produced before you from the persons who were wounded?—No, the person who was wounded went to the head office that morning, and I understood he swore informations there; it came before me. A gentleman who had actually mounted the statue was brought to my office as a prisoner, and I discharged that gentleman on taking bail for his appearance.
479
Did you not commit some persons on a capital charge, in reference to the riot at the theatre?—I committed Henry Handwich and Graham.
On a charge of conspiring to kill the lord-lieutenant?—I did.
State the grounds of that committal?—I had previously taken informations in my office against those two persons, the one for throwing the rattle, and the other for throwing the bottle; I had committed them upon those informations. There was an application made to me for bailing those prisoners, and upon that occasion, feeling it be to a very serious case, I thought it my duty to confer with the officers of the Crown upon the occasion. I spoke to the attorney and solicitor-general upon the subject, and it was their opinion that I should not, in that state of the business, bail the persons, but that all the informations taken and to be taken, should be sent to them for their consideration; and they would, after they had fully investigated the case, inform me what their opinion was upon the subject. There was an inquiry then at the castle, before the attorney and solicitor-general, and also at the head office, for the course of six days, at the end of which I was called upon to attend at the head office for the purpose of revising the capital committals. I did attend there, and assist in framing, in concert with Mr. Graves, the barrister magistrate of that office, those committals. They were revised by the officers of the Grown, the attorney and solicitor-general and Mr. Townsend, who conducts the prosecutions on the part of the Crown, and I did sign the capital committals against those two persons against whom I had taken those informations; but I should also state to the House, that independently of those informations which I took at my own office, I was present at the head office of police when a further information of a much stronger nature than those I had taken, was taken there before the magistrates of that office under those circumstances; those informations having disclosed facts, which I thought amounted to evidence, to go to the jury to sustain the capital charge, I thought it was my duty to follow the advice of those three learned counsel, in signing the capital committal; I signed the capital committal only against those against whom I had taken the information, the one for throwing the rattle, and the other for throwing the bottle.
Did you or not coincide with the law officers of the Crown in respect to the capital charge?—So far I did coincide, that I acted in pursuance of the suggestions communicated from them to me, through the magistrates of the head office.
Had you been left to your own discretion, would you have committed for the capital offence?—I certainly, if I had been left entirely to myself, should have required the whole of the informations to be laid before me, to exercise my judgment upon them; but I do think that if I was pressed by the prosecutor, in an ordi-
480
Was there sufficient evidence came before you, in your opinion, to justify a committal for a capital offence?—I thought there was evidence to go to the jury with.
If you had been left to your judgment, would you have committed for the capital offence?—Upon the best consideration I have since given to the subject, I was warranted in the opinion, that the facts disclosed before me, amounted to a constructive levying of war against the king. I really felt that at the time, and stated that, without consulting with the counsel for the Crown, as my reason for refusing to admit the parties to bail.
Your opinion coincided with that of the law officers of the Crown?—As to the conspiracy to murder, I have not said so. If I was to recommend a prosecution in the most rigorous form, it would have been for a constructive levying of war, which amounts to high treason.
Are you to be understood, that your opinion did not coincide with that of the law officers of the Crown?—I really acted a good deal in faith on the law officers of the Crown. I had that reliance on their knowledge, their talent, and their integrity. They having come to that result, after six or seven days investigation, I thought that it furnished a very sufficient ground, coupled with the facts which were before me individually, for signing the committals. I really did not speculate on what was likely to be the event of the prosecution.
By Mr.
Browne.
Should not a magistrate make up his mind as to the committal?—I had made up my I mind, that there was evidence to go in support of a prosecution, if it should be the pleasure of the government to prosecute in that rigorous form.
Had you heard the whole of the depositions?—No, I had not. There were several witnesses examined on the ex-officio informations, that I had not been sworn before me.
Did you require to hear the whole of the depositions, prior to committal?—I did not.
That is not necessary?—No; I think it is I quite sufficient for any prosecutor to produce such witnesses before a magistrate as furnish matter to justify the committal; and I think it is in the discretion of the prosecutor, what number of witnesses he shall produce. There may be very good and sufficient reasons for prosecutors not producing all their witnesses in a public office.
Were there sufficient witnesses produced
481
By Sir
J. Newport.
Was that subsequent to the publication Of the work called "Gabbett's Digest of the Law?—Yes.
You were placed in the situation you now hold, as a testimony of respect for the service you had rendered the public?—I was so in formed.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
Do you recollect any person being mounted on the statue that night?—There were three persons mounted on the statue; I was called at about two o'clock in the morning, and they were not able to remove them till about six.
Do you recollect who any of those persons were?—Henry Handwich was one of the persons.
Mr.
Pascal Paoli
By Col.
Barry.
Do you recollect being examined by any persons, as to the transactions that took place at the theatre on the 14th of December?—I do.
Where?—In a room in Dublin Castle.
Do you know who the persons were?—The attorney-general for Ireland examined me. There were other gentlemen present, whose names I do not immediately recollect; there was a Mr. Carmichael present.
Was any oath administered to you?—There was; major Sirr administered the oath.
After the oath was administered, what became of major Sirr?—He left the room.
And you were left in the room with the attorney-general, and some other gentlemen?—Yes.
Do you know who Mr. Carmichael is?—I believe he is either the solicitor or the clerk of the Crown.
Will you state what happened on your examination?—I was asked by the attorney-general, if I had been at the theatre on the night on which the row had been stated to have taken place; I said I was not. I was afterwards asked, if I had any thing to do with the circulation of tickets, or with subscribing to the purchase of tickets for the admission of persons for that purpose; I said I had not. I was asked if I had any thing to do with the throwing the bottle or rattle, of if I had coun-
482
Were your depositions taken down in writing?—I suppose they were—a Mr. Carmichael was writing at the time I was speaking.
Were you then dismissed for the time?—After other questions, I was.
Was there anything further particular passed?—Yes; I was asked, if I had heard any conversations upon the subject. I was confused, of course, at the moment, being sent for in a hurry, having no apprehension of anything of the kind; and I said, that I had heard many conversations, as any citizen or person in my walk in life might have heard. I was asked what the conversations I had heard were; I said I had heard various conversations. I was then asked whether I had heard any thing respecting the lord mayor of Dublin; I said I had heard conversations respecting him. What were they? that he had made himself unpopular; in what respect? In not allowing the statue of king William, in College Green, to be dressed according to the old custom of the country.
Were those depositions that were taken down ever afterwards shown to you, in order to be sworn?—They were not.
Were any depositions ever shown to you in the police-office, for you to swear to?—There were.
Did you swear to them?—I did not
Why did you not?—Because I did not conceive that they agreed, or bore the slightest resemblance to the original inquiry made of me.
You conceived them to differ essentially?—I did materially.
And you declined signing them?—I did.
Did you give that reason at that time?—Yes, to alderman Darley.
Do you know who was present when you were examined in the room at the castle?—I cannot take upon me to recollect the names, time has affected my memory sufficiently not to recollect; I was greatly confused at the moment.
By Mr.
Goulburn.
Did you know the attorney-general before?—I did.
Did you know the solicitor-general?—Mr. Joy, I did.
Was he present?—I think he was, I cannot say positively.
483
Was Mr. Townsend present?—I am not positive. There were many present, but for me to say positively who they were, would be taking too much responsibility upon myself. What number were present?—There were four or five, or six or seven present, I cannot take upon me to say how many.
Do you recollect any body being present but alderman Darley, at the time you refused to swear to the depositions?—There was.
Who?—Mr. Pemberton.
Were you much confused at the time of this examination at the castle?—Yes, I was.
Did that have any effect upon the answers you gave?—No, I do not think it had any, for I paused sufficiently.
Did it, or not, affect the answers you gave?—I think it might, in some respect.
By Mr.
Jones.
And yet you cannot state the names of any person present, except the attorney-general and Mr. Carmichael?—I cannot speak to their names.
How many persons were there?—I suppose five or six.
What is the reason you cannot name others?—Because I had my face to the attorney-general.
How is it, that, though you cannot name the persons who were present, you have so distinct a recollection of what passed?—Because those questions agitated myself; because I felt hurt that such ideas should be harboured of me.
Did you make a memorandum immediately afterwards, of the questions put to you, and the answers you had given?—No, but I repeated immediately to Mr. Alderman Darley, and to Mr. Williams of the bank of Ireland, what had occurred.
Did you make any memorandum immediately afterwards, of the questions put to you, and your answers?—Afterwards, not immediately.
How soon afterwards?—Two or three months.
Have you got that memorandum with you?—I have not in my pocket.
You have it in town with you?—I have
You will take upon you to say, that the precise questions, or tantamount to those you have stated, were put to you, and the answers you have given were given by you?—Yes.
Can you bring that paper with you at a subsequent time?—I can.
Do you recollect the difference between the deposition read over to you, and your actual deposition?—It began, "the deponent saith, he knows no more about it than a man walking through the world."
Had you used those words?—Not those actual words; I had said what I did actually relates "that I knew no more of it than any citizen of the world in the walk of life I was in."
484
There was no essential, difference?—No, not essential, perhaps.
What essential difference did you find between the deposition you had made, and the copy which was shown to you?—On looking at the head of the paper it was proposed to me to swear to, I saw so great an alteration, that I said, "Mr. Alderman, this differs so much from my deposition, that I cannot take upon me to sign my name to it."
Do you remember any other differences?—No; I just looked at the commencement, and seeing those words, I refused to go any further.
You had said, that "you knew no more than a citizen of the world in your walk of life;" and they had written it "that you knew no more than a man walking through the world?"—Walking through the world maybe a figurative expression, but I had not used the word.
Did you read the other part of the deposition?—I looked through the deposition, but cannot recollect it.
Did you find any essential difference in any other part?—To the best of my knowledge, I did.
There was a material difference?—Yes, to the best of my recollection.
By Mr.
Plunkett.
Were the other differences as essential as that?—Yes, I believe they were; but I cannot take upon me to say that they were, for I laid it down directly.
Mr.
William Ribton Ward
By Colonel
Barry.
Are you the confidential man of business of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I am.
Do you recollect the sheriff receiving a letter, by direction of the attorney-general, respecting the impanelling of the juries?—I recollect the sheriff called upon me, and showed me a letter signed Thomas and William Kemmis, which stated, that it was written by direction of the attorney-general.
Do you recollect what passed between you and the sheriff upon that occasion?—I told the sheriff, that as I was unacquainted with; city business, I was incompetent to give him any advice upon the subject, but recommended him to consult with the sub-sheriff, and if they could not agree, to be advised by counsel; at the same time I stated, that were I in his situation, if it was my right to return the panel, I would stand by my right that I would return a fair and impartial panel; that he was an office appointed between the king
485
Do you recollect the day on which the January commission grand jury ignored the bills of indictment, against the persons charged with the riot at the theatre?—I do.
Were you in the Town-Clerk's office on that day?—I was.
Was sheriff Thorpe in the office?—Not when I went in.
Did he go in afterwards, before you left it?—He did.
Did he leave the office before you left it?—He did a long time.
Were any other persons in the office at the time that sheriff Thorpe and you were together in the office?—There were several. There was a Mr. O'Reilly, a Mr. John Chagneau, a Mr. Francis Lodge, a Mr. William Hall.
Was there a Mr. M'Namara there?—I do not recollect to have seen Mr. M'Namara there.
Did sheriff Thorpe address you, or any other person in your hearing, saying there would be no bills found, and that he had managed it well?—I did not hear sheriff Thorpe make use of those expressions. He certainly made use of no such expressions at the time.
Was he near you during the whole time he was in the office?—I think he only came in and passed by me, and went out again.
You are positive he made use of no such words to you, or to any other person in your hearing?—I am positive of it.
Could he have made use of such words, and you not have heard them?—I think not. He passed near me in coming in, and passed by me in going back again.
For what object did he go into the office?—I think he left his sword there, but I have only an indistinct recollection of the fact.
He left nothing else there?—Not to my recollection.
Did he come in with his round hat on, or his dress hat as sheriff?—I rather think he had a cocked hat on.
Did he leave his cocked hat?—I think he did not.
Did he open his mouth, and say any thing?—He did.
What did he say?—He put his hand to his mouth and said, "Mum, is Milliken here?"
Did he make any other observation?—None but that.
What did you conceive him to mean by that?—I am rather inclined td think, I put a question to him, I think it was either "have the jury returned the bills," or "can you get me examined by the jury, for I do not wish to stay;" one of those questions I think I put, and he put his hand upon his mouth and said "mum, is Milliken here," or "Milliken mum," it is the oddity of the expression that made me recollect it.
Do you know whom he meant by Milliken?—The bookseller in Grafton-street.
486
Was not Mr. Milliken the person who had charged the sheriff with making use of some improper expression in the theatre on the night of the riot?—I have heard so.
Mr. Thorpe denied the expressions in the paper, did not he?—Yes.
And Mr. Milliken made an affidavit?—Yes.
Then Mr. Sheriff Thorpe thought Mr. Milliken was a person it would not be safe to use an expression before, that he did not wish to be reported?—I think that he would.
You think, when he said, "mum, is Milliken here," he would not like to speak very freely, unless he knew whether there was art enemy present?—I did not take the words in that meaning, what was conveyed to my mind was, that he meant it as a cant or wit, it was a cant word used in Dublin after that affidavit, when a question was asked, "mum, is Milliken here."
Do you know where sheriff Thorpe came from?—I do not; but I suppose he came out of the court.
Did you suppose he had been with the grand jury?—No, I cannot suppose that, for the jury room was locked.
Why did you ask Mr. Sheriff Thorpe whether the bills would be soon returned?—I did not ask him any such question; I asked him whether the bills were returned.
You do not know where he came from?—No.
Had he any conversation at all about the bills?—No, not that I recollect; I do not think the sheriff said any thing but that I have stated. Are you quite sure the sheriff did not say anything about the grand jury, or about the bills?—I am perfectly satisfied he did not, in my hearing.
Could he have said anything without your hearing?—Indeed I think I might say positively, that he could not; for I must have heard it, if he said it.
Do you now say, be could not have used any expressions, with respect to the grand jury or the bills, without your hearing it?—Indeed I do say positively, that he could not have used any expressions with respect, to the grand jury or the bills, without my hearing them.
Will you take upon yourself to say, Mr. M'Namara was not in the office at the time?—Positively I will not.
Do you know Mr. O'Reilly?—Yes; We have been long concerned, on opposite sides, in an equity suit.
Had you any conversation in Mr. Henn's office, since Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. M'Namara were examined here?—I have.
Was Mr. Corcoran present at any conversation you had?—He was.
Did you make any observation to Mr. Henn, the master, relative to what was alleged, to have passed?—Yes, Mr. Bourchier wanted me to go into a reference on Mr. Hudson's' cause. I told him that I expected to be summoned to parliament, and could not go into a reference until I returned.
487
Did you say anything with respect to the conversation that had passed in the office on the day of ignoring of the bills?—Yes; I said, in consequence of what I had seen in the paper, I expected to be summoned to parliament.
Did you say anything in respect of the expressions the sheriff had then used?—No;I gave some indication that what had been stated here was not truth.
Did you positively say, that the conversation had not passed?—I did.
Was Mr. Corcoran near you?—He was very near.
Mr. Plunkett here stated, that Mr. M'Namara and Mr. O'Reilly were desirous of being confronted with this witness.
[Mr.
Dillon M'Namara
By Mr.
Plunkett.
State, as nearly as you recollect, what it was?—Mr. Sheriff Thorpe came into the office, and stated to some gentleman near the fire-place (who that gentleman was, I could not possibly have known, but from what I have heard from Mr. O'Reilly, he has refreshed my memory upon that subject, of the gentleman that he expressed it to), he told him there were no bills. Being asked whether the bills had come down; he said, no; but that he might make his mind perfectly easy upon the subject, or something to that effect.
Do you believe the gentleman to whom he expressed that, was Mr. Ward?—I believe it was. I saw Mr. Ward in the office that day.
Have you any doubt of the expressions being used?—None whatever.
You have stated, that he used some such expression as "have not I done it well?"—I have.
Are you quite positive that an expression of that kind was used by him?—I am.
How long do you suppose sheriff Thorpe was in the office, from the time he came in until he left it?—I should say from three to five minutes. I left it almost immediately, and went into the adjoining room; he might have remained a longer time.
Have you any means of knowing, that Mr. Ward was the person the sheriff addressed, except by since hearing?—No.
As you say you are not certain whether Mr. Ward was in the office at the time the sheriff made use of this language, what reason have you for supposing that Mr. Ward was the person that the sheriff had addressed more than any
488
Did Mr. O'Reilly say that to you, before either of you were examined here?—He did.
Do you know a person of the name of Hall, an attorney?—I know there is such a person; I have very little acquaintance with him.
Did you have any conversation with him upon this subject?—Never. No conversation on earth on this, and very little on any other subject.
Do you recollect the words, "mum, is Milliken here," by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—No, I do not.
Have you listened attentively to the evidence of Mr. Ward, as read by the short-hand writer?—I have.
Are you clear, that the evidence of Mr. Ward and your own, relate to the same occurrence?—I declare I cannot say, Mr. Ward may be quite correct in what he has stated; this conversation may have passed at another time when I was not there; I will not undertake to say that it is not correct.
You will not undertake to say that it relates to the same occurrence?—I cannot.
Was Mr. O'Reilly in the office the time the sheriff was there, and said that you have stated?—Yes.
Did you leave the office soon after?—Yes.
You were in the sheriff's office together, and travelled together?—Yes; it was not on that business I went there; I was in no way interested in the transaction at all.
For what purpose did you go there?—I went on a bill which was preferred against Mr. O'Meara, and I was to have been professionally concerned for a person prosecuted with him.
Mr. O'Reilly told you, positively, that the gentleman, to whom the sheriff addressed his conversation, was Mr. Ward?—He did.
Was there any other person present, except the person whom you consider as Mr. Ward?—There were six or eight persons in the office at the time.
Were you in the office till Mr. Sheriff Thorpe left it?—I rather think not.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe pull off his sword or his hat?—I do not know.
Can you say he did not pull off his hat?—I cannot.
Mr.
Terence O'Reilly
By Mr.
Plunkett.
Will you state whether you have a distinct recollection of any expressions used by sheriff Thorpe upon that occasion, and to whom?—Mr. Sheriff Thorpe came into the office of the clerk of the Crown, and stated that there would be no bills found; and had not he managed the business well, and he then changed his dress and went out.
489
To whom did he address that conversation?—I conceive he addressed it to this gentleman (Mr. Ward).
Who spoke first, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, or that gentleman?—I am disposed to think the sheriff spoke first; probably the sheriff asked him, "How do you do, Charley;" I know he addressed him by the name of Charley.
How long did you stay in the office?—I was there from an early hour in the morning until after the attorney-general quitted the court.
Did Mr. M'Namara quit the office before you?—We quitted the office together.
How long was the sheriff in the office?—Probably about fifteen or twenty minutes.
Did you and Mr. M'Namara remain in the office after Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had put on his great coat?—We did, near an hour.
Whereabouts did Mr. M'Namara stand while he put on his great coat?—I cannot be positive whether he stood at the same spot during the whole time; but at the time the words were used, I have a positive recollection that it was at the passage; there might be a bar across here, and he was standing just there.
Was the great coat put on there?—It was not a great coat, it was a surtout.
What did the sheriff do with his sword and hat?—As to his hat, I am not quite positive; but I think he put it in a place under the desk.
Mr. M'Namara must have been in the room during the whole time this was going on?—I think he was.
Did you see him go out?—He was going in and out from that into the court, across the passage, and into the interior office, belonging to die clerk of the Crown; which of the places he was in at the particular time I cannot say.
Were you near Mr. M'Namara at that time?—He was in the office, but I was as far from him as to that table.
Was he there during the time?—I am not quite positive; I think he was.
Did Mr. M'Namara ever mention to you the name of Ward, in respect of this matter?—Never.
Did you mention the name to him?—I did. He said there were some persons present, and he did not recollect who they were; I said, Mr. Ward was the person present, and I knew him.
How long was sheriff Thorpe in the office?—A short time; I think not more than twenty minutes at the time this conversation took place.
Whereabouts in the office was Mr. M'Namara during those twenty minutes?—To the best of my recollection he was standing in the passage, between part of the office which divides where the clerks sit and the other.
During the remainder of the twenty minutes during which sheriff Thorpe remained in the room, did you hear him say anything else?—He might, but I do not recollect it.
How was he occupied?—He came out from
490
How was he occupied during the interval that elapsed after using those expressions?—In conversation with this gentleman.
Did he put on his surtout coat immediately on making use of those expressions?—No, not for some time.
Then it is possible that he might have made use of the expression "mum Milliken," and you not have heard it?—He might to Mr. Ward; upon that occasion he might.
Mr.
William Ribton Ward
By Col.
Barry
At what time of the day was it when you were in the office?—I think it was between two and three o'clock.
Mr.
Terence O'Reilly
You have heard the evidence of Mr. Ward; he states that the sheriff did not remain in the office more than about three minutes, and you have stated that the period he continued in the office was twenty minutes?—I said from fifteen to twenty minutes; I cannot be accurate as to the time. I speak to my recollection of the fact.
Sir
R. Shaw,
By Col.
Barry.
Do you know his character?—Yes; I understand he is a very respectable man.
A man who bears a respectable character?—Very much so, I know a partnership he was in, as one of the partners, which is a very respectable house.
Sir
A. B. King,
By Sir
J. Newport.
Do you know whether such a panel was put into the hands of Stoker your clerk?—I know nothing of the kind, nor do I believe it.
It is understood that you are grand master or deputy master of one of the Orange lodges?—I am a member of an Orange institution, and have been since 1797. I was deputy grand master of the Orangemen in Ireland, and I do feel proud, in this honourable House, to acknowledge that I was so, looking upon the Orangemen to be the saviours of the country.
You of course are well acquainted with all the rules of the institution?—I believe pretty generally so.
Are there any portions of scripture read to the Orangemen on their admission?—There are; and in order to put the House and this
491
Are there no portions of scripture read to the Orangemen upon their admission?—Nothing more than the handing them the book for their instruction, to know whether they subscribe to that, or wish to become a member.
Will you take upon yourself to say, that there are no portions of scripture read at the time of their admission?—Not further than I have stated before.
Are there any portions of scripture inserted in that book?—There are.
Do you recollect whether any portion of the book of Joshua is read to the Orangemen at the time of their admission?—That is part of the secrets of the Orange institution, which I cannot answer to; but I will say this, that there is nothing whatsoever in what the hon. member alludes to, in my opinion, that at all interferes with what is right. I mean to say, there is nothing that I know of. I really feel myself so puzzled, with respect to my feeling, as to developing and declaring anything that I am bound by an obligation to withhold, and a feeling of respect for this honourable committee, that I do trust I shall not be pressed to say that which might hereafter be considered as an evasion of my answer. I wish to give the fullest and fairest answer to any question that can be given to every inquiry; I have come here for the sole object of declaring every thing I know upon the subject; I wish to with hold nothing on earth.
Is the committee to understand, that you are under an obligation on oath, not to divulge what passes in those meetings?—To a certain I extent, I am under an obligation to hold secret the signs and words of the institution of the society. As I said before, there is every thing contained in this book, but the words and the signs that I am sworn to keep secret.
Is there not read to Orangemen, at the time of their admission, a verse of Joshua exhorting the Israelites to root out the Amalekites from the land, and exterminate them utterly?—No such thing that I recollect.
Is there anything read to the Orangemen respecting the Amalekites?—As I said before, that certainly goes to a part of my obligation.
Is there, or is there not, anything stated from the scripture to the Orangemen respecting the Amalekites?—Prior to their being sworn, certainly not.
At any time, either at their admission or afterwards?—As to what passes after they are sworn, I do conceive that I am not at liberty to divulge that. [The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Colonel Barry
put it to the committee, whether if a Freemason were at the bar
492
Sir J. Newport
would not press the question, if it were not material to show that portions of scripture were read, inculcating upon one set of men the fitness of rooting out another. [The witness was again called in.]
Sir John Newport
then read an opinion of the lord-chief-justice of Ireland, that if the oath of secrecy formed part of the obligation of an Orangeman, his duty would be not to keep but to break it, as, under it, the ends of justice might be frustrated.
Sir G. Hill
objected to the inference which the right hon. baronet wished to draw from the opinion of the chief-justice.
Sir J. Newport
contended that the oath ought not to stand in the way of a judicial inquiry. The House had greater powers than a court of justice; and if the oath could not there be set up as an excuse for silence, it could not be so used here.
Sir G. Hill
said, that nothing had yet been stated by the witness to warrant the conclusion that the text referred to was part of the ceremony of making an Orange-man.
Mr. D. Browne
thought the disclosure might be very dangerous to Ireland. He really thought the committee had no potter to demand such a disclosure. For himself, he belonged to a society, that of the Freemasons, which would no doubt be considered as a foolish society, but still no power in the country should make him divulge its secrets.
Sir J. Newport
said, he would not pry into the secrets of that foolish society, of which the hon. gentleman bad avowed himself a member, but he would persevere in the question be had put. If such oaths were to stand in the way of inquiry, there might thus be an end put to the due administration of justice.
Mr. K. Douglas
objected to the question being put, and considered the oath of, the Orangemen, as analogous to that of a grand jury, and of the Freemasons, neither of which were asked to be divulged.
Mr. R. Martin
was clearly of opinion that the question ought to be persevered in, and that the witness ought to be re-
493
Mr. Calcraft
thought this a very favourable opportunity for undeceiving the witness, and others similarly situated. The chairman ought to inform sir A. B. King, that the oath he had taken was no bar to a reply to the question.
Mr. Wynn
said, that the question was one of great difficulty, as the House had only the choice of inconveniences. He had already stated his decided opinion, that no man could be allowed to plead a voluntary oath as an excuse against answering the questions of any court of justice, much less of the House of Commons. If this were permitted, all inquisitorial power was at an end, since he who wished to resist it need only previously take an path of secresy as to the transactions respecting which he was to be examined. On the other hand, it was equally clear that the House was at liberty to exercise the fullest discretion, upon every question which it was proposed to ask of any witness at their bar. In a court of justice the parties had the right to put any question they chose. The judge had only to determine whether it was a legal one, and if it was he could not refuse to admit it. In that House the case was widely different. There the questions were those of the whole body, though proposed by an individual member: there could be no obligation upon any one to consent to a question being put which he conceived to be irrelevant, immaterial, or in any way inexpedient for the public interest. The real point in discussion therefore was, whether the question was or was not relevant and material to the inquiry; and nothing, that had passed had convinced him it was not. The inquiry related to the conduct of the sheriff, in returning what he is alleged himself to have designated an Orange jury for a political trial; and it could not therefore be denied that it was essential to ascertain what the obligations and principles of the Orange societies were. It made no difference, in his opinion, whether those principles were announced by an oath, or by a watch-word or symbol. Suppose a society formed with an oath the most innocent, expressive, only of general philanthropy, but that the watch-word communicated to the initiated were, "Ye shall bind your king in
494
Sir J Newport
wished the question to be put, because it had been said, that the lord-mayor elect of Dublin was an Orangeman, and it was most material to learn whether he had or had not been present at the reading of a passage, which recommended the rooting out of the Amalekites.
Colonel Barry
denied that it was distinctly in evidence that the sheriff elect was an Orangeman. Unquestionably, voluntary oaths not to disclose the truth ought to be laughed at; but the oaths of Freemasons and Orangemen he was inclined to think ought to be respected. The latter were a body recognized in the London Gazette as having presented a loyal address to the king, which was most graciously received. The pursuit of this mode of inquiry would place conciliation
495
Mr. Brougham
distinguished this oath from that of a grand juror sanctioned by ancient law. It was most absurd to set tip this private obligation as an obstacle to inquiry. He did not say that the oath was illegal: it was not necessary for him to go to that extent: it was sufficient that it was an oath unknown to and unauthorized by law. The committee would disgrace itself for ever if it did not insist upon an answer. If it neglected to do so, all that a man would have to do in future to defeat the purposes of justice would be to take an oath to some other individual to conceal the whole truth. The next step would be for a material witness merely to make a covenant with himself for the same purpose.
Mr. Wetherell
felt that it would be beneath the dignity of the House to expostulate with a witness; but perhaps it might be possible for the chairman to intimate to sir A. King the reasons upon which the committee held him bound to answer the question put to him.
[The witness was again called in.]
Chairman.—Sir Abraham Bradley King:
You have objected to answer a question which was asked you on the ground, that as a member of a certain society, you have taken an oath, which, in your opinion, made it improper that you should give that answer: the committee have taken the question into consideration, and are of opinion that no oath taken in any private society can be offered as a plea, in bar of any answer required by a judicial inquiry, and still less any inquiry before this House; they have therefore ordered me to direct you to answer the question.
By
J. Newport
496
Is there, or is there not anything stated, from the scriptures, to the Orangemen respecting the Amalekites?—I have no particular recollection of the words; but I must again say, with great respect, that there are words connected with the obligation I have taken, that I cannot, nor the universe could not, make me disclose.
By Mr.
R. Smith.
Do you conceive the obligation you have; mentioned prevents your answering, yes or no, to the question which was put to you?—I have stated already, that I do not recollect the precise words.
Is there anything respecting the Amalekites, stated to an Orangeman?—If the words, that I have sworn to keep secret, at all refer to that, I cannot answer the question.
You are asked, whether you conceive that the oath you have taken prevents your answering, yes or no, to that question; does it, in your conception?—Decidedly it does, if those make part of what I am sworn to conceal.
Do those words make part of what you; are sworn to conceal?—I have stated before that I do not recollect.
Then will you answer, or no, to the question which has been put to you?—I do not recollect.
Do you mean to state to the committee, that you do not recollect whether the word Amalekites, is stated to an Orangeman, in the way which the question implies?—I rather think not.
Will you take upon yourself positively to say, that it is not so?—I cannot recollect; but if I am compelled to give an answer upon my belief, I rather think not.
Will you take upon yourself positively to say that they are not?—Certainly I will not.
How long were you deputy grand master of the Orangemen of Ireland?—Some years.
Was it a part of your duty, as deputy grand master, to be present at the ceremonies which passed on the admission of Orangemen, or after their admission?—Sometimes it was; sometimes I might be present, at other, times I might not.
In point of fact, have you been frequently present—I have frequently seen Orangemen made.
Have you been frequently present at ceremonies which have passed after the admission of Orangemen?—Frequenly.before and after.
Are there certain stated and fixed ceremo-
497
Do you mean to say, that you have not a distant recollection of what those ceremonies are?—I do.
How long is it that you have ceased to be deputy grand master?—I think it is nearly three years; better than two.
You again say, that you cannot take upon yourself to recollect, whether anything is communicated to Orangemen, either before their admission or after, about the Amalekites?—I cannot take upon me to say that there is.
How long is it since you were present at the administration of any of those ceremonies to Orangemen?—Certainly not for the last three years, I think.
By Sir
G. Hill.
Does the obligation of an Orangeman authorise him to withhold evidence, as to any crime inquired into by a court of justice, or with respect to property, the subject matter of discussion in a court of justice, before a judge and a jury?—Certainly not.
Is it more the obligation of an Orangeman to maintain and support the law, and give effect to justice, than to withhold evidence, where it may be necessary to the elucidation of justice and truth?—We give the fullest and fairest testimony that is possible; every Orangeman is bound to do so; with the exception, as I said before, of divulging the words and signs that he is sworn to keep secret; and nothing else; and that is only that we shall be known to each other; and has no reference whatever, to anything whatsoever, more than that we shall make ourselves known in time of need and necessity.
Is it any part of the obligation of an Orangeman, not to assist all classes of his majesty's subjects, as well those that are not Orangemen as those that are, in preserving them in the full possession of their rights, and doing them justice in any court where they may be called' as witnesses?—There is nothing in the Obligation to that effect; but there is in the declaration; and for that purpose I brought the book here, and tendered it to the committee for their further information.
Does the declaration contain all the rules and regulations of Orangemen?—It does. The oath is there also.
By Mr.
Brougham.
How long has that oath been used in Orange societies?—I think I took it in 1797.
Has it never been altered since 1797?—Yes;
498
Do you mean to say, there never was at any time, an oath, binding the members of an, Orange club, not to give evidence against a brother?—Never, that I know of.
Not to give evidence, with the exception of treason and murder, and those left to their discretion?—Never, that I recollect.
You say, you are not bound to conceal anything, except the signs and the words?—Exactly so.
Do you include in the words, certain things that may be communicated to you upon your admission?—Certainly.
The oath binds you to conceal that which, is communicated to you upon your admission?—Certainly; like the Friendly Brothers, and the Freemasons, and any other society.
Suppose a question should arise, in a court of justice, which should lead to this interrogatory being put, "What were the words communicated to you upon your admission into such a lodge," before a judge and a jury?—I should not answer that.
You, before that question had been put to you having taken an oath in the court, formally administered to you, swearing before Almighty God, and upon the gospels, to tell the truth, and the whole truth, how should you, after taking that oath, without any qualification or reservation, conceal any answer to the question put?—I do not think that that oath absolves me of the former one.
Mr. Brougham.
—I would advise you as a friend, not to act upon that persuasion in a court of justice.
By Mr. J.
Williams.
And that in many instances?—Several.
As many as twenty?—Oh, I dare say I might say more, considerably more.
Forty or fifty?—I cannot exactly say the number, but to a great many.
Is the committee to understand you to say, that you have no recollection, having been present that number of times, as to whether there is the phrase of Amalekites in the oath?—Certainly not.
In what is communicated after the oath?—I have no recollection that there is any such phrase.
Do you mean to be doubtful whether there is such a one, or not?—I will not take upon myself to say positively; but if I am to give my belief, I am rather inclined to believe there is not.
Do you recollect from what parts of Scripture those passages are taken?—I must again decline to answer that question; that is part of the question that, with great respect, I must decline answering; and I do trust the com-
499
Have you any doubt that amongst those words, there are quotations from scriputure?—certainly there are.
Do you object to state, if you remember them, from what part of scripture those quotations are?—That, I conceive, comes to the point that I before stated that I feel I cannot answer.
The committee is to understand, that you object to stating from what part of Scripture the quotations are?—The reason I feel myself obliged to object to answering that question is, that it might lead, if I told the part of Scripture, to a knowledge of what those words were, which I am bound to keep secret.
Chairman
Chairman.—The oath you have taken is a voluntary oath; it is not an oath acknowledged, or which can be acknowledged, as valid in any court of justice; if you were at this moment questioned in a court of justice, as a witness, you would then be put upon oath to answer the questions which were asked you; and you cannot possibly hesitate to be convinced, that a private oath you have voluntarily taken, could not possibly interfere with the oath you will solemnly take in a court of justice: now the authority of this House, though you are not on oath, is considered as of greater authority, and of higher importance, than that of a court of justice, and, under these circumstances, if you will consider for a moment, you must have sufficient understanding and reflection to see, that the questions put must be answered—I am quite aware of the responsible situation in which I am placed; I feel every respect, and I know the situation in which I am at this House possesses, but that of stepping between me and God and my conscience: I cannot help the consequences falling upon my head sever as they may be cannot give up my conscience.
By Mr.
Brougham.
500
Mr. Butterworth
rose to submit, that the learned gentleman was out of order He was stating the opinion of the committee, which had not been declared. It had not yet been decided in what way the scruples of the witness were to be treated [The witness was directed to withdraw].
Mr. Brougham
expressed his regret that the question had been asked which brought the committee to this issue, before other questions had been put on subjects essential to the inquiry But now they were on the issue, there was but one way out of it, and that was through it. He had never in his life heard anything with more surprise and indignation than that which had fallen from the hon. member for Dover, whose conscientious regard for the obligation of an oath—[loud cries of "order," which drowned Mr. Brougham's voice].
Mr. Butterworth
said, he had interfered because he thought the learned member was not authorised in slating that his question spoke the opinion of all present. He would not pretend to say whether his mind was as enlightened as that of the learned member, but he would say that he had as good a conscience.
Mr. Brougham
contended, that he had a right to attribute to the question the authority of the committee as it had even been carried by vote, that notwithstanding the voluntary oath, an answer should be given. He went on to say that he knew of none but legal oaths, and animadverted upon the consequences of allowing the gross, fatal, and most perilous mistake to go abroad, that any other oaths could be protected by the House, and that a regard for the scruples of a tender conscience should be pleaded in support of a mere fanciful pretence to evade testimony, and to give to the mere farce and mockery of solemn and legal oaths. He attributed to the hon. member no blame but that of misjudgment.
Mr. Butterworth
said he had no intention to support any system of secret oaths on the contrary, he thought they ought not to be permitted. He had only
501
Sir J. Newport
insisted, that the sense of the committee had been taken upon the point.
Mr. Canning
said, that the learned member was justified in one sense in what he had stated. The opinion of the committee had been taken that the question must be answered; but not upon the identical question to which the learned member had applied himself. The question; as to which the committee had decided was substantially the same with that pressed by the learned member; but as it was not identically the same, the hon. member for. Dover was entitled to speak to order. As to the merits of the point in discussion, he thought that the committee had a right to demand an answer to its question. In saying this, he took a distinction between the private oath now to be overcome and the legal oath of a grand juror, as to which a question had been raised upon a former evening. His opinion upon the legal oath decidedly was, that even if the House could, it ought not to overrule it; but with respect to the present oath, which was illegal, no doubt, he thought, could be entertained. At the same time, he was bound to suggest to the committee, that although there could be no question of right in the case, yet there might be a question of discretion. He had voted, originally against the going into the committee, because he had foreseen considerable difficulty attaching to the inquiry, not the smallest point by any means of that difficulty being the probability of giving a triumph in the end to one of two conflicting parties: but now there arose a difficulty which he really had not foreseen, for the House was in danger, not of merely giving a triumph, but of making; martyr. A certain, quantity of false reputation, was sure to attach to every man who suffered what might be called a severe calamity; and witness at the bar was certainly not of that party to which he could be disposed to afford countenance under all the circumstances he doubted whether it might not be advisable to allow sir A. King to escape out of the difficulty into
502
Colonel Barry
observed, that the witness had already answered the question, by saying that he did not recollect.
Mr. Plunkett
said, that the difficulty in which the witness was placed arose from his thinking it necessary to answer "Yes," or "No." Now, if the question were so shaped as to put it to the witness whether he recollected from what part of Scripture the words alluded to were taken, he would predict that he would answer, he did not recollect.
Sir J. Newport
observed, that the simple question for the committee to decide was, whether the House were prepared to abandon their inquisitorial functions, and to proclaim impunity to all those who having taken illegal of secrecy, refused to answer questions put to them at the bar of the House? Let the committee recollect how persons of less rank than the individual who had been under examination would be treated in a court of justice if they so conducted themselves. And, was it rights that any man should dare to withstand the superior authority of Parliament?
Mr. Secrety Peel
had he doubt of the right of the House to enforce an answer to the question, but it was a. matter of discretion; and he entreated the to consider that there was on the table, a bill to put an end to secret societies altogether. If the witness believed that the question related to the signs and symbols by which the members of the Orange societies were known to one another, it seemed unnecessary to press him to answer.
Mr. Butterworth
thought it advisable not to press the matter.
Mr. Grattan
said, the witness had distinctly refuted to answer and the committee, it seemed, were now to debate whether he should or should not have an Opportunity afforded him of escaping from any of the consequences of his refusal. It would be of infinite mischief, if the deputy grand master of the Orange lodges were allowed to go back to Ireland and say that the House had compromised with him.
Mr. Scarlett
thought it was clearly unnecessary to go into the question of the
503
Mr. Secretary Canning
allowed that the House had a perfect right to enforce the answers of witnesses at their bar. He allowed also, that in a court of justice the judge was bound to commit a witness who refused to answer. He by no means wished to estimate the authority of the House at a lower rate than that of a court of justice; but it ought to be recollected, that while they exercised the same authority, they possessed a discretion which a court of justice was not warranted in acting upon. If, however, any member persisted in committing the witness, he would not negative such a vote.
Mr. Plunkett
admitted that such oaths were already illegal, and that the witness was not justified in refusing to answer the question which had been put to him. But they must all desire if possible not to push the matter to an extremity. All that he wished was, to give the witness the opportunity of making a satisfactory answer. Let him be brought back to the bar, and asked if he recollected from what part of Scripture the tests were taken to which he had alluded.
504
Mr. J. Smith
asked, if the House did not insist upon an answer on the present occasion, what would become of their authority oh any future occasion, when a witness before them might refuse to answer a question, by saying that he had taken an oath which precluded him from doing so? They could not in justice visit the delinquent in such a case with punishment, if they allowed the present witness to escape with impunity. He should be very sorry to create any disturbance in Ireland, but he would rather do that than abandon the ancient, acknowledged, and useful privileges of that House.
Mr. Brougham
thought it better to ask the witness again. As the case stood at present, it would go forth to the world, that being asked "whether he refused to answer yes or no," his reply was "distinctly so." He feared that the observation of the right hon. gentleman was very right, as to the injurious effect of giving the witness the merit of martyrdom. What he wished was to give the witness an opportunity of showing his repentance. If, however, the committee were driven to a decisive measure, he should not apprehend so much evil from allowing the witness a crown of martyrdom, as he should from conferring on him the laurel of victory.
Mr. K. Douglas
thought the difficulty might be removed by asking the witness, whether his hesitation arose from his wish not to disclose the signs and symbols of the Orange societies.
Sir J. Newport
begged to say, before the witness was again called in, that he decidedly objected to any other question than this:—Whether, on consideration, he adhered to the answer which he had given? To ask him any other question would be to put an end to the authority and dignity of the House. He believed those hon. gentlemen who thought the peace of Ireland would be best consulted by not pressing this matter were much mistaken.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, it ought not to be forgotten, that their proceedings on this question would go forth to the world and be criticised. What if it should turn out, that in the whole book of Joshua the Amalekites were not mentioned?
Mr. Butterworth
said, he had been above stairs to refer, and he had been unable to find the Amalekites mentioned in the book of Joshua [a laugh].
505
Sir. J. Newport
referred the hon. gentleman to the 10th chapter of Joshua, the 19th verse, in which the Israelites were exhorted to root out the Amalekites.
Mr. Butterworth
replied, that he would go up stairs again, and examine the passage pointed out to him by the right hon. baronet.
Sir J. Newport
repeated, that the only matter for the committee to decide upon was, whether they would allow a witness to refuse to answer a question, on the ground that, by the Obligation of an oath, he was precluded from doing so?
Mr. Butterworth
returned, and said that he had examined the 10th of Joshua, the 19th verse, and found no such passage as that quoted by the hon. baronet [Read, read!]. The verse was as follows:—"And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities; for the Lord your God hath delivered them into your hand."
[The witness was again called in.]
Chairman.—Sir Abraham Bradley King: I am now to ask you, whether, after the time you have had for reflecting upon the question which was asked you, you are now willing to answer the question; do you object to state, if you remember them, from what part of Scripture those quotations are?—I do; but I do think it would not be dealing with that candour which I. think every person placed at this bar is bound to pay to this House, to tell every thing he knows according to the questions asked, if I did not say, that I might generally refer you to the part of Scripture, but in doing that, I know that it would subject me to be followed up by other questions, which would come in the end perhaps to the same thing.
Chairman.—It will be quite time enough to object to any question which is objectionable, when that question is asked?—I will only say, that in the part of Scripture alluded to, there is nothing whatsoever contained, more than the signs and words by which Orangemen know each other, and that is to be found in the Old Testament.
By Mr.
Peel.
Exclusively for that purpose?—Exclusively for that purpose, and for no other.
Is there expressly, or by implication, an obligation on any members of the association, who make a reference to the Scripture in that way, to observe any maxim contained in that text of Scripture?—Not at all, there is nothing that I can recollect at this moment.
506
In the book you have delivered in it appears that what is called the obligation of the purplemen, is in these terms "I do solemnly and voluntarily swear, that I will keep the signs, words, and tokens of a purpleman, from an Orangeman, as well as from the ignorant; unless authorized to communicate them by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution" have the words, which are, referred to, any other force than the signs or tokens?—None
Mr. Peel
said, it now appeared, that the words in question were used solely;, as signs by which Orangemen knew each other, and were not at all relevant to the inquiry before them. He wished that the witness's answers might be clearly understood; because, although he would be most strenuous in supporting the right of the House to commit, yet it was a discretionary right. He would never vote that the a witness should be committed for not answering a question not necessary for the purpose of the inquiry; and as this related only to signs and tokens, it could not be necessary.
Mr. Wetherell
was of the same opinion. He could not consent to send a man to Newgate for not answering irrelevant questions; questions, which the very order of reference to the committee excluded.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the objections to the relevancy of the question, to whatever right they might be entitled in; any, other respect, could not be applied now. They had not been discovered until the witness had refused to answer. So convinced was he of the importance of compelling the witness to answer, that he would take the sense of the committee, although he should stand alone in doing go.
Mr. J. Smith
observed, that the question had not been answered.
Mr. Peel
observed, that it was too late to proceed further in the inquiry that night. They had before confined them selves to twelve o'clock, and it was now near two.
Mr. Calcraft
thought, that the last answer of the witness was satisfactory, and had relieved the committee from the embarrassment which his refusal had placed them in. He therefore moved, that the chairman should report progress.
Mr. Brougham
seconded the motion, but with very different feelings. He trusted the committee would never again be placed in such a situation as that from which his hon. friend's motion was to extricate them. He could not, however,
507
Mr. Canning
concurred with Mr. Calcraft. He could not but think that a reference to the Old Testament was a very fit way of terminating an evening, in which much difficulty had arisen from misunderstanding a passage therein.
Mr. J. Smith,
looking upon the adjournment only as a means of screening the witness from the consequence of his refusal to answer the questions put to him, would take the sense of the committee upon it.
The committee then divided, on the motion for reporting progress: Ayes, 72. Noes, 19.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 26, 1823.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a Committee to inquire into the Conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the Chair,
Sir
Abraham Bradley King,
By Sir
J. Newport.
Did you take the oath under the old system?—I did.
Will you State Whether the oath under the old system was not in these words, "I do solemnly and sincerely swear, of my own free will and accord, that I will, to the utmost of my power, support and defend the present king George the third, his heirs and successors so long as he or they support the Protestant ascendancy, the constitutions and laws of these kingdoms; and that I will ever hold sacred the name of our glorious deliverer William the third, prince of Orange, and, I do further
508
In that oath it is stated that you would always conceal and never would reveal any or parts of what was then to he privately communicated; were these the secret articles so communicated, "that we will bear true allegiance to his majesty king George the third, his heirs and successors, so long as he or they support the Protestant ascendancy, and that we will faithfully support and maintain the lays and constitution of these kingdoms;" was that one of the articles?—No, not one of the secret articles; that was public.
Was that one of the articles that was Communicated to you?—That is oar public oath, inserted in our oath; it was part of the oath.
"That we will be true to all Orangemen m all just actions, neither wronging one nor seeing him wronged, to our knowledge, without acquainting him thereof;" was that any part of the engagement?—That was no part of the secret obligation.
Was it part of your obligation?—It is, in the printed declaration I handed in. to the committee, on my first examination.
Is it part of the articles, or part of the engagement you entered into?—It is part of the declaration of, the Orange society, it is no part of the secret article that the hon. baronet asked me upon.
Was that part of your engagement as an Orangeman?—Unquestionably, the whole declaration, is part of the engagement, it forms the engagement.
"We will be true to all Orangemen in, all just actions, neither wronging one not seeing him wronged, to our knowledge, acquainting him thereof;" did you enter into any such engagement?—I have stated that; it is part of the declaration of the Orange Institution, and of course it became part, no doubt; but it is no part of the secret, articles; I wish to give the fullest and, the fairest answer that I can, but I understood the right hon. baronet to
509
Have you entered into that engagement, aye or no?—Unquestionably.
"That we are not to see a brother offended for a sixpence or a shilling, or more if convenient, which must be returned the next meeting if possible?"—I have no recollection of anything of the kind.
"We must not give the first assault to any person whatever, that may bring a brother into trouble?—I have no recollection of that being part.
Can you say that it was not part?—I will not take upon me to swear, for I consider myself here now delivering testimony as on oath, and I will not take upon myself to say that it was not.
"we are not to carry away money, goods or from any person whatever, except arms and ammunition, and those only from an enemy;" did you enter into any such engagement?—Never, nor heard of it before.
Is that any part of what you handed in before?—Not at all.
"We are to appear in ten hours warning, or whatever time is required, if possible (provided it is not hurtful to ourselves or families, and that we are served with a lawful summons from the Master), otherwise we are fined as the company think proper?"—No such think that I ever heard of.
"No man can be made an Orangeman without the unanimous approbation of the body?"—There is he such rule that I know of an Orangeman cannot be made without being proposed into a lodge; or admitted into a lodge he must be unanimously admitted.
"An Orangeman is to keep a brother's secret and his own, unless in case of murder, treason and perjury, and that of his own free Will?"—I know of no such regulation.
Can you take upon yourself to say, there is no obligation of that kind entered into?—None that I know of.
No Roman Catholic can be admitted on any account?—Certainly not.
Do you recollect having printed gratuitously for distribution, any paper in the year 1820?—I do.
With the title of "Extracts from the Rules and Regulations for the use of Orange societies, revised, corrected and adopted by the grand Orange lodge of Ireland, assembled at Dublin, in January 1820?"—The word "extract" I believe is not mentioned in it; it is exactly what I delivered in at the bar of this House.
Do you recollect whether in the paper you have delivered in, there is a separate obligation stated for persons who are called Purplemen?—There is.
In the obligation of a Purpleman, it is stated that he does solemnly and voluntarily swear, that he will keep the words, signs, and tokens of a Purpleman from an Orangeman, as well as from the ignorant, unless authorized to communicate them by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution; is it not meant by that,
510
In what book, chapter, and verses of the Old Testament, are the passages to be found, which are read to an Orangeman?—
[The Witness was directed to withdraw;]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to this question. The committee had decided, by a majority of 72 to 19, that it was not desirable to press a question which the witness would refuse to answer, as being under the obligation of an oath not to disclose. The question now put was just leading to a similar discussion to that of Friday, and taking the House over the same ground. His opinion was, that the question ought not to be put; because he did not think it at all pertinent to the inquiry before the committee. Undoubtedly, if the question was shown to be necessary, it was one which the House had a right to put, and to enforce an answer; or to take those steps which, were usual on such occasions; but; if the committee should be of opinion that the question was not necessary, it ought hot to allow it to be put, and the less so, as it must lead to a result than which nothing could be less calculated to tranquillize Ireland. Nothing, in his opinion, could tend less to tranquillize that country than the sending the witness at the bar to Newgate. The right hon. baronet wished to know what were the secret signs and symbols of distinction between one particular denomination of Orangemen and another. But the right hon. baronet had not shown how the answer to that question, if it were answered, could bear upon the inquiry. If it was put for the purpose of tending to, suppress such societies, it was unnecessary; because there was a bill then in progress through the House by which all societies, having secret signs and symbols, and secret meetings, were to be declared illegal. It could not be necessary for showing what was the conduct of the grand jury or the sheriff, because there were other means by which the right hon. baronet could come at information on those points, which were really the only points to which the committee ought to direct its attention. It was for these reasons that he was anxious the House should decide now, that the question was one which ought not to be put.
Sir J. Newport
thought it was of the
511
512
Mr. Calcraft
said, be had not moved the adjournment on Friday with any view to get rid of the question put to the witness. Upon what grounds the House supported his motion he would not say, but his own was not, that any restriction should be put to questions which hon. members might deem relevant to the inquiry. As to the question now before the House, he did not see exactly how it bore upon the inquiry; but if his right hon. friend thought it important, he would not object to its being put, and he thought if put, that the House should teach the witness, that no voluntary obligations entered into before-hand could prevent their enforcing an answer.
Mr. Goulburn
said, he did not rise to
513
514
Mr. Abercromby
thought that, whether with reference to the character and dignity of that House, or to the present state of Ireland, the question now before it was one of the most pertinent that the wit of man could devise. Here was an inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff for partiality in selecting an Orange jury. That the sheriff must have been aware what the effect of a trial by such a jury; would be, was obvious; for he was proved to have said—"I have got an Orange; panel in my pocket." What was an Orangeman, and what were his principles, were the most natural questions in the: world to ask after this. And yet, the moment that question was asked, they were to be stopped and told that the question was not relevant! If this was not a question pertinent to the inquiry, he was at a loss to know what was. Would the House consent to allow an excuse for not answering, which would not be tolerated by any court of justice in the country? Would they, who were superior to all courts of justice, stop in their inquiry for the sake of truckling to Orangemen? Would they allow some of the heads of that party to go back m triumph to Dublin, after having set at defiance the rules and orders of that House? That this would be the case there was no doubt, if the House did hot enforce its orders. And by whom would these men be met in triumph on their arrival in Dublin? By those very men, for the payment of whose large, salaries the House had voted such considerable sums this session. If the House was to tolerate this, it was as well to let the Orangeman speak out. Let them say as they felt, "We will be good and loyal subjects, as long as you allow us to rule Ireland as we please," It was quite absurd to think of stopping in their inquiry, after having gone so far. It was worse than pusillanimous language to say, "we do not wish to give a triumph to any party." That House in the discharge of its important trust, ought not to consider which party might triumph, but which party
515
Mr. Pelham
said, that after what had taken place on Friday, the House, he thought, was precluded from granting the indulgence solicited.
Mr. Secretary Canning
wished to state, very shortly, what the grounds were upon which he meant to found the vote he should give. If he had no doubt in his own mind as to whether or not the power of the House should be exerted, if the question were repeated, to compel an answer to such question, and it were
516
517
Mr. Brougham
confessed he could much have wished that his right hon. friend, before he had entangled the House in the difficulty of a new question, had waited till the preceding question had been repeated; that question, which had already been proposed, and which after some dispute the House had resolved should be put to the witness, but which, in spite of their almost unanimous resolution, the witness still pertinaciously and contumaciously refused to answer. He said this, because, under submission, it did appear to him, that before they extended their inquiry to any other particular, it was absolutely necessary for the House—(if it wished to retain even the shadow of a power which hitherto it had always been thought to possess—the power of compelling answers to questions put from the chair)—that it should first have an answer to the question which had been put to this witness. But this was the only difference (a difference on the mere point of postponement) between his right hon. friend and himself. Of the question itself, as proposed by the right hon. baronet, there could scarcely be two opinions; and yet it had been adverted to as irrelevant and inexpedient. But, who could seriously doubt of the relevancy of that question? And it was now too late to ask whether or he it was expedient, for it had been put, and the
518
Colonel Barry
rose to order. The learned gentleman was really assuming too much. It had, indeed, been stated in one part of the evidence which had been given at the bar, that the sheriff had packed an Orange jury; but this assertion was in another part denied.
Mr. Brougham
resumed. He was quite sure that the right hon. gentleman, who had hitherto conducted this inquiry with great fairness as well as acuteness and ability, had suffered himself to depart from that course in the present instance; for surely he would see the absolute impossibility of arguing one part of a case, which must, of necessity, be interlocutory, if he (Mr. B.) was to be confined to that which could be strictly held as proved; because, as yet, there was no decision of the House upon the subject of the inquiry. He was not attempting to prejudice any party. He was not prejudging (God forbid that he should prejudge) the sheriff of Dublin. He was putting the case hypothetically only. He contended that there stood at that moment, upon the minutes of the House, certain evidence which went in one certain direction. Let it not be said that he was asserting, that the sheriff had actually, and of truth, packed this grand jury; but he did assert, that the House was in possession of evidence to show that the sheriff came into a certain room, and said, "I have a good Orange panel in my pocket." And this testimony he must be allowed to say was not contradicted; for, as to the attempt which had been made to refute it at the bar, it was really such a total failure as he had never before witnessed. [Cries of "Order, order."]
Mr. Plunkett
, in rising, as he felt compelled to do, to order, was really anxious only to recall his learned friend to the course of argument which he had been just before so ably and properly pursuing. For his learned friend to enter further into the merits of the defence, was in fact to anticipate the case which would be afterwards to be submitted to the House, on the result of the whole evidence.
519
Mr. Brougham
felt obliged to his learned friend for the suggestion, and could assure him, that he had been dragged most unwittingly into the statement he was making He knew, however, that the House was agreed with him upon this part of the evidence—that the sheriff was alleged to have said, and with tokens of satisfaction, "I have got an Orange panel in my pocket." Now, the committee were to pursue the inquiry, not as to whether the sheriff really said, "I have got an Orange panel in my pocket," but whether he did or did not pack this grand jury? But packing a grand jury might be the result of his having in his pocket an Orange panel, or it might not. The result of such a panel, again, in the sheriff's pocket, might have been the polluting of the very source of justice. It would depend on further evidence, to be adduced at the bar, what meaning they were to give, in short, to the words imputed to the sheriff. It would depend on that, whether that admission of which the sheriff was said to have bragged, "that he had this Orange panel about him," amounted to a declaration of his having polluted the sources of justice, or to any brag at all. For aught that he at present knew to the contrary, the result of the House's probing to the bottom the meaning of this Orange panel declaration, might be, that the sheriff would come out quite clear from the investigation; but, until the House had examined into this matter by more evidence, he must say, that they were totally unable to pursue the principal inquiry with any chance of being enabled to put a rational construction on the evidence adduced already. The question not yet answered had been declared on the other side of the House to be improper. And why? Because the sheriff was an Orangeman, The right hon. secretary for Ireland had observed, triumphing as much in his supposed victory over the right hon. baronet as the sheriff had exulted in the Orange panel in his pocket, that the question in relation to the Orange oath could not be a relevant one, because—and it was the oddest of all reasons—the sheriff himself was not an Orangeman. And then there was a cheer on the right hon. gentleman's side of the House. "You must first prove" said the right hon. gentleman, "that the sheriff is conversant with the signs, and symbols of the Orange association before you ask sir
520
ultima ratio
521
veni, vidi, vici.
522
Mr. Wynn
admitted, that great incon-
523
Sir J. Newport
expressed his acquiescence in this suggestion.
Colonel Barry
said, it would be fair to put the question to the witness at once in the way now suggested, rather than lead him on into any unnecessary predicament.
Sir J. Newport
said, he wished for the present to postpone the question.
Colonel Barry
objected to the postponement of the question.
Lord Milton
thought the right hon. colonel was going too fast when he objected to the course of proceeding which the right hon. baronet intended to pursue. In point of form, the question had not yet been put.
Mr. Croker
was of opinion, that any question which had not been put from the chair might be withdrawn.
Mr. Brougham
said, that if a question suggested by a member were put from the chair, it certainly could not be withdrawn, because it then became a motion; but, in the present case, the question had only been suggested by the right hon. baronet, and therefore he had a right to withdraw it if he pleased.
Colonel Barry
said, the committee must be aware that throughout the inquiry, questions had been permitted to be put by individuals, instead of being formally proposed through the chair. The question which the right hon. baronet wished to withdraw had been entered on the minutes, It could not be expunged without the consent of the committee.
Mr. Croker
suggested, as the only means of getting rid of the difficulty, that some honourable member should move that the question be now put.
Colonel Barry
Mr. Abercromby
thought the committee would be acting very arbitrarily if they declared that,
nolens volens,
Mr. Plunkett
said, he could not help thinking the motion just made a very extraordinary one. The argument of the
524
Colonel Barry
said, that if there were any absurdity in the motion he had proposed, he was not responsible for it. He had taken up the suggestion of the hon. secretary for the admiralty.
Mr. Wynn
objected to such a motion as nugatory, because, if it were determined that the question should not be now put, such a decision would be no bar to putting it half an hour hence, when the circumstances might be materially altered. It would be more regular to allow the hon. member to withdraw the question.
Mr. T. Wilson
contended, that the question could not be regularly withdrawn without the permission of the committee.
Sir J. Newport
said, he apprehended no hon. member had the right of calling upon him to put any particular question. Now, he did not choose to put this question at present, and nobody could compel him to put it. It was perfectly competent to him to examine the witness in his own manner, and it was for himself alone to determine hereafter, whether it might not be expedient to put this question.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that if his gallant friend persisted in his motion, he should certainly assist the right; hon. baronet in opposing it. He objected to any question being put for the purpose of extorting disclosures as to indifferent symbols or signs adopted by the Orange men; but if the right hon. bart. had been informed that there were any verses from Scripture relating to extermination read to the party taking the oath, he should not consider this an indifferent matter, and he should not therefore object to putting any question relative to such-passages.
[The witness was again called in and examined.]
By Sir
J. Newport.
Mr. Bankes
suggested that it would be
525
Mr. Brougham
said, it was material that the committee should pause a little, to consider in what position they now stood. The witness had on two occasions openly contemned the authority of the House. When he was called back the second time, and asked whether he would answer the question put by the committee, he told them distinctly that he would not. The question now at issue between the committee and the witness was, whether they or the witness should prevail? It was said that the question which he had twice contumaciously refused to answer had been answered; and, if this were so, then he (Mr. B.) would admit that the victory, such as it was, had been gained by the committee. But, what was the answer which had been at length obtained? The witness declared that no passages in Scripture were read, except with reference to the signs and symbols by which Orangemen might know each other; as if a thing could not be at once a sign, and a pledge; as if a watch-word might not be also a pledge, and a pledge so much the more fatal, as it would operate in the double capacity of a rallying cry and an obligation. How had the witness answered the question, whether he recollected the part of Scripture from which these verses were taken the object of the question was, to ascertain where the passage was to be found, and the answer of the witness was marvellously definite, precise, and explicit. The committee called upon the witness to point out the particular part of the Scriptures in which the passage was to be found, and the witness facetiously referred them to the Old Testament. The committee had ample space to expatiate in. The passage might be in Genesis or in Malachi; it might set forth that Abraham begat; Isaac, and Isaac, begat Jacob; or it might, be a passage recommending us to exterminate our enemies, root and branch, so that man, woman, nor suckling, might survive. The witness was called upon to point put a particular, part of the Scriptures, and he referred them to all the books of the Old Testament—Apocraphy, he supposed, and all. Was there ever a more degrading mockery of the dignity and privileges of that House? It was as gross a mockery, as if the witness had been asked "How many Orangeman are there?"
526
Sir J. Newport
then moved, that the following question be put by the chair man to the witness:—"In what book, chapter, and verses of the Old Testament are those passages to be found which are read to an Orangeman at his initiation?"
Mr. Bankes
objected to any thing which appeared like an unnecessary interference with a man's conscience.
Mr. J. Williams
contended, that the question was not merely relevant, but absolutely necessary to the further prosecution of the inquiry.
The committee divided: For putting the question 87; Against it 117.
Mr. Brougham
then addressed the House. He wished, he said, that he could comprehend the motives which had led hon. members to the decision which had just been anounced. He was afraid that the real ground on which many members objected to pressing the last question upon the witness, was a regard to the religious and conscientious-scruples which he professed to feel He was afraid that many gentlemen, from what they thought a laudable, but from, what he must ever deem a mistaken notion—from an error in judgment, and not from any deliberate wish to cherish secret associations and illegal oaths—had, by, their vote of that night, given their sanction to a practice which, if allowed to. continue, would cut up religion by the roots, and render the administering of, oaths in judicial proceedings perfectly nugatory. The oaths which the witness had taken were a mere mockery, and ought to have, no obligation; they were an irreligious, not a religious ceremony they were to be discountenanced, not countenanced, by every man who loved religion and respected law. Such was, his own deliberate opinion. Such, too, he would, venture to say, would be the opinion of every judge who should have occasion to deliver an opinion upon this most serious subject. He grieved that there should be any gentleman in that House who could not eradicate from
527
528
529
[The Witness was again called in, and examined]
By Sir J.
Newport
530
Are any words read to that effect?—None that I know of.
By Mr.
Brougham.
[The witness was ordered to withdraw.]
Mr. Bankes
objected to this question being put.
Mr. Brougham
said, that the present question was the natural result of a previous answer given by the witness himself. If such interruption was sanctioned, it was a mockery to proceed further in that more than mock inquiry. Every step they were taking only led to deeper humiliation. For his part, as he clearly saw the determination of the majority, he should not trouble himself or the committee by dividing.
Mr. Hutchinson
acquiesced in every observation of his learned friend. The king's ministers had much to answer for to Ireland and the empire, for the course they had taken that night. They had sacrificed the marquis Wellesley and the Irish government to the Orange association. They had allowed the inquiry to take the most comprehensive scope, until it actually arrived at that point on which it was of essential importance that the fullest information should be imparted. What an effect it must produce on the peace of Ireland, when the great body of its population were told, as the decision of that night would tell them, that their rights, the dignity of the House of Commons, and the principles of justice, were sacrificed to the Orange faction. After what had passed, it would be worse than useless to proceed further. He should, therefore, move, "That the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again that day six months."
Mr. Peel
said, he should not be betrayed by the invective which the hon. gentleman had put forth into a defence of government at an inappropriate time.
Mr. Hume
said, that if ministers persevered in refusing to press the witness, they treated the attorney-general for Ireland most unfairly; since that learned gentleman stood, upon his own admission, convicted of being in the wrong, unless he showed that the sheriff of Dublin had packed the jury. Government, by the course they were taking, were manifestly endeavouring to prevent the elucidation
531
Mr. S. Rice
deeply regretted the resolution of the House, which shut out from the inquiry the evidence which was necessary to bring it to a rational conclusion. At the same time, he thought that to close the investigation abruptly, would be unjust to the sheriff of Dublin, and disgraceful to the character of parliament.
Mr. Grattan
wished his hon. friend to withdraw his motion. Ministers were not acting handsomely; but, to put an end to the inquiry upon the sudden would produce great mischief in Ireland.
Mr. Peel
said, that if his right hon. friend had no more witnesses to call in defence of the sheriff, he would vote for the adjournment proposed. If the right hon. gentleman had farther witnesses to call, he would vote against that motion.
Colonel Barry
said, that if the House wished, at the present point, to put an end to the investigation, he should feel perfectly satisfied with the manner in which the sheriff of Dublin had come out of it; but, if any ulterior proceeding was meant to be founded upon the evidence which had been given, he should feel it his duty to call further witnesses.
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that the House could give no pledge as to an ulterior proceeding. As any member might move such a proceeding, no pledge could be of any value unless given with all the members of the House present. At that moment, even the hon. baronet who had moved for the inquiry was not in his place. He thought no one could suppose that the hon. member for Cork, by his motion, had meant to put an extinguisher upon the proceeding altogether.
The motion of adjournment was put and negatived.
[The witness was again called in and examined.]
Do you consider yourself bound by your oath to keep secret all that passes in the lodge?—No, I do not.
Are you bound by your oath to keep secret any part of what passes in the lodge?—Nothing: but what passes with respect to the making of an Orangeman, the signs and words.
With the exception of the words and signs, may every thing be revealed that passes in an Orange lodge?—I think so.
Is there any thing in the rules of the insti-
532
In what then consist the proceedings of lodges, besides the making of Orangemen, the signs, the tokens, and the symbols?—There is a variety of business to be done, it is impossible to say exactly what it is, a variety of business may or may not be before the lodge.
Can you mention, any part of the business, or the general nature of the business?—I declare, I cannot; the lodge is opened, as I mentioned before, according to the rules and regulations that are on the minutes, there is a form of prayer read at the opening the lodge, and at the closing the lodge; during the time the lodge is sitting it is according to the business that comes before them, what that business is, may consist of a variety of things, but I do not conceive there is any thing that a man attending in that lodge would be bound to keep secret, save and except the signs and words.
Is there any thing takes place in those lodge, hostile to any class of his majesty's subjects?—Certainly not; I never knew it, nor I do not believe it,
What office did you hold?—I was deputy grand master of the Orangemen of Ireland.
Is that an annual office?—It is an office that the person is elected to annually.
Is it an annual office?—It is an annual office, he may be displaced, the officers are elected annually, and he is one of them.
Do you at present hold that situation?—I do not.
Were you dismissed from the situation, or did you retire?—I retired.
Have you any objection to say why you retired?—I have not.
State then why you retired?—About three years ago, I think, there was a question occurred, the grand lodge were called upon that question, they were of opinion, with me that a certain act was not prudent or necessary to be done at that time; however it was done afterwards, and I did conceive that I ought not to be at the head of a society, that at that time disregarded the instructions that, they received from the grand lodge, and I retired.
What was that question?—It was relative to the dressing of the statue.
What were your sentiments upon that occasion?—I thought it imprudent to dress the statue at that time.
Was that at the time of the King's visit to Ireland?—It was prior to the king's visit.
Was it at the time when he was expected?—It was sometime before he came; it was just about the time of the king's coronation.
By Mr.
Butterworth.
Are there any political discussions take place in the lodges?—Unless that is called a political discussion; I do not know of any.
Is there any thing in the oath of an Orange-
533
Are you acquainted with sheriff Thorpe?—I am.
Is he an Orangeman?—Not to my knowledge.
Is there anything offensive to any class of his majesty's subjects passes in the Orange lodges?—Nothing that I know of; latterly the Roman catholics have taken offence at the Orangemen and their practices, latterly I have heard of it, but only very latterly; I know of nothing that passes in an Orange lodge that ought to give offence.
By Mr.
Hume.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Hume
insisted, that he had a right to ask the purport, though the decree of the committee had precluded the question as to the particular verse or chapter. What objection could any man have to state the general tendency of the passages, unless they were of a character which he wished to conceal? Might not their purport be to hang all the Roman Catholics? By a concealment of the fact, he had a right to presume that these suppressed passages did convey such an import. And on his conscience he believed they did.
Mr. H. Dawson
deprecated these attacks upon the character of such a large and respectable body of the Irish nation as the Orangemen. He never belonged to that association, but if the obligation of an oath were removed, he would become an Orangeman to-morrow. He admired them for their principles and their conduct, and he was convinced that to their exertions Great Britain would have to look for the preservation of Ireland to the empire. And yet it was the fashion of the day to visit with every term of reproach that body. He defied any man to say that there was in the evidence of sir A. B. King anything that did not reflect credit on his character, he was a man of character, and a conspicuous member of the Dublin corporation; but, because that corporation was Orange, epithets of disgrace were lavished on it by members on the other side of the House.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
complained of the
534
Sir J. Newport
said he would have passed over this discussion in silence, but, for what had fallen from an hon. gentleman vested with an official character; that hon. gent, had stated, that on the loyalty of the Orangemen the Mouse was to depend for the safety of Ireland. But the hon. gentleman did not stop there: he had gone into a defence of the corporation of Dublin. But did the hon. gentleman forget the report of the commissioners of accounts, charging that very corporation with gross malversation, and the report of the committee above stairs adopting the same view, and charging them with embezzlement to the amount of 30,000
l.
Mr. Peel
thought that the question pro posed had been in substance overruled already. He advised that it should be put generally, "Is there any tendency to hostility in the words used towards tiny other nation?"
Mr. Hume
said, that his object was, to ascertain the nature of these institutions. To screen the witness from answering the question was a denial of justice; and as ministers clearly made themselves parties in the case, he charged them with participation in a design to suppress the truth. There could be no hope of peace for. Ireland until Orangemen, as a body, should be destroyed—till faction should be rooted out of that unhappy land. He could not conceive what ministers would be at. All he could make of it was, that this, was part of the same spirit of compromise which they had so often had reason to complain. The secretary for Ireland had a bill upon the table to put down Orange associations as unlawful. The under secretary said, that but for the oath he would be an Orangeman. How were they to reconcile these different assertions? He was determined to take the sense of the House upon the question.
Mr. Grattan
said, that if the under secretary really held these opinions which he professed, he was not fit for his situation. It was clear from what had passed at the bar, that Orangeman ought to be put down.
The committee divided: For putting the question, 77. Against it, 131.
535
[The witness was again called in and examined.]
By Mr.
Hume.
Are you sure that there are not any such sentiments?—I am.
Are those passages of Scripture such as preach peace and good-will to men in general?—
[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Wetherell
objected to the question, as being put too generally.
Mr. Hume
thought it strange that the learned gentleman should allow a general question to be put with respect to hostility and object to its being put with respect to peace.
Mr. Scarlett
defended the propriety of putting the question.
Mr. Ellice
suggested to the right hon. secretary, that it would be more consistent with the manly and candid course which he had hitherto adopted, to postpone the further consideration of the question till this day six months. He would ask him whether he did not think that such a course would be more likely to promote the peace and happiness of Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought he might be allowed to express some surprise at the hon. member's coming down, after having Comfortably dined, and asking him whether he had not better follow a course which had already been twice decided against by the House. He would now, in his turn, ask, whether the questions which had been, put were not trifling with the House? whether it had not already been decided, that the witness ought not to be compelled to give any further answers.
Mr. Ellice
begged to assure the right hon. gentleman that he had divided upon both the motions. The result of the first had induced him to think the cause was hopeless; that of the second had convinced him it was so. His majesty's government, at first opposed to the inquiry, had in its progress thrown every obstacle in the way, conformably to that system of compromise winch was their distinguishing character. It was because he saw that to proceed further would be an unprofitable waste of time, that he had called upon the right hon. gentle-
536
Mr. Scarlett
said, that the minority, of which he formed one, were of opinion, that the object and the political effect of the Orange associations were injurious to the public peace of Ireland. The majority thought otherwise. If that latter opinion were well founded, they ought not to object to the inquiry. But, as long as the witness at the bar was permitted, upon every frivolous pretext, to suppress his answer, no good purpose could be accomplished by continuing the questions.
Mr. Jones
thought, that whatever might be the opinion as to the conduct of the sheriff, there was no one who must not be satisfied that no imputation could attach to the attorneys-general for Ireland; He thought it would be better to post pone for six months any further progress in the inquiry.
Sir J. Yorke
said, that if the House could not get at the truth of the case, it would be better to put an end to the inquiry, and he hoped that the hon. gentleman would move to that effect. But this he would say, that "come what may," to use the words of the right hon. secretary, if a witness at the bar of that House would not disclose what he must know, he should go instantly to Newgate, who ever he might be.
Mr. Jones
adopted the suggestion, and; moved, "That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again on that day six months."
Mr. J. Smith
said, he could not help expressing how deeply disappointed he felt. When the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) was appointed to his present situation, although he differed from him on many political questions, yet, considering his great talents he rejoiced at his appointment, because he thought it the harbinger of a wise and liberal policy towards Ireland. Those hopes he was sorry to say, had not been realised. But, although little good would result from this investigation, it would still trusted, be productive of some; for every man who had attended to it, must be, satisfied that the administration of justice in that country required revision. He
537
Mr. Jones
thought the sooner the Subject was consigned to oblivion the better.
Mr. Canning
said, that having objected originally to the inquiry foreseeing the state in which the House would he placed by it, he did not feel himself at liberty to interfere in the present question, and should therefore decline giving any vote at all.
Colonel Barry
was perfectly satisfied with the case of the sheriff as it then stood. If the hon. baronet were voted out of the chair, he was willing to concur in the motion; but if it was intended to found any ulterior proceeding upon the evidence before the House, then he must examine to the end. If he did otherwise, he felt he should be giving up his duty; and therefore, with all the inclination he had to save himself and the House from fatigue, unless the proceedings were to be altogether closed, he must proceed.
Mr. Daly
recommended his hon. friend to rest the case where it stood, and take the chance of any ulterior proceeding. It was competent for any member to originate any motion from the evidence; but he did not anticipate that such a step would be taken.
Colonel Barry
concurred.
Mr. Calcraft
, alluding to the opinion he had previously expressed in the course of the evening, did not think he was precluded by it from recommending the hon. colonel to examine all his evidence now. Let not the hon. member flatter himself that the case could rest here. He should be Sorry if it were now closed under any such impression. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) must excuse him if he looked upon his last declaration as a most singular one. With great submission, he thought he was bound to make up his mind to Ay or No. The right hon. gentleman (excellent, prophet!) had foreseen the situation in which the House would be placed. He (Mr. Calcraft) had also foreseen it; blithe defied any man to say that the House had not received much useful information from the inquiry. He should oppose the motion if it went to shut out all further inquiry. When the whole case was before the House, it could form an opinion; and now that there was but one more witness to examine, it would be absurd to stop short. He entreated gentlemen to pause before they gave a
538
Mr. Canning
said, if the case had been closed, he should not have felt himself at liberty to say that he would withhold his vote. The hon. gentleman had misunderstood him, if he supposed he had intended to withdraw from the discussion, when the case should come for the decision of the House. But, if those who conducted the case on either side thought fit to terminate it prematurely, he would not, by any vote of his, preclude such a mode of disposing of it.
Sir J. Newport
said, that as the inquiry had originated with the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, who was absent from indisposition, the case ought not to be closed without his consent.
Mr. Bennet
said, the investigation had fully answered his expectations. It appeared from the evidence of one of the witnesses, a police magistrate (major Sirr), that a great deal of tampering existed in Ireland, which ought not to be tolerated. With respect to the sheriff of Dublin, the practice of striking juries evidently called for correction. And, with respect to that House, the investigation clearly displayed the system which was at work both within and without it.
The Committee divided on Mr. Jones's motion: Ayes, 42. Noes, 173. Majority against it, 131. The Chairman was then directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday May 27, 1823.
COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN IRELAND.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose to present a petition, signed by about three-fourths of the beneficed; clergy and lay-impropriators of the united diocese of Limerick, Ardfert, and Abadoe, including the whole of the county Kerry, and a considerable part of the county Cork, praying for a Commutation of Tithes. The noble marquis observed, that the district from which the petition came was part of the most populous region of the south of Ireland, and the petitioners prayed the House, on the principles of Justice, to pass into an act some measure for enforcing such commutation. If the Opinion of any persons
539
540
Ordered to lie on the table.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
The Archbishop of Canterbury
rose to move the second reading of this bill. The right reverend prelate observed, that the portion of the bill, which; in that stage demanded their lordships' particular attention, was the clause relative to the voidability of marriages. By the old law, the marriages of minors, without Consent, were declared void
ab initio;
541
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that we were now under the old law, with the exception of that clause by which marriages, under certain, circumstances, were declared void. We had been two or three months under that law without suffering any inconvenience; and he hoped the House would bear that in mind when considering the change introduced by this bill. This bill was not that full and comprehensive measure which the House had reason to expect, from the promises held out by its most reverend and learned promoters. It contained little more than the last bill, and left several points untouched, on which it was of the greatest moment that no doubt should exist. The validity of all marriages in foreign countries ought to be cleared up, and subjects residing abroad should be able to ascertain the precise situation in which they stood in this respect, without the necessity of an application to a court of justice. It would be recollected, that a petition had been presented relative to this subject from the Russia company, when a learned lord had declared that he had no doubt of the validity of such marriages. Doubts, however, were entertained by the parties themselves, and they ought to be removed by positive enactment. Facilities on this important point ought to be afforded to Dissenters, and to Roman Catholics. In Ireland, when both the parties were Catholics, the marriage was valid if performed according to the rites of that church; but Catholics coming to this country might not think of having recourse to the formalities made necessary here, and the marriage might in consequence be invalid, and was not this an: encouragement to immorality? With regard to the marriages of minors, as the law stood now, it operated differently on the rich and the poor; for where there was no property to render the invalidation an object, the most incestuous marriages might now be tolerated. He thought that, in order to equalize the law and maintain the principle consistently, such marriages should be declared null and void
ab initio.
542
The Earl of Westmorland,
opposed the clause, as an infringement on the religion, the morals, and the laws of the country, as well as on the rights of property.
The Bishop of Chester
opposed the clause, as being directly contrary to the word of God. It was not a clause fits to be enacted by a Christian legislature. At all events he would not be one to give his vote for putting asunder those whom God had joined.
The Bishop of Derry
was anxious that it should not go forth to the public, that incestuous marriages could be legitimate under any circumstances. If a man should marry his daughter, or any descendant of her's, the progeny of that, marriage must be illegitimate, the marriage itself being void
ab initio.
Lord Ellenborough
said, he would not be positive as to the correctness of his observation, but he would rather have the exposition of the law from a learned lord, than from the reverend prelate.
The Lord Chancellor
said, they had been told the present was, not a proper time to discuss, the measure;, therefore, though he had been appealed to, he would only say that he was clearly of opinion, that the law of scripture, as well, as the law of the land, should be a good deal more considered than it appeared to him they had yet been.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, May 27, 1823.
SMALL DEBTS RECOVERY COMMITTEE.]
543
Lord Althorp
brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Recovery of Small Debts. He wished, he said, to be allowed to take up a few minutes of the time of the House in stating what the substance of that report was; for, from the number of letters which he had received from all parts of the country on the subject, it was evident that a great and general anxiety prevailed respecting it. Nor was it at all a matter of surprise to him that the question should excite so much public interest; seeing that the present state of the law amounted to nothing less than an absolute denial of justice to almost all the creditors in the country with regard to debts due to them under the value of 15
l.
l.
544
545
546
Mr. Scarlett
said, he could give no information to the House, with respect to any call for compensation, in consequence of this bill. He thought the general principle of themeasure was good. His noble friend had had the goodness to communicate to him the general principle of the bill, and he, at present, certainly saw no material objection to it. So far as the measure had been explained to him, it appeared calculated to produce great public benefit. Ordered to be printed.
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.]
Mr. Littleton
presented a petition from the Coal and Iron masters of Dudley, against a bill brought in by the hon. member for Coventry to repeal the different acts relating to the Combination of Workmen, and for settling disputes between Masters and Journeymen. He gave credit to the hon. gentleman for his motives; but it was a measure full of minute and vexatious regulations, which no man connected with the manufacturing districts could possibly approve of. The hon. member for Coventry talked of the advantages which would accrue from referring his bill to a committee above stairs. It was unquestionably desirable that the whole subject, and not such a bill as the hon. member had concocted, should be referred to the consideration of a select committee, to decide what portion of them it might appear necessary to repeal, and what part of them the interest of the manufacturers required to be preserved. Before that committee, all parties should be heard. The hon. member might perhaps say, that, the bill would go through a committee in the regular, course: but it was a different thing to submit the bill to a committee composed of gentlemen whose experience, whose habits, and whose abilities, rendered them peculiarly fit to decide on it, and to lay it before a committee in the ordinary course off business, merely to consider its details. He now gave the hon. member notice, that
547
Mr. P. Moore
was glad the hon. gentleman had stated his objections to the bill, because, from the moment he had brought it in, he had endeavoured to provoke the most extended inquiry. Although the bill had been printed five weeks, he had not asked the opinion of any hon. member with respect to it; neither did he intend to do so for some time to come. As to a further postponement of the measure, he had no objection to that course, if it were necessary for the purpose of procuring information. He begged leave to ask, from whom the petitions against the bill came? They came from the master-manufacturers, who were opposed to those classes for whose security he wished to provide; namely, the operative workmen. When the hon. member came forward with his hundreds who petitioned against the bill, he must be allowed to point to his millions who were in favour of it. The master manufacturers had infinitely more trouble, under the existing law, than they could possibly have under that which he proposed. He believed that nineteen-twentieths of the poor-rates were occasioned by the pinchings which the rich manufacturers inflicted on the wages of their workmen. If the operative manufacturers were properly paid, the products of agriculture and of the loom would prosper, and there would be little or no poor-rates at all. If one farthing a day were added to the wages of the 5,000,000 of the manufacturers who were employed in this country, it would amount to a total of 2,040,000
l.
548
Mr. S. Wortley
thought the hon. member for Coventry deserved the thanks of the country for having brought the subject under the notice of parliament. Certainly some alteration was necessary in these laws; and he believed the Combination act, whenever it had been appealed to, had constantly recoiled on the masters; therefore the sooner it was got rid of the better. He should have felt much more inclination to vote for the present bill, if it had only gone to the repeal of existing laws; but it went a great deal further, as it contained many new provisions which ought to be seriously considered before the bill was passed.
Lord Stanley
intreated the hon. member for Coventry not to press on this bill. In. his opinion, it ought to go to a committee above stairs, there to be thoroughly examined, and then stand over until next session; which would give the manufacturing districts an opportunity of understanding all the provisions which it Was intended to propose. It would be a hazardous thing to do away at one sweep with forty-four statutes, without much previous consideration and inquiry. He had read the bill, but he had not read the pamphlet which the hon. member for Coventry had disseminated with it.
Mr. Huskisson
was bound in Justice to say, that the hon. member for Coventry had acted in a manner quite consistent with the course which he had stated, at the commencement of the session, it was his intention to pursue. The hon. member had then said, that he would introduce the bill, and afterwards leave it to committee up stairs. He concurred with others in thinking, that the House was under an obligation to the hon. member for agitating this subject, and bringing it under the notice of the House. He had, it appeared, drawn up a kind of history of the minute, absurd, ridiculous and mischievous regulations, which had, from time to time, been introduced into the Statute book on the subject of interference
549
Mr. Dugdale
said, the hon. member for Coventry had asserted that his measure was generally approved of. Now, he also had received communications on the subject, and from them it appeared that those, who would be affected by the measure were much alarmed at it.
Mr. P. Moore
said, he knew the value of the communications which the hon. member had received better than the hon. gentleman himself did. His correspondents told the hon. gentleman, the truth, but not the whole truth. He was ready to stake his life, his name and his character, that if the bill were adopted it would afford the greatest possible relief to the
550
Mr. Littleton
said, he had no objection to the immortality which the hon. member for Coventry promised himself, in consequence of his bill and pamphlet. For the benefit of those gentlemen who did not know where to find the latter, he begged to state that it was on sale at No. 24, Bridge-street, Westminster.
Mr. Philips
said, his objection to, fend bill was, that it contained a number of restrictions between workmen and employers which would be injurious to both parties. The regulations were not applicable to existing circumstances, and would produce an effect exactly the reverse of that which the hon. member for Coventry intended.
Ordered to lie on the table.
FELO DE SE BILL.]
Mr. Lennard
said, that he had little to say in introducing his motion for leave to bring in a bill "To alter and amend the Laws relating to the Interment of the Remains of Persons
felo de se,
felo de se
felo de se,
felo de se
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO
The House having again resolved itself into a committee to inquire into the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the chair.
The right hon. William Conyngham Plunkett, a member of the House; was examined in his place.
By
Mr. Calcraft.
551
In the case of Forbes, did the law officers of the Crown order major Sirr to commit capitally?—Certainly not; the law officers of the Crown gave their opinion to the magistrates that it would be right to commit capitally, but I am sure that in that case no order, or anything equivalent to an order, was given by them to the magistrates. It is a judicial act on the part of the magistrate; he must exercise his own discretion, and rest upon his own responsibility; I conceive it would be a great violation of duty in him to relinquish his own judgment to that of any other person; and I conceive it would be a very improper thing, on the part of any other person to give him a direction.
Are you to be understood, that the law officers of the Crown merely expressed their opinion upon the evidence?—Merely so.
Would you think a magistrate acted property in committing on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, on evidence taken before them, without himself examining that evidence and having it regularly sworn and reduced into the form of informations before him?—Ishould think that he acted very irregularly and improperly in so doing.
Did major Sirr state any opinion contrary to that of the law officers of the Crown, or against the capital commitment?—I never heard that he did, unless at the bar here (if he did so then); I never had the slightest intimation that he at all differed in opinion from the law officers of the Crown.
By Col.
Barry.
Have you any recollection of the magistrates having been desired to withdraw?—I do not recollect that being the case.
One of the magistrates has stated, that he swore the witness and then withdrew; was it the practice that the witness was introduced into the room with the law officers of the Crown and sworn by the magistrate; that the magistrate then withdrew; that then the witness was examined, and a memorandum made of his deposition, and that before those depositions were sent to the magistrate, the magistrate was called upon to commit?—That statement involves a great number of particulars; I do not know whether the right hon. member means to put that as a question.
Mr. Graves, in his evidence, states, "I was desired to swear a witness; I did swear the witness, and then withdrew, and the notes of the examinations were then taken: they did not take the shape of an information sworn before a magistrate, but Several days before the
552
You were understood, in reply to a question before put, to have said, that there were no orders given to the magistrates; were the magistrates advised by the law officers of the Crown to commit the prisoners capitally?—According to my recollection, I expressed to major Sirr, who was the only magistrate with whom I had any communication upon the subject of the committals, my opinion, and that of the law officers of the Crown, that the committal should be for a conspiracy to murder. It is necessary I should explain a former answer, to which the right hon. member has alluded, referring to the circumstance of the depositions being taken from the witnesses after the magistrates had withdrawn; I think it necessary to mention that that happened in some instances, in others the magistrate was present; in many others the informations were regularly taken before the magistrate. In the instances in which the examination was pursued in the absence of a magistrate, that was an examination conducted, as I consider, for the purpose of giving information to the law officers of the Crown, in order to enable them to form their opinion as to the circumstances of the case, and the mode of prosecution, but certainly was not intended by them as the depositions upon which the magistrate was to act when he came to commit. I conceive that it was the duty of the magistrate, before he committed, to examine those depositions, to have them reduced to the regular form of informations, and to have a security taken from the parties who made them, to prosecute. In the case of the two committals for the capital charge, which were made by Mr. Gabbett, I believe that was done; in the ease of the committal made by major Sirr, I now learn that that was not done; but I conceive that the
553
What was the use of filling up the notes of informations afterwards, if that examination was only intended for the purpose of giving information to the law officers of the Crown?—I cannot say what was major Sirr's object in doing it, after he had made out the committal; it could be neither a justification for the committal, nor could it answer any good purpose, but that was done without any communication with me; I had no communication with major Sirr, but one in which I gave him my opinion as to the nature of the offence.
Were the magistrates desired to remain in the room during the examination of the witnesses, or did they withdraw?—I have no recollection of their being desired to withdraw, nor have I a recollection of their being desired to remain; I cannot tax my memory upon the subject.
Did major Sirr represent to you at that time, that he did not think the charge made out as for a capital offence?—Never; at that or at any time.
By Mr.
Bright.
Are you aware, that George Graham, as appears by the committals, was afterwards committed for conspiring with divers other persons to kill and murder his excellency Richard marquis Wellesley?—I believe he was, by Mr. Gabbett.
Are you aware, that both those committals were by Mr. Gabbett?—I think so.
The first committal was on the 15th of Dec. 1822, and the second on the 23d Dec. 1822; had you had any communication with respect to the committal of George Graham, with Mr. Gabbett in that interval?—It may be so; but I have no distinct recollection on the subject.
Can you inform the committee, how it happened that that second committal was made?—My recollection is not so distinct as to enable me to state, but I think it appears from Mr. Gabbett's evidence, that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was given, that those persons should be capitally committed.
Did you as one of the law officers of the Crown give that opinion?—I did as a law officer of the Crown, give that opinion as to those three persons; I do not recollect communicating it to Mr. Gabbett personally.
Do you recollect what passed with major Sirr upon the subject of those committals?—No, I. cannot distinctly trace it; I think major Sirr came into the secretary's room at the castle, the solicitor-general, Mr. Townsend, Mr. Goulburn, and myself, being present, on the Saturday evening, the committals were not made out until the Monday, I think; on the Saturday evening about five or six o'clock, he came, and that at that time the opinion was communicated to him; I cannot tax my me-
554
Did you see major Sirr more than onee in those proceedings?—If I were to speak in my own recollection I should say only once, but I have been talking to Mr. Goulburn, who says, I saw him twice in his presence; my recollection is only negative, and Mr. Goulburn's is positive, therefore I think his is right.
You were understood to say, that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was communicated to major Sirr upon a particular day, from which an inference is drawn that a previous conversation had taken place, is that inference correct, or was the whole one transaction?—What I mean to say is, that on the Saturday evening the opinion was communicated to major Sirr, and I believe by me; I believe also by the solicitor-general, but what conversation passed I cannot say.
Had any consultation taken place between the law officers of the Crown, in respect of any opinion to be given to major Sirr?—Conversation took place between the law officers of the Crown upon the opinion to be given; but whether it was with reference to its being given to major Sirr, or to any other magistrate, I cannot particularly say. I believe major Sirr happened to be the person to whom it was communicated, because he resided in the castle, and was therefore on the spot.
Had major Sirr applied for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the subject?—I understood that the magistrates had applied to government on the subject of the mode in which they were to act; I do not recollect major Sirr personally having applied.
Did the magistrates at the same time that they applied to government, lay before the government the informations they had received?—I am not competent to say; according to the best of my recollection, the informations that had been taken before the police magistrates, were communicated to the law officers of the Crown.
Were there any other informations in the possession of the law officers of the Crown, that were not in the possession of the magistrates?—None but those that have been already alluded to, if they can be said not to have been communicated.
Was the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown, given upon those informations which were in the possession of the magistrates as well as upon those informations of which you have spoken, and which probably were not in their possession?—The opinions of the law officers of the Crown were founded upon the whole of the evidence, as well as the informations taken before the magistrates, as the evidence laid before them in the way already stated, in the absence of the magistrates.
Did you inform the magistrates with whom you communicated, that you advised them upon more information than they themselves
555
Was the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as communicated to the magistrates, entirely an opinion upon law, or an opinion upon their discretion?—The opinion that was communicated to the magistrates, was on the point of law, that we thought the evidence in point of law would warrant a committal for a capital offence.
Are you aware that Forbes had been held to bail on the night of the riot?—I am not quite sure at this moment whether he was held to bail; he was apprehended on the night of the riot by Mr. Graves; I believe he was discharged on that night; I am not quite sure whether bail had been given.
Are you aware that he was committed for feloniously conspiring to kill and murder the marquis Wellesley, on the 23d Dec. 1822?—Yes; that was the final committal.
Were any instructions given to the magistrates; with respect to that committal?—No direction; no instruction further than the giving the opinion I have already stated.
Was that opinion founded upon the evidence that was given at the trial by Mr. Troy and Mr. Farley?—I do not think I ought to answer any question as to what were the particular informations on which I gave my opinion, I am in the judgment of the committee whether I ought to answer that or not, I have personally no objection.
Were there any evidences examined upon that subject, at the trial of Handwich Forbes and others: for the conspiracy?—Upon what subject.
With respect to Forbes?—Oh! yes; a great many witnesses were examined; a report of the trial was published.
Is that copy of the trial tolerably authentic?—Indeed I should think so.
Was Mr. Farley, the attorney, examined upon that occasion?—Yes.
Was Mr. Troy examined upon that occasion?—Yes.
Were there any other witnesses examined upon the occasion to the point of what frap-
556
Will you permit the committee to assume, that this report is sufficiently accurate to reason upon at a future time?—I have no power to give such a permission; I have already said, I believe it to be a very fair report of the trial.
Were the prisoners tried on both indictments at the same time?—They were not indictments, they were informations; they were given in charge on both the informations at the same time; I should mention with respect to that, that the practice in this country and in Ireland is different; the custom in the courts in this, country, is to include in the same information offences, which we in Ireland include in distinct informations, the consequence is, that the practice in the two countries is different; here parties, I believe, are not permitted to be charged at the same time on separate, infgrmations, but that is because they are really distinct offences; but in Ireland, where they split into two informations, offences of one and the same nature which are in fact one, they do allow the parties to be charged with the two informations at one and the same time.
By Mr.
Bennet.
Does Mr. Graves?—Mr. Graves I believe does, but major Sirr, the magistrate who committed Forbes, I believe does not.
Is Mr. Gabbett removable by the Crown?—Mr. Gabbett, I believe, is removable at the pleasure of the Crown.
Major Sirr's is a patent place is it?—No, I believe not. I believe under the police act, there are city magistrates and persons named by the Crown, and that those police magistrates, who are appointed by the city, cannot be removed by the Crown.
By Colonel
Burry.
Mr. Gabbett
was asked, "Had you been left to your own discretion would you have committed for the capital offence?" to which he replied, "It is impossible for me to answer directly that question otherwise than thus, that I certainly, if it had been left entirely to myself should have required the whole of the informations to be laid before me to exercise my judgment upon them?—It certainly would appear from that, that the whole had not been;—my impression was, that the whole had been—that impression was created partly by my haying looked at a brief, which by accident is here, and now in my possession, in which the dates of informations taken before
557
By Sir J.
Newport.
Did you learn from those who made those applications, or the manner in which they were made, whether it had been the former practice to make applications of that nature?—I should rather decline answering that question; I think I ought not to answer it.
Did you give any opinion as to the amount
558
Or the refusal of bail?—I gave an opinion which implied a refusal of any bail; if it was a capital charge, of course, there could be no bail taken, unless before a judge.
The question refers to the time subsequent to the abandonment of the capital charge; the capital charge was abandoned at the commission; after that was abandoned, did you give any opinion as to the amount of bail to be demanded from Forbes?—No, I did not; I have a distinct recollection that the bail given for Forbes was on his own offer; he stated that he would give bail to the amount of 1,000
l.
Did you consider, from the manner in which those applications which, have been referred to were made to you from the country, with respect to advising on the amount of bail to be taken, or on the nature of the committal to be made by the magistrates, that they had been, in the habit of making similar applications, before?—There is one instance only to which I could give any answer, and it really is not material to the present inquiry. A magistrate in the country had apprehended a person for an offence which in its nature was not bail-able, and he wrote to me to know whether I would give him authority to let out the party without bail. I certainly declined giving any opinion upon the subject, stating that it was not a duty that belonged to me.
It appears that some of these parties were first committed for a minor offence, and were afterwards committed for the capital offence?—Two of them.
Was there any information received in the interim between the two committals, on which the capital committal was founded?—I consider that there must have been; the capital committal did not take place until the 23rd, I think, of December; the examinations had been closed on the 21st of December; and I think material information had been received in the course of that last day's examination, which went to affect not only Forbes, but the two other persons who were capitally committed.
By Colonel
Barry
Were any of the prisoners against whom bills of indictment were preferred, and ignored by the grand jury afterwards, held to bail to answer an information to be filed by the attorney general?—They were held to bail by the court for that purpose.
By Mr.
T. Ellis
559
Did any other of the parties, except Forbes, make that offer?—I believe they all did.
In point of fact, were any of the defendants kept in prison for two days after the ignoring of the bills, in consequence of not being able to get bail?—I do not know that fact.
Do you feel, as attorney-general, that you had a right to call on the defendants to find bail to answer to an information which was not then filed?—That is a question of law which it is not necessary to answer, as it was the act of the court, and on their own offer.
Do you know whether any of those parties who were committed on the capital charge, made any application to a judge in order to obtain their release?—I never heard that they did; I believe it would have been competent to any of them to make such an application; and if there was no information, or an insufficient information, they must have been discharged.
Was it at your suggestion, or that of any of the law officers of the Crown, that those persons were held to bail by the court?—The parties came in, not waiting for the end of the commission, and they applied to be forthwith discharged. I got up for the purpose of saying, that they were not then entitled to be discharged without giving bail; after I made that observation, they made an application to be discharged on giving bail; and it was quite unnecessary to enter into any argument upon the amount; the bail was fixed between them raid the court: that (it should be observed) was an application before the termination of the commission; had it been at the termination of the commission, that would have altered the case.
The examination of Mr. Plunkett being concluded,
Colonel Barry
said, that being aware of the inconvenience that would result from the prolongation of the inquiry, perceiving too the dislike of the House to go on with it, and feeling that the case of the high sheriff was so strong that it needed no further evidence to support it, was willing to decline calling any more witnesses. He was convinced that the result of the inquiry was to clear the high sheriff from any charge of improper conduct.
Mr. Denman
said, that as he knew it was the opinion of some honourable members that it would be necessary to submit certain resolutions founded on the evidence which had been given at the bar, it was of importance it should be understood, that the further prosecution of the
560
Mr. Calcraft
then moved, that the chairman do lay before the House the minutes of evidence. The minutes were accordingly presented, ordered to lie on the table and to be printed, and the witnesses discharged from attendance.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he did not know whether he was regular or no, hut he could not refrain from taking that opportunity of expressing, what he believed to be also the universal feeling of the House, his sense of the impartiality and ability with which the hon. baronet (sir R. Heron) had filled the chair, during the inquiry which had just concluded [Hear, hear!].
IRISH JOINT TENANCY BILL.]
Mr. Dominick Browne,
in rising to move the committal of this bill, admitted that the task lay upon him to prove Joint Tenancy injurious, though it was notoriously so, as the object of the bill was to discourage that tenure.—The system of joint tenancy was, he said, very ancient in Ireland, and very fit perhaps to protect clans of husbandmen against wild beasts, or more barbarous clans of hunting savages, but totally unlit for people emerged from a primitive state of society, living Under fixed laws and institutions in an integral part of the British empire. Under this system, from ten to five hundred acres were let to from two tenants to one hundred jointly; every one of whom was responsible for the rent of all the rest, as well as his own. They held the land in common, making a new division of the arable every year or two. The pasture was always undivided. They generally paid a rack-rent, and after they had built their huts without mortar, chimney, or window, all swore to 40
s
561
562
bonâ fide
Mr. R. Martin
opposed the bill, the object of which is to prevent joint-tenants, in Ireland, from voting for freeholds in which they had severally less than a 40
s.
Colonel Trench
thought the principle of the bill most excellent. One of the great evils of Ireland was the splitting the land into so many small divisions for the purpose of creating votes. The great number of electors, which was a blessing in this country, was a curse in Ireland; for it only exposed the peasantry, in many large districts, to bribery and corruption, to drunkenness and to every kind of disorder. His only objection to the bill would be, that it did not go far enough. He wished for the introduction of a clause by which leases in common might be entirely put an end to.
Sir J. Newport
fully concurred in the opinion of the hon. member who spoke last. Nothing had brought greater misery upon Ireland than the subdivision of land among such a multitude of tenants.
After a few words from Mr. L. White, which were inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. T. Ellis
expressed his concurrence in the principle of the bill. He mentioned an instance in which a farm of the value of 15
l.
Mr. J. Daly
denied that the measure would have the effect of diminishing the number of Catholic voters, and pointed out the evils arising from the system of joint-tenancy in Ireland.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that nothing could be further from his intention than countenancing the system of fictitious voters in Ireland. He would go as far as any member to prevent such an abuse; but he must object to the bringing on of such a question in the then thin state of the House, where there were not more than a dozen Irish members present. The measure embraced a principle calculated to excite great discontent in Ireland. He should have no objection to the bill going
563
Sir G. Hill
approved of the bill, but the suggestion of the hon. member for Cork was so fair, that he could not but concur with it.
Mr. Grattan
did not think that the bill went to disqualify any part of the Roman Catholics, but to establish the system of election by
bonâ fide
Mr. R. Martin
said, that if the hon. member did not intend to press the bill this session, he would not object to going into the committee; but if he did intend to press it, he would divide the House.
The question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair," the House divided: Ayes 54; Noes None. Teller, Mr. It. Martin.
The House then went into the committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 28, 1823.
SPECIAL JURIES—PETITION OF MR.
Mr. Hume
said he held in his hand a petition which he deemed of great importance, and to which he called the most serious attention of the House. He should first state the contents of the petition, and next comment upon the allegations it contained. The petition was as follows:—
564
565
Mr. Hume
said, that the second paragraph in this petition contained a statement which affected the trial by jury; for if the
566
l.
pro
con,
567
Mr. Philips
repelled the insinuations of the hon. gentleman as disadvantageous to the character of the master of the Crown-office [Cries of "No, no!"]. Did not the hon. gentleman say, that the master of the Crown-office must be more than man, if he were not occasionally biased in his conduct by other considerations than the strict discharge of his duty? Was not that a most unworthy insinuation? It was a supposition directly at variance with the tenour of that honourable individual's life. In the first place, as one proof of the inaccuracy of the hon. member's information, the emoluments of the situation to which the hon. member had referred were only 1,000
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
568
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that his hon. friend had not the slightest intention, when he adverted to this inconvenient mode of striking a jury, to cast any imputation upon the present master, than whom there could not be a more respectable man, or one better adapted to fill his situation with credit and honour. His object was to show the existence of a practice liable, in worse hands than the present master, to be most dangerously abused. He knew nothing of the facts connected with the petitioner's case, or of his prosecution by the Constitutional Association, which was an absurd and improper confederacy; but he had heard complaints reiterated against this mode of striking juries. There ought to be an inquiry into the practice, for the purpose of having it altered; and this was the best time to institute it, when the office was worthily filled. No possible harm could result from an inquiry; and it was most desirable that the special, like the petty juries, should be drawn out of a box indifferently, although even then it should be ascertained that the names were impartially placed in the box.
Mr. Creevey
said, he had had a long ac quaintance with Mr. Lushington, who was a most honourable man, and one who might be said to have a chivalrous disregard of private interest. But he had admitted, that if he pleased he might select the jury. It was time, therefore, that a practice not abused by him, but liable to the greatest abuse hereafter, should be regulated. His hon. friend had not cast the slightest reproach upon Mr. Lushington.
Mr. Philips
explained, that he under-
569
Mr. Bennet
said, that although the character of the present master justified all that had been said with respect to him, it afforded no argument in favour of the system. For, although the present master was not guilty of any violation of life duty, did it follow that his predecessors never had been, or that his successors never would be so? Such a power was always liable to abuse. At every assize in the country, the greatest abuses took place in the constitution of special juries; for be believed that private interest, and even open canvas, went a great way in the construction of those juries. He held in his hand a report of a committee of the common council of London, in 1817. It stated, that out of 485 names, out of which all the special jurors were selected for the city of London, 126 were not householders in the city, and therefore, by law not qualified to serve; of the remaining 259, 60 were householders, who, in the modern sense of the term, were termed merchants, while 171 were tradesmen. In a case of libel, too, it appeared, that the solicitor for the Treasury had written to a person in the Secondaries'-office, respecting the nomination of the jury. In his opinion, it had been clearly made out that the master had the power of packing a jury if he pleased. That was a system which was opposed to common sense and justice, and ought not to be permitted to continue.
The Attorney General
said, he collected from what the hon. member who presented the petition had stated, that the petitioner made no complaint with respect to the conduct of the master of the Crown-office as regarded the particular case of the petitioner, but merely against the general mode of nominating special juries. It was not, as he understood, pretended, that the petitioner supposed that any hardship would result to him from the conduct of the master. If the hon. member should think proper to bring the general question under the consideration of the House, he would give it all the attention which it deserved. He did not, however, hesitate to state, that, in his opinion, no alteration which the hon. member might propose to introduce could improve the present system of nominating special juries. The hon. member had declared, that the present mode of nominating special juries was
570
Mr. Bright
said, he considered the present case to be one which powerfully called for inquiry. It rested on its own merits; no charge was made against any individual officer or juror. The attorney-general had said, that the system had existed in its present state for a century. Now, it so happened, that for more than forty years the abuses of the system had been loudly complained of. So long ago as the year 1777, Mr. Horne Tooke had given a description of the mode of selecting special juries. The observations of that gentleman were so remarkable, that he would read them to the House:—"The Master began, but as I looked over the book, I desired him to inform me how I should know, whether he did take the first forty-eight special jurymen that came, or not; and what mark or description or qualification there was in the book, to distinguish a special from a common juryman? He told me, to my great surprise, that there was no rule by which he took them. Why then how can I judge? You must go by some method. What is your method? At last the method was this: that when he came to a man a woollen-draper, silversmith, a merchant (if merchant was opposite to his name), of course he was a special juryman; but a woollen-draper, silversmith, &c. he said that there were persons who were working-men of those trades, and there wee others in a situation of life fit to be taken. How then did he distinguish? No otherwise than this if he personally knew them to be men in reputable circumstances, he said, he took them; if he did hot know them, he parsed them by. Now, gentlemen; what follows from this? But this is not all. The sheriff's Officer stands by, the solicitor of the Treasury, his clerk, and so forth; arid whilst the names are taken, if a name which they do not like occurs and turns up, the Sheriff's officer says, 'O, Sir, he
571
572
*
Mr. Hobhouse
considered it extremely improper, that any person, having the selection of juries in his power, should hold an office which was dependent on the Crown. The hon. and learned attorney had challenged any member to point out a case in which the government had interfered to procure the selection of a jury. He certainly could not mention any case in which it had been proved that the government had been guilty of such disgraceful conduct, but he apprehended that it would not be difficult to prove, that government had sent particular cases to be tried before juries, who they thought would probably convict the defendant. He would wish the attorney-general to declare upon his honour, whether government had not sent his honourable colleague, sir Francis Burdett, to be tried in Leicester, because it was thought that the jury there were more likely to return a verdict of guilty than a London jury? Now, that the question respecting the nomination of special juries had been mooted in that House, the country would expect something to be
*
573
Mr. J. Williams
said, that however respectable the master of the Crown-office might be, his character was no answer to the case which had been made out for inquiry. The complaint was against the system; and so long as that system continued' uncorrected, no fair trial could be had in a case where the Crown was a party on the one hand, and an obnoxious individual on the other. If no one else took up the subject, he would call the attention of the House to it.
Mr. Hume
adverted to the improper manner in which juries were appointed in the court of Exchequer. He had found upon inquiry, that individuals actually obtained their whole income from the pay which they received for serving as jurors in that court. He understood that if a juror should venture to give a verdict against the Crown, he would never again be summoned.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Hume next presented a petition from J. W. Trust, bookseller, on the same subject, and gave notice, that early next session he would move to alter the law and practice with respect to the nomination of special juries.
BRITISH ROMAN CATHOLICS TESTS
574
Lord Nugent
rose and said:—Sir; the object of the bill that I move for leave to bring in, is to equalize the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, by placing those of Great Britain in the same situation with respect to civil rights and franchises as those of Ireland. I wish, in the discussion of it, to separate it as widely as possible from what is called the question of Catholic Claims. There are, no doubt, many topics in common between the two questions; some of these topics, I should be disposed to say, are in my opinion, not among the least strong by which this measure might be supported. But these, for many reasons, I wish to avoid. In order to narrow the question, and to place my will upon its own simple and more obvious, and, perhaps to some persons, less questionable grounds. At the same time, Sir, I would not for the world be misunderstood. I would not, even if I had the power so to deceive the House, be insincere enough to disavow the spirit in which I offer to you the proposition with which I shall conclude, nor attempt to disguise from the House, that I do it under the influence of the self-same motives which have always influenced me in the support of that great measure. Nay, further; if I could for one moment bring myself to believe that the discussion of this question could in any, the remotest degree, prejudice or interfere with that great; object, believing that object as I do to be essential, not less to the interests and honour of England, than to the last hopes of peace and happiness for Ireland, I would, with whatever regret, abandon for the present, and should feel myself justified in abandoning, those far lesser benefits which I now geek for the Catholics of Great Britain. Sir, I should do the British Catholics the greatest. Wrong if I did not say that I know that in this feeling with regard to Ireland, I am seconded, I am anticipated by them. I must, in justice to them, I had almost said in justice to myself, make this; farther declaration. What I now propose to you, I propose, not only not at their instance, but without even having consulted their sentiments or wishes upon it. I have carefully, I have painfully abstained from communicating with them upon it, because I know their high and honourable feeling; because I know that feeling as they do, how strong are their claims to a full and undistinguishing
575
576
577
578
them
579
580
581
582
583
majority
584
585
586
Mr. Stuart Wortley
seconded the motion, and said, that when he considered the character of the body to whom this motion related, the noble blood which flowed in their veins, their well-known respectability, and their loyalty, he thought a very strong case indeed should be made out to prevent them from enjoying the same privileges as were possessed by their fellow-subjects of the same persuasion in Ireland.
Mr. Wetherell
entered into certain explanations relative to the principles of this bill, reserving to a future stage of the discussion those objections which he might have to its details. He maintained that it would place the Catholics of England higher in point of privilege than those of Ireland, as there was no test and corporation act in Ireland. He contended that property, as property, did not confer the elective franchise, and, after adverting to the prevalence of the practice of splitting freeholds in Ireland, he expressed his opinion, that because the elective franchise had been given to Catholics in Ireland, it formed no ground for communicating the same privilege to those in England.
587
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that if this measure had been proposed to the House inconsequence of a petition from the great body of the English Roman Catholics, he should have considered the petition of such a body entitled to great attention; but it appeared to be a mere project of the noble lord himself, who hardly knew whether it would be considered as a boon or not. The admission of English Roman Catholics to the magistracy might, under due limitations, be desirable; but he could not give his consent to extending the elective franchise to that body.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had, on a former occasion, expressed himself not unwilling to consent to a measure for taking into consideration the propriety of placing the Roman Catholics of England on the same footing as those of Ireland. Consistently with that declaration, therefore, he felt himself bound to admit the first proposition of the noble lord for leave to bring in the bill. He made this concession, not merely in consistence with that declaration, but because he felt it to be reasonable that the measure should at least be fairly considered. The noble lord had adverted to three points, in which the Roman Catholics of England stood in a different situation from those of Ireland; the elective franchise, the magistracy, and admission to office. With regard to the elective; franchise, he allowed at once that he was willing to admit the English Catholic to that privilege. He had always considered the distinction taken by Mr. Burke between the elective franchise and admission to office, as sound and judicious. In a speech on the subject of the Catholic claims, Mr. Burke said, that if the Roman Catholics were admitted to the right of voting for members of parliament, it did not necessarily follow that they should be admitted to office. He must observe, that the noble lord would find some difficulty in placing the Roman Catholics of England and Scotland on the same footing, because by the act of Union the Roman Catholics of Scotland could not exercise the elective franchise. He was disposed, after mature consideration, to admit the Roman Catholics of England to the same privileges with regard to voting, as the Roman Catholics of Ireland; but he should strenuously resist their being themselves elected. In this respect they would stand-in the same situation as the clergy who were qualified to elect though they were disqualified from sitting in that
588
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he certainly? should vote for the measure proposed by the noble lord. At the same time, he could not avoid saying, that the only motion he had ever heard which had common sense for its basis, relative to the Catholics, since he had had the honour of a sent in parliament, was one made by general Thornton, which nobody at the time sup-
589
Mr. H. Bankes
felt himself bound, in fairness to the noble lord, to state how far be could agree with him. The elective franchise ought, in his opinion, never to have been granted to the Catholics of Ireland, and he could never consent to grant it to the Roman Catholics of England. He could never consent to admit persons differing so essentially in opinions, effecting the vital interests of the constitution, to any share of political power. It should be recollected that that most injudicious measure, which admitted the Catholics of Ireland to the elective franchise, was passed in a parliament entirely Irish. To the subdivision of freeholds, and the system of fictitious voting, much of the present misery of Ireland was to be attributed. The measure of the noble lord went too far; for it would, in effect, lead to the repeal of those bulwarks of the constitution, the Corporation and Test acts. If the admission of the Roman Catholics of England to the magistracy could be effected, without interfering with the great principles to which he had adverted, it might be a desirable measure.
Mr. W. Smith
was glad to hear that no privileges were to be conceded to the Catholics of England which were refused to Protestant Dissenters, though he could not but consider the provisions which subjected Protestant Dissenters to the Test and Corporation acts, as a most unjust and unmerited stigma on, that body. He was satisfied, however that the time was not far distant when Roman Catholics would be admitted to seats in that House. The hon. member adverted to a speech of the late marquis of Londonderry, delivered in the year 1821, in which he declared, that the only point in which he declared, that the only point in which the congress of Vienna unanimously concurred was, the total abolition of all religious distinctions
590
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, it appeared to him that the question before the House in no way affected the general question of the Catholic claims. He, for himself, would support that general question under every possible circumstance; he would support it whether brought forward by friends or by foes—as a partial or as an ample, as a conditional or as an unconditional measure; but it seemed to him that no vote given whichever way it went, upon the present occasion, pledged the giver to to any specific course, when that general question should be discussed. As to the point of magistracy, he would offer nothing. It seemed to be agreed on all hands, that no difficulty would be made to that arrangement, unless some difficulty should arise in the detail; and he believed that, from the manner in which the bill would be framed, no such difficulty would arise. But, with respect, to the question of the elective franchise, he was compelled to protest against the doctrine which had; been laid down upon that point. That the exclusion of qualified Catholic freeholders from the exercise of the elective franchise was part of the fundamental law, or of the constitutional principle of the kingdom, he utterly denied. In what part of the constitution was that exclusion to be found? And, as to the fundamental law, why the Catholics of Ireland had, continued to exercise the elective franchise long after the exclusion of Catholics from the Houses of parliament; and the Cat he lies of England bad not been deprived of the elective franchise until the statutes of the 7th or 8th of William 3rd—more than twenty years after the exclusion of Catholics from parliament in England. Fundamental law. It was perfectly, well known that the statute of William 3rd had passed upon the spur of the moment under immediate apprehension from the
*
591
Lord Nugent
said, that under the present circumstances, the motion for leave to bring in the bill not being opposed, he should not trouble the House with more than a very few observations in reply. His hon. friend, the member for the University of Cambridge, seemed to rest his principal objection on the fact of the Roman Catholics themselves not having been consulted on this measure. His hon. friend had described it as a mere project of his. As such, he wished it to be understood. But he was quite sure that his hon. friend would not be prepared to resist it on this ground alone. If the measure could be shewn to be founded in justice, he would call on him to do an act of justice on any man's project. Nor was it an objection to state, that it had not been moved at the instance or upon the prayer of those who were principally interested in the result. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Oxford, had, he thought, singularly mistaken the object, as he had stated it, of his bill. His hon. and learned friend had apprehended, that the effect of it would be to place the British Catholics higher in point of privilege than those of Ireland. He was surprised at this objection from one of the acute and correct mind of his hon.
592
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
MALT AND BEER TAX.]
Mr. Maberly
rose to move, "That a select committtee be appointed to inquire into the present mode of taxing Malt and Beer separately, and whether it would not be expedient to collect the same amount on Malt alone." He hoped the House would grant a committee to examine the whole subject. As the law at present stood, the duty on malt amounted to 2
d,
d.
d.,
d.
593
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
opposed the motion. As to the saving in the expense of collection, the hon. member was mistaken: 280,000
l.
594
l.
pro tanto
Sir J. Mackintosh
denied, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at all met the clear statement of his hon. friend. The objections of the right hon. gentleman were founded on certain apprehensions, the solidity of which could be best
595
Mr. Hume
contended, that the estimate of 280,000
l.
596
Mr. Benelt,
of Wilts, could not give his support to the motion in its present shape. He would vote for the appointment of a select committee to inquire generally into the subject of the duties on beer and malt, He hailed with considerable satisfaction the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as soon as the revenue afforded the means, he would relieve the country from the beer duties. No greater benefit could be conferred on the people. It would afford extensive relief; and would not relieve one class at the expense of another.
Sir J. Newport
said, that by returns which he held in his hand, it appeared that from 1752 to 1808 the consumption of beer in Ireland had increased from 59,000 to 426,000 barrels annually. During that period nearly the whole of the beer had been imported from England. In 1809, a different system, had been adopted. The brewer was left free from restriction, and the consequence was, that the number of barrels imported fell to 38,000; the revenue was doubled in the article of malt, the consumption was greatly increased, and it was of home production instead of foreign, importation. No illustration could be more complete than this of the expediency of taking off all restrictions from trade.
Colonel Wood
opposed the motion, be cause the good which it proposed, in reducing the price of beer was insignificant while the evil to the farmer would be considerable. The great consumption of beer during the harvest rendered it an. important article in the expenses of an agriculturist, and to impose an additional tax on malt would be to increase his burthens, already too heavy.
Mr. Wodehouse
deprecated the proposed alteration in the beer duties, at a moment when such extensive regulations were about to be introduced into the distillery laws. He proceeded to compare the, consumption of malt in the year 1791, 1792, and 1793, with that in the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, and insisted, that it was greater at the former than the latter period. He could not support the motion.
Mr. Western
thought, a reduction of the duties on beer and malt necessary. He would, however, have it made on the aggregate revenue thence derived; it ought not to be done by taking a tax off one article and placing it on another. Ht would be
597
Mr. Byng
expressed his dissent from the motion, on the ground that no description of persons would be benefitted by it, while the agriculturists would be in a worse situation if it were adopted.
Mr. Ricardo
thought, that his hon. friend, the mover; had shown the tax on beer to be unequal, and that one class was exempted from it, while another was obliged to pay. He had shown, also, that the diminution in the expense of collecting this tax would assist the revenue. The hon. member regretted that this had been made a question between the agricultural arid other classes; but, even if it were true that the tax had an unequal operation, in this respect also the sooner it was equalized the better. If the duty paid ought to attach on all persons consuming beer, it ought to attach equally. The motion should have his hearty support, because it went to accomplish that object.
Lord Althorp
said, that the wish so often expressed by honourable members to encourage private brewing, would be defeated by this measure, if it should be carried. He had always maintained that the landed interest paid an undue proportion of taxes. If, therefore, an opportunity offered of lightening in some degree the weight which oppressed them, he thought it was very fair to do so. When the House looked to the amount of poor-rates paid by the farmer, he hoped it would think he was entitled to some consideration' on the present occasion.
Mr. Alderman Wood
supported the motion, by which he thought the revenue would be much benefitted.
Mr. Monck
said, that before the malt-tax was imposed, the poor shopkeeper or farmer paid 20
s.;
s.
Mr. Grey Bennet
saw no reason why 1,200,000 beer-drinking families of arti-
598
s.
s.
The House divided: Ayes, 27. Noes, 119.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. G.
Ricardo, D.
Bernal, R.
Rice, T. S.
Craddock, col.
Robarts, A.
Crompton, S.
Robarts, col
Denman, T.
Robinson, sir G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Sykes, S.
Folkestone, visc.
Wigram, W.
Grattan, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Williams, J.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
Williams, W.
Leader, W,
Wood, alderman.
Maberly, J.
Whitmore, W. W.
Martin, J.
TELLERS.
Newport, sir J.
Maberly, J.
Philips, G. jun.
Hume, J.
After the division, Mr. F. Palmer Moved for leave to bring in a bill to enable the public brewer to retail beer in smaller quantities than four gallons and a half provided the same be not consumed on the premises of the brewer.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that there was no necessity for such a bill in as much as the law had already provided for its objects.—Mr. Monck thought nothing could the more fair or wise than the principle of his hon. friend proposition.—Mr. Herries thought that some misunderstanding existed on the other side on this subject. The brewer, under the present law, might take out two licenced namely, the public brewer's common licence and the retail licence—a circumstance which obviated the difficulty complained of—Mr. Benett, of Wilts, supported the motion.—Mr. F. Palmer said, his only object was, to give the brewer the opportunity of becoming either a wholesale Or a retail dealer. [Cries of Question]. Seeing the disposition of the House, however, he would withdraw his motion.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 30, 1823.
WAGES OF MANUFACTURERS.—USE
Mr. Attwood
presented a petition, numerously signed, from the Manual Weavers of the town, and neighbourhood of Stockport, complaining of great distress, and petitioning the House for relief. The distress which the petitioners suffered, arose from the extremely
599
Mr. Philips
said, that after all the inquiry ho had made with respect, to the condition of the weavers of Lancashire at the present, moment, he was inclined to think that they had greatly exaggerated, the statement of their distresses. The cotton-spinners' wages were, it was true, very low; but the price of provisions was so extremely moderate, that they could live comfortably on those wages. That was undoubtedly the case when he was last in Lancashire; and the fact was proved by the reduction of the poor-rates, as well as by the reduced number of applications for private charity. With respect to machinery, he would now re-assert what he had formerly staffed namely,
600
Mr. Curwen
was convinced, that if a> minimum of wages were established, it would produce great mischief. Four on five years ago, when several petitions similar to the present were laid before the House, a committee was appointed to consider of them. Delegates from, the operative manufacturers, and other individuals conversant with the subject, were then examined; and he believed not one person attended who did not go away perfectly satisfied that such a system: would be most mischievous Amongst the members of the committee, there was not the slightest difference of opinion.
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, a very useful publication on the subject of machinery, written by Mr. Cobbett, had been extensively circulated throughout the manufacturing counties, and would, he hoped, effect a change of opinion no. Jess extensive; Those who had not read that work ought; to read it; because there was no publication, which, for a rational and practical view of the subject, could be compared with it. He had learned, more, from it than from any publication of the kind ho had ever read.
Sir J. Coffin
said, that if the use machinery were abolished, two-thirds of the manufacturers of this country would be reduced to starvation.
601
Mr. Ricardo
said, that much information might, undoubtedly, be derived from Mr. Cobbett's publication, because that writer explained the use of machinery in such a way as to render the subject perfectly clear. He was not, however, altogether satisfied with the reasoning contained in that pamphlet; because it was evident, that the extensive use of machinery, by throwing a large portion of labour into the market, while, on the other hand, there might not be a corresponding increase of demand for it, must, in some degree, operate prejudicially to the working classes. But still he would not tolerate any law to prevent the use of machinery. The question was,—if they gave up a system which enabled them to undersell in the foreign market, would other nations refrain from pursuing it? Certainly not. They were therefore bound, for their own interest, to continue it. Gentlemen ought, however, to inculcate this truth on the minds of the working classes—that the value of labour, like the value of other things, depended on the relative proportion of supply and demand. If the supply of labour were greater than could be employed, then the people must be miserable. But the people had the remedy in their own hands. A little forethought, a little prudence (which probably they would exert, if they were not made such machines of by the poor-laws), a little of that caution which the better educated felt it necessary to use, would enable them to improve their situation.
Mr. Maxwell
differed from those who were of opinion that a low rate of wages was serviceable to a country. The reverse he conceived to be the fact; be-cause, from the circumstance of low wages, a great degree of crime and discontent were engendered; and when that was the case, great expense must be incurred in the prosecution and punishment of offenders. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade would pay some attention to this petition. The population of the country, whether agricultural or manufacturing, should, he thought, be protected as much as possible from the effects of machinery; since it was that population by whom the taxes were paid.
Mr. Philips
instanced the fact, that the wages of the artisan were more liberal where machinery was used than where it was not used, as a proof that its introduction was not hurtful to the weaver.
602
Mr. Ricardo
said, his proposition was, not that the use of machinery was prejudicial to persons employed in one particular manufacture, but to the working classes generally. It was the means of throwing additional labour into the market, and thus the demand for labour, generally, was diminished.
Mr. Maxwell
presented a petition of a similar nature from certain inhabitants of Middlesex. He observed, that if wages were higher, the working-classes would be able to consume a greater quantity of produce of every kind; and they must all acknowledge, that to devise a mode by which the consumption of produce would be extended, was a great desideratum.
Ordered to lie on the table.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.]
Mr. Goulburn
moved the order of the day, for going into a committee to consider further of this bill. On the question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair,"
Sir J. Nicholl
observed, that considering who were the framers of the present measure, he could not view it as an attack upon Tithes in the character of church property; more especially as the Composition was proposed to be applied to all tithes, and it was well known that a large portion of them, particularly in Ireland, belonged to laymen. At the same time, he must remark, that great caution was to be used in interfering with the rights of property of any description. Doctrines extremely alarming were set' afloat in the world. An equitable adjustment of all contracts was to be proposed. Principles in regard to church property had been stated, directly asserting that it belonged to the public, and was disposeable for the use of the state. Such assertions could only be considered as tending to measures of manifest spoliation and plunder. But a fair composition or commutation for tithes, did not necessarily bear that character. Plans of that sort had been proposed at different periods by some enlightened statesmen. Yet it should be recollected, that those plans, however specious at the outset, had always proved abortive, and difficulties of detail had always presented themselves which were found to be insurmountable.—After these experiments had been repeatedly tried, and considering that the evils from the tithe system in this part of the United Kingdom, were not of a mag-
603
604
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
Mr. Goulburn
said, he was anxious to remove any doubts which might have arisen in the minds of his right hon. friend, as to any intention existing of extending the operations of this bill to England. He could assure his right hon. friend, that no such intention had ever been entertained by any one. He would, however, put an end to the possibility of such a fear existing any longer; for he would now propose that the preamble to the bill should be postponed; and before the House was called on again to consider it, he would propose such an alteration in that part of the bill, as should completely guard the tithe system of this country from being affected by the measure now under consideration, should it be adopted by the House.
Mr. Calcraft
objected to the clause, which, he contended, would throw the whole power of appointing the vestry into the hands of the incumbent, who would, no doubt, be careful to return in' his list no individual who was hostile to his own interests, or over whom he had not in some way a control. He was himself favourable to the principle of this bill. He considered it calculated to do much good in Ireland; but he feared that as at present constructed, the machinery was too complicated for it ever to work with effect.
Mr. Goulburn
said that the mischiefs which the hon. gentleman seemed to apprehend as likely to arise from too much influence being given to the clergyman were guarded against by the subsequent clause, by which any individual who considered his name as improperly omitted in the list returned by the clergyman, might, on application, to a magistrate, have it inserted, and become eligible to be appointed a vestry-man, having previously qualified himself, by complying with the other provisions of the bill.
605
Mr. Dennis Browne
objected to the bill altogether, and to this clause in particular.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald
strongly protested against such an arrangement as quite inapplicable to Ireland. There was a total want of machinery in the south and southwest parts of Ireland to carry it into effect. In some parishes there was not a resident magistrate. Besides, the clause would be open to great abuse, for any considerable lay-impropriator of tithes might from influence create vestry-commissioners, and check-commissioners from his own partisans, and thus collect tithes to what amount he pleased.
Sir H. Parnell
undertook to say, that in the part of Ireland with which he was acquainted, this measure would be hailed as a benefit. Although it might not be fit for that portion of the country which the right hon. gentleman had named, yet there were two other provinces which it would suit.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, that in the county of Cork, which was five times as large as the county which the hon. baronet represented, such a measure was totally impracticable. It was monstrous to press, a measure designed to be of general application, with the fact that in two-thirds of Ireland it could not be acted upon.
Mr. Abercromby
suggested, as an improvement, that in the cases of parishes where arrears existed, and where, consequently, under the present clause, the whole of the tithe payers might be excluded from taking part in the vestry, the payment of the last year's arrears might be deemed sufficient to qualify for admission to the vestry.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, be approved of the suggestion. As to the proprietors of agistment land, it was obviously their interest not to have anything to do with the appointment of valuers.
Mr. S. Rice
thought the contribution to the country rate might be made the test of the qualification of the vestrymen.
After some further conversation on this clause, it was agreed to postpone it.
Mr. Wetherell
objected to the principle of universal suffrage in the election of arbitrators. The vestrymen ought to be chosen by a portion of the tithe payers. He thought it would be better to take this clause into further consideration on the recommitment of the bill.
Mr. Peel
thought the argument of the
606
Mr. Ricardo
observed that, by the present bill, land improved within the last 21 years was not to be tithable for such improvement; but as an adjustment was to take place every year, suppose a man possessed of poor land, to improve that land within one year after the passing this bill, he would become liable to pay upon his improved land, while his neighbour, having been so fortunate as to improve a year sooner, would be liable to no such burthen. This would be to give one person a preference, ruinous in its effect, to another. The bill might be favourable to Ireland, but it would be most injurious to the English agriculturist, as it would enable the Irish grower to grow corn cheap, and he might glut the English market, to the ruin of the English grower, unless a protecting duty was imposed on Irish corn.
Mr. Goulburn
said, the argument just introduced by the hon. member for Portarlington, was one quite beside the present question; though it would apply to any measure introduced with a view of assisting agriculture in any part of the empire. If the ground now laid by the hon. gentleman was sufficient to justify the imposing countervailing duties on Irish produce, a wide field would indeed be opened for imposing such duties, not only in Ireland, but in various part of this country. How would the hon. gentleman reconcile his proposition with the various instances which existed in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, in particular, of parishes relieved from the operation of the tithe system by special acts of parliament. According to the hon. gentleman's doctrine, we must have Custom-houses erected on the borders of those counties, and countervailing duties imposed, to keep up this beautiful system of equilibrium of price. He must at once strongly protest against this proposition of countervailing duties
607
Mr. Benett
, of Wilts, though a considerable English grower himself, did not complain of the present measure, because it might, by chance, be beneficial to Ireland, at a small expense to England.
Colonel Barry
said, there was one part of the clause to which he must object; namely, that part which gave to the commissioners the power of raising the composition one-third above the present produce of the living. He should move to omit that part of the clause when they arrived at it.
Mr. Goulburn
contended, that it was necessary the commissioners should have a discretionary power; and that if, on comparing the average of the last three or four years, they should find the sum received by the clergyman not equal to the value of the tithe, they should have the power to fix a higher composition. Suppose a clergyman, from motives of humanity towards his parishioners, not to have taken so much for tithe as he was justly entitled to, and suppose the incumbent of the adjoining parish to be a man of different character, was it to be said, that in such opposite cases the commissioners were to have no discretionary power, but that the kindness of the one party should be taken advantage of for the purpose of deteriorating his property, whilst the severity of the other should operate in a directly contrary manner? It was not intended that the commissioners should be bound to give one-third; it was to be left to them to act as the justice of the case required. He was convinced, that, if a contrary course was adopted, this measure would, instead of proving a conciliatory one, increase discontent, as the parishes in which the Composition was fixed at the higher rate would, on comparison with others more favourably situated, complain, and with reason, of being hardly dealt with. He did not consider that this discretionary power could be lodged any where better than with the commissioners, and therefore he would support the clause.
Mr. Benett
thought that if the commissioners were to have the power of raising some livings, they ought also, if they thought fit, to have the power of reducing others.
Mr. D. Browne
strongly opposed the clause. It was said that the tithes were
608
Colonel Barry
then moved to leave out the particular words of the clause to which he had called the attention of the committee.
Mr. Daly
supported the amendment. The average would, he said, always be taken upon 1816, 1817, and 1818, which were all high years, and would give a very high average.
Sir J. Newport
was ready to give the clergyman as much as he now received, but no more.
Mr. Wynn
was against the amendment. Cases of modus might arise, in which the discretionary power might be necessary to enable the commissioners to act fairly by all parties.
Sir G. Hill
thought the clause was intended rather as a defence for the parishioners than as an advantage to the clergyman; for by it the commissioners were restrained from going beyond one third.
Lord Folkestone
said, the clergy would have a manifest advantage, as the composition would be fixed upon the payments made in a deteriorated currency, and the payments now would be in a currency restored to its proper standard and value.
Mr. Calcraft
thought the commissioners should have a discretion. He did not say whether it should be to the extent of one-third or not.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that to meet the wishes of his right hon. friend, he would propose that the following words be inserted—"That it shall and may be lawful, where it shall appear to the commissioners that the average is not the fair value of the living, for the said commissioners to add to such average any sum not exceeding one-third of the amount."
Colonel Barry
thought, that instead of a benefit to the people and clergy of Ire-land, the bill, if passed with such a provision, would prove a curse to both. He would give to the clergy what they now had, but no more. He could not agree to the amendment.
On a division, the numbers were; for the clause, 73; against it, 63.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
objected to the measure altogether, as inordinately increasing the revenues of the clergy, and particularly in Ireland, where the hierarchy was enormously overpaid, consider-
609
Mr. Goulburn
joined with the hon. member in requesting the aid of the Irish members in the consideration of this measure. It was only by their aid that it could be rendered beneficial to Ireland. The hon. gentleman had said, that by the operation of this bill the incomes of the clergy would be enormously increased. The hon. member could not have read t he bill, or he would not have ventured on such an assertion; for there was no compulsion; the whole was voluntary; the bill did not go to impose any new burthens on the people.
Mr. R. Martin
observed, that the House had forced the government into this measure, and he had been a party in that force. He was decidedly of opinion, that the clergy were entitled to a fair compensation for whatever rights or property the bill might go to deprive them of; and unless that compensation was given, he was convinced the measure would never pass the other House of Parliament.
The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 2, 1823.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Sir T. Lethbridge
begged to state, that at the suggestion of many able friends of the agricultural interests of the country, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion, which stood for Thursday next, on the subject of Agricultural Distress. He was most happy to notice the contrast of circumstances between the present time, when he abandoned his motion, and that in which he gave notice of it. The state of things now afforded a hope of great alleviation, if not the entire extinction of that melancholy state of distress which had so recently involved a large portion of those engaged in the agriculture of the country.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—DEVON PETITION.]
Lord Ebrington
rose to present the petition of the freeholders and others of the county of Devon, praying for a reform of parliament, and animadverting upon the foreign and domestic disasters which had grown out of the corrupt state of the representation. After
610
Mr. Newman
said, he was present at the meeting, and could add his testimony to its unanimity and respectability.
Mr. Tremayne
said, he had passed through the town during the meeting, and certainly had not witnessed any of that manifestation of zeal which the petition imported. As the noble lord said that four-fifths of the petitioners were freeholders, he would not dissent from that description of the parties, although it was one which otherwise he should have doubted.
Sir F. Ommanney
thought the petition ought not to be laid on the table. With respect to the alleged sufferings of the petitioners during the war, the House need not be told of the benefits they derived from the maritime expenditure at Torbay, Exeter, and other parts of Devonshire.
Mr. P. Moore
asked, whether either of the hon. members who spoke last could contradict the strong facts asserted in the petition, respecting the necessity of a reform of parliament.
Lord Ebrington
thought it natural for the hon. baronet not to feel any strong relish for popular opinion, and not to be an advocate for parliamentary reform. But, whatever was the hon. baronet's opinion, he was convinced the House would not so far forget its duty as to attend to his extraordinary proposition. It was, however, competent for the hon. baronet to try the fate of his recommendation by pressing his view of the subject to a division. The other hon. member had remarked, that
611
Ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTCH COUNTY REPRESENTATION.]
Lord A. Hamilton
rose to bring forward his promised motion on the State of this County Representation in Scotland.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
rose to order, and said, that by a standing order of the House, all orders of the day set down for Mondays and Fridays, must be disposed of, before the notices entered upon the book were proceeded upon.
The standing order to that effect was then read.
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that he stood upon his right to introduce his motion, which appeared first upon the list of notices. He had yielded to the call to order, and would again sit down, if that call were repeated; but he trusted, that unless he said something which the Chair should deem disorderly, no gentleman would interrupt him in the performance of an undoubted right which he was in the act of exercising. He did not mean to disguise from them, that he felt himself placed in an unusual situation. He had already, on three successive occasions, put off his motion for the convenience of the gentlemen opposite. It was understood on those occasions, that he was to have precedence on a future evening. Now, it was obvious that if such arrangements were disregarded, it would be useless to make any such in future. Under the circumstances in which he was placed, he would leave it to the hon. members opposite, whether he ought not to proceed. He had given way before for their convenience, but he could not consent to do so at present.
Mr. S. Wortley
rose to order. He said, he was anxious to have it decided, whether the House was to abide by its sessional order or not. In adherence to those orders, the orders of the day ought on Mondays to have precedence.
612
Lord Cranborne
also expressed his opinion that the sessional order ought to be adhered to.
Mr. Secretary Canning
admitted the difficulties in which, the noble lord and the House were placed on this occasion. It must be agreed, that according to a strict adherence to the sessional order, the orders of the day ought to have precedence on that day; but it was well known that there were deviations from the rule by an understanding between members on both sides. He was not in the House when the arrangement to which the noble, lord referred was entered into, but as it was made with those with whom he acted, he would, under the circumstances, consider himself a party to it.
Lord Cranborne
complained of the inconvenience which would arise from this deviation from the regular practice of the House. For his own part, he feared the delay would be fatal to his bill (the safe of game bill). He should like to hear the decision of the Chair, whether the sessional orders were to have force or not.
The Speaker
said, that by the sessional, orders certain days were fixed on which orders were to have precedence, and others on which notices had the priority. That regulation was, he well recollected made under a strong protest by several members, as being an infringement upon the privilege of a member, to originate a motion without notice. It was certainly right that the sessional orders should be strict adhered to; but, this session, in consequence of the inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff' of Dublin, several deviations had unavoidably taken place. With respect to the noble lord who was now in possession of the House, it must be presumed that he intended to conclude his speech with a motion; and no amendment to that could be made until it, was before the House.
Lord A. Hamilton
was about to proceed, when
Mr. S. Wortley
again rose to order, and began to point out the inconvenience of a departure from the sessional order, when he was interrupted by
The Speaker
, who observed, that this was not speaking to a point of order. The hon. member might urge those topics at the conclusion of the noble lord's speech, but not before.
Lord A. Hamilton
then proceeded. He rose, he said, to call the attention of the House to the state of the representa-
613
614
l.
s.
615
fiar
616
617
l.
618
619
620
dominium utile;
1. "That it appears, by a certified copy of the roll of freeholders of every county in Scotland, as last made up, laid before this House in 1820, that the total
621
2. "That, by the same return, it appears that the greatest number of persons having a right to vote in any one county, did not exceed 240, viz. for the county of Fife; and that the smallest number did not exceed 9, viz. for the county of Cromarty.
3. "That it further appears, from the same return, that many of the same persons have a right to vote in several counties, and consequently that the total number of voters for all the counties of Scotland is considerably less than 2,889.
4. "That it further appears to this House, that the right of voting for a representative for a Scotch county depends, not on the possession of the
dominium utile
5. That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration the state of the representation of counties in Scotland, with a view to effect some extension of we number of votes, and to establish some connexion between the right of voting and the landed property of that country."
The first resolution being put,
Mr. Maxwell
begged leave to second the motion, and contended, that the people of Scotland were extremely dissatisfied with the existing system, and claimed of the House that a change should be made. No doubt the support which ministers received in some places was a conscientious support, but in general their friends had displayed credulity rather than discretion. The state of the House of Commons—the feeling of the members who composed it—might be read in the general conduct which they pursued towards the country. The labouring classes were ground down by taxation. The merest necessaries of life paid tribute to the state. The manufacturer was reduced to the lowest rate of wages upon
622
Sir George Clerk
believed, that the present system of Scotch representation was one with which Scotland was perfectly satisfied; at least, he had himself heard no complaints against it, and he was convinced it would be impossible to make any operative alteration in that system, without entirely changing the municipal law, and the tenure of property throughout the kingdom. He confessed that the extent of copyhold property, or of tenure tantamount to copyhold; was not so great in England as in Scotland; but why was it more anomalous for a copyholder to be without the elective franchise in Scotland than in England, where the principle was; that a man might hold a large estate for 999 years, a term as good as perpetuity, without having a vote for members of parliament, while that privilege was within the exercise of every freeholder of forty shillings year? The noble lord opposite had talked of the subserviency of the Scottish members, and of members returned by "parchment" voters; but if the "parchment" returned members were the subservient party, how happened it that the noble lord, who was decidedly returned by parchment interest, was constantly standing forward in opposition to ministers, while he (Sir G. Clerk), coming from Edinburgh, where the noble lord admitted the voters to be real, usually saw cause to support the measures of government? He denied that there was any man of large copyhold property in Scotland—any man of 10,000
l.
623
Mr. Kennedy
denied, that the proposition of the noble mover involved the subversion of the existing tenures of property
624
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, he hoped that, though unconnected with the kingdom of Scotland, he should be pardoned for expressing some opinions on this subject; especially as he had no intention of entering into the details of it, which had really, he thought, been disposed of in a most complete and satisfactory manner by his hon. friend, the worthy baronet near him. The noble lord had proposed a very large and wide change; but the grounds which he had laid, instead of being co-extensive with that project, were all of them narrow and particular. The greatest evil complained of by the noble lord seemed to be the inconvenience said to be sustained from the want of a powers to
625
626
there
627
as a part of the constitution of the Scottish slate itself.
so guaranteed
628
629
by possibility
by possibility
630
631
that
taste
632
—"each alley has a brother,
"And half the platform just reflects the other."
Sir James Mackintosh
rose. He began by complaining of the small number of the gentlemen of England who were present at the discussion of a question of such vital importance, and of the still smaller portion of attention which that question seemed to command. These circumstances had induced him to offer a few remarks upon the arguments of the hon. baronet, and of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. He begged leave to remind the House, that the hon. baronet had attempted to couple the present question with the general question of Reform, but that there was not the slightest ground for so doing; seeing that the measure proposed would not pledge any man to vote for any other measure. The hon. baronet had had recourse baronet had had recourse to the usual
633
634
635
636
in capite.
637
638
Lord Binning
entered his protest against the assertion, that the present motion had no connexion with the question of reform in England. The proposition of the, noble lord, with respect to the county re presentation of Scotland, would make a greater change than the adoption of universal suffrage in England. Much had been said about the want of freedom in Scotland; but he would appeal any English gentleman who was at aft acquainted with the state of Scotland, whether he did not consider it a perfectly free country? If the people of Scotland had been dissatisfied with the state of the representation of that country—if they had entertained the same views as the noble lord did on the subject—they would have been forward enough in letting the House know their opinions. But he denied that they wished for the projected: change; and he would not consent to unsettle the whole system of representation in Scotland, for the advantage that might be derived from a few votes at a county election. It was said, that all the members might be elected by persons not residing in Scotland. This was the fact theoretically;—but, practically, it was not the case. There was no part of the empire in which the land was more decidedly in possession of the elective franchise. If the noble lord's statement had been true, it would have been a ground for some v change, but he denied its correctness. The noble lord had stated the fact, that in the county of Lanark there were superiority votes; but he bad not shown how they were connected with the land, Now twenty of these votes belonged to
639
l.
Mr. J. P. Grant
supported the motion of the noble lord. With reference to the article of the Union which had been so frequently alluded to, he held it to be perfectly clear, that no country could bind its posterity by any stipulation which the circumstances of the moment had created. He was clearly of opinion, that no gentleman who voted for the proposition now before the House, would be bound, in consequence, to support any motion for a reform in the representation
640
The Lord Advocate
said, that at that late hour, although he had originally intended to go into the subject, he should not now discuss it at any length. He admitted, that those who were attached to the English system of representation, could not be favourable to the system of Scotch county representation. But gentlemen would do well to consider whether seeing that such as it was, it was approved of by the people of Scotland, they would do right to force a new system upon them. As it now stood, it was as ancient as the reign of Charles 1st, and had remained unaltered and uncomplained of since the time of the Union of tin two crowns. The lion, and learned member for Knaresborough had spoken of the complaints made by the people of Scotland at the period of the Revolution, and the remedies proposed in the mode of representation; but there was then no subject of complaint but one, and that was, that where the large counties returned two members, the small counties returned the same number. To this sole cause of complaint a remedy was applied, by allowing an additional number of
641
Lord Milton
observed, that an erroneous impression had gone abroad with respect to this question, as if it were interesting to Scotland alone. Now, he considered it interesting to the whole united empire. If it were the law and the practice for the Scotch members to confine themselves to subjects of Scotch legislation, the question would in that case exclusively affect Scotland; but as
642
Lord Glenorchy
said, he felt he should be wanting in the discharge of his duty, to his country, if he did not express his decided concurrence in the motion of the noble lord. If there had been no petition in favour of the motion, it was because public sentiment had not the organ of county meetings in Scotland; but it was not less true, that the people of that country wanted a full, ample, and equal representation, instead of the system how existing, which was marked by egregious absurdity and injustice [Hear, hear!].
Lord A. Hamilton
, in reply, took occasion to observe, that the heritors of Scotland who were not represented, were, in every other respect, similar to the yeomanry of England, who were represented in parliament.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Birch, Jos.
Althorp, visc.
Boughton, sir W. R.
Anson, hon. H. G.
Browne, Dom.
Baring, H.
Buxton, T. F.
Barnard, visc.
Calcraft, J.
Belgrave, visc.
Calcraft, J. H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Galvert, N.
Bentinck, lord W.
Carter, J.
Benyon, B.
Cavendish, lord G.
Bernal, R.
Cavendish, H. F. C.
643
Corbett, P.
Newport, sir J.
Chaloner, R.
Normanby, visc.
Clifton vise.
Nugent, lord
Colburne, sir N. W. R.
O'Callaghan, J.
Creevey, Thos.
Ord, W.
Crompton, S.
Palmer, C.
Cradock, col.
Palmer, C. P.
Davies, S.
Pares, Tho.
Denison, W. J.
Pelham, J. C.
Denman, Thos.
Powlett, hon. J. F.
Duncannon, visc.
Poyntz, W. S.
Ebrington, visc.
Ramsden, J. C.
Ellice, E.
Rice, T. S.
Ellis, G. J. W. A.
Ricardo, D.
Evans, W.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Robarts, A. W.
Folkestone, visc.
Robarts, G. J.
Frankland, R.
Rumbold, C. E.
Glenorchy, visc.
Russell, Lord J.
Grant, J. P.
Russell, R. G.
Grattan, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Grenfell, P.
Scarlett, J.
Guise, sir R. W.
Scott, James
Gurney, Hudson
Sefton, earl of
Heathcote, G. S.
Smith, J.
Heron, sir R.
Smith, hon. R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Smith, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Smith, R.
Hume, J.
Stanley, lord
Hurst, Robert
Stewart, W. (Tyrone)
James, Wm.
Sykes, D.
Jervoise, G. P.
Talbot, R. W.
King, sir J. D.
Taylor, M. A.
Kemp, J.
Tennyson, C.
Langston, J. H.
Tierney, G.
Lawley, F.
Titchfield, marq. of
Leader, W.
Townshend, lord C.
Lennard, T. B.
Tulk, C. A.
Lushington, S.
Webb, Ed.
Maberly, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Maberly, W. L.
White, L.
Mackintosh, sir J.
White, col.
Marjoribanks, S.
Whitmore, W. W.
Marryat, J.
Williams, John
Martin, J.
Williams, W.
Maxwell, J.
Wood, M.
Milbank, M.
Milton, visc.
TELLERS.
Moore, P.
Hamilton, lord A.
Mostyn, sir T.
Kennedy, T. F.
Neville, hon. R.
PAIRED OFF.
Newman, R. W.
Knight, R.
The previous question was then put on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th resolution, and negatived. The last resolution was then put and negatived.
Lord Milton
said, he could not help expressing a hope, that the result of the division which had just taken place would be well considered by the whole country; and that in it the inhabitants of Scotland, who take an intent in state of their representation, would see a much nearer prospect of their wishes being' accomplished than some gentlemen who spoke
644
Sir J. Sebright
stating, that he had been accidentally locked out during the division Had he been in his place, he should have thought himself unworthy of the, seat the had in the House, if he had not given his vote for the motion.
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN.]
Mr. J. Williams
rose, in the absence of his hon. friend the member for Westminster, {sir F. Burdett), to give notice, that on Thursday the 12th instant, that hon. baronet would submit certain resolutions to the House relative to the late investigation into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin.
SALE OF GAME BILL.]
Lord Cranborne
, on moving the second reading pf this bill, observed, that the details of the measure would be best discussed in 'the committee, and respecting them he should therefore reserve himself until that stage arrived. Against the principle of the measure he was not aware that many objections could be made. He referred to the, evidence given before the committee, to show the great quantity of game which was annually disposed of in the London markets. The object of the bill was, to take that supply out of the hands of the poachers, and place it in those of licensed dealers.
Sir John Shelley
objected to the bill, that it would not only increase the number of poachers, and add to the demoralization of the lower classes, but would tend also to the entire annihilation of the game. He much doubted whether the bill would increase the sale of game; and observed on the great difficulty there would be in keeping the market regularly and fully supplied, as it was not to hue supposed that every gentleman would dispose of his game. He much doubted whether the fair trader would be able, as it was said, to undersell the poacher. How should he, when the latter stole that which the former paid for? He begged to refer honourable members, to the well-known story of the rival broom-sellers The one asked the other, how he could afford to undersell him, since he stole the materials. "Why," replied the other, "I steal mine, ready made." On this principle, he was persuaded the licensed man would not be able to compete with
645
Lord Deerhurst
seconded the amendment. The bill, in his opinion, would increase the number of poachers by as many as there were idle men to be found in each parish in the country. He insisted strongly on the policy of encouraging country gentlemen to live on their estates, by securing to them the amusements to which they were accustomed. Legalizing the sale would have the effect of destroying the game. He would, therefore, resist the bill upon that principle, though he was willing to vote for the correction of the game laws in any salutary way.
Mr. W. Peel
objected to the bill, which, if passed into a law, would confine the possession of game to persons occupying large tracts of country.
Mr. Poyntz
said, he could not agree with those who thought that the passing of the bill would decrease the quantity of game or increase the number of poachers. The offence of poaching had been carried to a great extent of late years, in consequence of the miserable pittance which labourers had been accustomed to receive for their labour. That class of persons had preferred poaching to being employed for a few shillings a week in breaking stones oh the highways. One reason which would induce him to vote for the present bill, was the severity, he might say the unconstitutional severity, of the existing game laws, which rendered it, in many instances, impossible for magistrates to enforce them. He thought, also, that respectable tradesmen, who possessed the pecuniary means of regaling their friends
646
Mr. S. Whitbread
was convinced that the laws respecting game required to be amended. He saw that the offence of poaching had grown with the growth arid strengthened with the strength of these very Jaws which were enacted with the intention, of suppressing it. Those laws, under their present severity, were a disgrace to the national character, and a great cause of the demoralization of the poorer classes.
Mr. Brougham
said, he concurred' in what had fallen from his hon. Friend who spoke last, and from the hon. member for Chichester, respecting the system of the game laws. He felt as strongly as they possibly could do not only disapprobation, but an abhorrence, of that system and its principles—if any thing in itself so unprincipled could be said to have any. Any thing which was calculated-to mitigate gate the evils of that system he would hail with the greatest satisfaction, But a specific measure being here proposed for his adoption, he was bound, in the first instance, to inquire—agreeing as he did in all that had been said in reprobation of the old system—whether that which was intended as a substitute for that system was likely to produce the effect which was expected therefrom. Nevertheless, when he looked at the bill, however might approve of the principle on which it proceeded, and whatever Credit for humanity he might give to the noble lord who had brought it forward, he could see nothing in it which entitled it even to the benefit of a doubt in his mind, as to whether he should support it or not. Did gentlemen know what they were about to give their approbation to? Did they know what the bill was Were any persons led away by the cry of "we are about to abolish the game laws" If such there were, to them he would say, that they would not abolish the game laws by passing this bill. They were, indeed, about to preserve the worst parts of the system. Some gentlemen, perhaps, were led away by the cry of "let us legalize the sale of game" But would that be done by the bill? No such thing. He would tell those who were so anxious that the bill should pass, what they were about blindfold to give their sanction to. On of the objections to the present system of game
647
l.
l.
Mr. S. Wortley
expressed himself anxious that some change should be made in the game laws, the first step to which was to legalise the selling of game. No man could doubt but that the markets were abundantly supplied at present; and the effect of the existing law was, to throw that supply into the hands of poachers. He did not mean to contend that poaching would be put an end to by the measure before the House, or by any measure that could be devised; but it was reasonable to expect, that as the risk increased, and the temptation diminished, poaching would diminish also. As to the qualification to kill game, the sooner it was placed upon the system which prevailed in Scotland the better it would be for the country.
648
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was an advocate for the present measure, though he would allow that he was originally prepossessed against it. He did not imagine that the power of granting licenses for retailing game was given to magistrates for the purpose of patronage, but in only because there were no other, persons in whose hands that power could be so fitly placed. The introduction of the legal proprietor into the market, would
pro tanto
Mr. Tennyson
supported the amendment in a speech which was inaudible in the gallery, in consequence of the impatience in the House for the question.
Sir T. Ackland
rose amidst incessant cries of "question." He expressed his' g sorrow, that the learned member for winchelsea could not give his support to this bill. He trusted, however, that the learned gentleman would not oppose the measure at its present stage, but would wait to see its details after it came from the committee. If he did not then approve of the bill, he could reject it oh the third reading. The existing laws were so: bad, that if the house allowed them to continue for another twelve months, it would be giving its sanction to a system of crime and bloodshed.
The House divided: For the second reading 82. Against it 60. Majority 22.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, June 3, 1823.
FOREIGN WOOL.]
The Earl of Hare- wood
presented two petitions from the woollen manufacturers of Leeds and Huddersfield against the duties on foreign wool, and observed on the inexpediency and injustice of the duties in question.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that some years ago a duty was laid on foreign wool and it was then predicted that it would not be productive; but the contrary was is the fact, the duties having risen from 250,000
l.
l.
649
l.
Ordered to he on the table.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
The Earl of Westmorland
rose to move, that it be an instruction to the committee to leave out the clause relative to the voidability of marriages. He did not object to the principle of that clause with any view of lessening parental authority, nor with any desire to take away from minors the protection which it was calculated to afford them; but he opposed it, because it was entirely nugatory, so far as regarded the ends proposed. He objected to it also because it was an alteration of the law of the land, without necessity. The alteration at the time of lord Hardwicke's bill being brought in was necessary, as there was a grievance then to be redressed; but he had heard of none now existing. He objected to the measure on moral, religious, and legal grounds; and also because it was nugatory and inoperative to any beneficial purpose. The noble earl argued the question at some length, on the grounds he had slated, and particularly dwelt on the legal difficulties arising out of the clause, as respected the consent of the parents or guardians. If the mother were not a widow, though professing to be one; or if the guardian were not duly appointed, the marriage would be invalid. If there
650
The Lord Chancellor
suggested whether it was competent to the noble earl to move an instruction to the committee to leave out a clause. He did not recollect any instance of it. It was of constant occurrence to move instructions to committees to insert clauses; but if it were competent to the noble lord to move to leave out a clause, other noble lords had the same right, and might exert it; so that the house would never get into the committee.
The Earl of Westmorland
said, if he was out of order, he would put himself right by opposing the going into a committee on the bill. If the Bank Directors allowed stock to be sold out, or if a trustee allowed an estate to be disposed of, under the authority of the husband,
de facto,
The House resolved itself into a committee, on the clause for allowing the bishop, with the consent of the patron and incumbent, to authorise the publication of bans in any public chapel.
The Bishop of Chester
feared that the necessity of the consent of the patron and incumbent, would render the clause inoperative.
651
The Archbishop of
Canterbury
The clause was agreed to without amendment.
The clause relating to the "voidability of marriages" being read,
The Archbishop of York
said, that the marriage contract was a solemn obligation made in the sight of God, and therefore ought not to be dissolved for any involuntary error which the parties might have made. The marriage ceremony called upon the parties to declare whether any lawful impediment existed to the it union. On the sincerity with which they made this declaration, the legality of their marriage ought, in a religious point of view, to depend. To a marriage so solemnized, the words of our Saviour must apply—"Those whom God has joined, let no man put asunder." In his opinion, therefore, this declaration having been made by the parties, there could be no impediment, except a previous contract and affinity within the prohibited degrees, which ought to effect a dissolution of their marriage. Applying this principle, then, to the clause before the House, he objected to the
bonâ fide
bonâ fide
652
The Bishop of Chester
declared is intention of opposing the clause. Marriage was a religious and a civil contract. It was religious, because the parties swore before God to keep the vow and covenant between them made, unto their lives' end. On this subject the religious customs of all countries, in all times, had been substantially the same. As a civil contract it was of the highest solemnity. It was evident that God, willing the happiness of his creatures, had prescribed the institution of marriage. Where the Deity had expressly Spoken, implicit obedience was the duty of mankind; Where his commands had not been given it was competent for man to make laws. Upon this principle rested the validity of all laws, and among others, that of those relating to marriage. He could not but consider the clause before the House as contrary to the Christian code. The Divine legislature directed, that "a man shall leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." It was impossible that words could be more explicit. He had said also, "what, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder:" and had enjoined that wives should not be put away, save for adultery. Taking, then, all these texts together, it was obvious that the law of man ought to be made agreeable to the expressed law of God. Marriages were at present solemnized by the law of God, and by the law; of man. It was worse than a mockery to say that a man might be married with all the sanctities which religion could confer upon the contract,—that, after a minister of the gospel had pronounced him married in the name of the Father, the Sort, and the Holy Ghost, the caprice of parents should undo so solemn a compact. The laws of man might vary, but the laws of God could never change. This argument weighed upon his mind with a force compared to which, all other considerations appeared insignificant. If their lordships next proceeded to consider the subject in a merely moral point of view, they would see on one side the wounded feelings of a parent—in plain truth, often only feelings of wounded
653
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that if the doctrine laid down by the right rev. prelate could be supported, the House would have nothing to debate upon. But the question was not whether man should put asunder those whom God had joined, but whether God bad joined them. Now, unless he had mistaken the whole tenure of the Old and New Testament, there was nothing contained in them which could be taken to prevent national societies from prescribing the forms by which marriages should be held good. If it were otherwise, there was not a nation on earth, since the Christian era, which had not concurred in this profane practice which the right rev. prelate denounced. He did not mean to give any opinion with respect to the clause itself; but he had thought it right to say thus much on the doctrine which the right rev. prelate had laid down. Every noble lord who had spoken on this subject, had said something of the tenderness with which the interests of females should be regarded in the bill now before the House. He had no sort of objection to this, but he wished that some care should also be extended to the males. It happened to him, in the discharge of his judicial functions, to see frequent instances of the necessity of this provision. In one of recent occurrence, the daughter of a bricklayer, a woman. 32 years of age, with several illegitimate children, had prevailed upon
654
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he entertained now the same opinion as that which he had expressed last year; namely, that it was inexpedient to suffer the dissolution of marriages which had been once contracted. He was quite ready to admit, that marriage was an institution of God; but he knew also, that every nation had decided the forma and modes by which the institution should be kept up, and that the institution would in itself become nugatory, if a compliance with those prescribed forms and modes should not be enforced. The preceding clauses of the bill which had not been objected to, also recognized this principle. With respect to the forms, he was ready to say, that in a choice between those which were too easy or too difficult, hi should not hesitate to prefer those which were too easy. In the first place, to objected to the principle of the clause a together, even if its object were right; because there were two ways of accompishing it—the first by nullity, and the ether by voidability, both of which principles were of directly opposite nature. Although nullity was sufficiently obectionable, it was less so in principle that voidability. It was easy to see how the resent clause had originated. The House had both these difficulties before the they resorted to this clause by vay of compromise; and, as usually happened, the compromise was more of a eal difficulty than the other two. If
de ácto
655
656
Lord Powerscourt
opposed the clause, as being at variance with the laws of God.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, it could not be considered surprising if he expressed some uneasiness at the arguments which had been urged against this clause. It had been alleged, that there was something unchristian in its composition. That charge was, in his opinion, unfounded. The clause had been adopted by the committee, after due consideration, because it appeared to be on the whole, the least objectionable that had been proposed. He, however, was not so wedded to it as to press it in opposition to the wishes of the House. A great deal had been said about the authority of the parent. He however, begged their lordships to look at the protection which was due to the parent. It was undoubtedly true that in the marriage ceremony certain words were introduced from Scripture, viz.—"Whomsoever God hath joined let no man put asunder." But then this question arose out of the bill how before their lordships—"What is this junction which hath the sanction of Scripture? Is it the mere ordinance of marriage, without any religious ceremony whatever to distinguish that state from concubinage?" It was no such thing. Marriage, they
657
Lord Redesdale
thought, it was absolutely necessary that there should be some declaration as to what might and might not be called a marriage. Now, as there was no such regulation in the scriptural authority which had been referred to, it was clear that the regulation must be made by man. In looking at what was lit to be done with respect to the contract of marriage, it was proper to consider what would be most beneficial to man in a state of society. They regulated the property of men—they disabled persons under twenty-one years of age from disposing of that property—and he thought they might with equal justice declare, that the marriage of minors should be null and void. They did not, however, conceive that to he expedient, and they had therefore placed the marriage ceremony under certain regulations. Then came the question, whether the marriage of persons who broke those regulations should be considered void? It appeared to him to be a question of expedience; was it expedient for the legislature to say, after persons were joined together in this manner, that the marriage should be at once void? It seemed to be the general impression, that the marriage should not be thus declared void, but that under certain circumstances, and after certain proceedings, it should be rendered void. He thought that the object of civil society, in forming regulations on the subject of marriage, should be, to render the con-
658
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the clause had been carried in the committee by a majority of 7 to 4; but at the time several members of the committee were absent, who held a different opinion from the majority. If all the members had been present, there would not have been a majority of more than one. After having heard from the noble earl opposite, in the course of his eloquent speech, that it was impossible for this clause to secure that legal protection for parents which the right reverend prelate had stated to be his chief object, he was astonished that he should persist in calling on their lordships to adopt it. His astonishment was the greater when he recollected that last year the right rev. prelate had stated, that a clause of this nature was repugnant to morality and religion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
said he did not mean to persist obstinately in pressing the clause. He only supported it as the least objectionable, mode.
659
Lord Ellenborough
said, that while they left the law as to marriages in Scotland and on the continent in its present state, any provision, either for the nullity or the voidability of marriages, would be nugatory. Their lordships knew perfectly well, that it was more easy to effect a marriage by illegal bans, than by license. But, while they left open to those, who might be inclined to make the experiment, the easiest way of effecting improper marriages, they, by this clause, shut a door through which no human being in his senses would think of passing. This was the most absurd principle of legislation he had ever heard of. He wished to know from the right rev. bench, whether they did, or did not, believe that the moment a marriage was solemnized, a religious contract was entered into? If it was a religious contract, had that House the power of dissolving it? Could they give a power a third person—a power which might be exercised from motives of avarice or caprice—to put an end to that contract, after it had existed for a certain period? They ought to be aware of inculcating the opinion, that marriage was not a religious contract. If that principle were once removed, there would be little protection for the purity of marriage, and that purity appeared to him to be the best foundation of private happiness and of public liberty. He hoped their lordships would not grant the support to this clause which was called for by the right rev. prelate, who would himself, perhaps, on a few hours more reflection, regret that he had pressed it on the House.
The Bishop of London
contended, that this clause was perfectly consistent with the principles of morality. He had hoped that charges of this nature would have been abandoned, and that the argument would have been allowed to rest on the expediency of such an enactment. It was asserted, that the clause was contrary to the principles of morality and to the revealed word of God—that it was an infraction of our blessed Saviour's injunction, "Those whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder." This, however, was a false view of the case. It was not a question, whether any human authority should be so rash and impious as to disturb a contract which had received the divine sanction; but what constituted that union, and whether it was religious or civil? He conceived that union to be at once neligious and civil,
660
Lord Sidmouth
said, he felt himself bound in justice and honour, as one of the committee, to declare that he entirely concurred in the arguments advanced in support of the clause. He admitted that the portion of scripture which was introduced into the marriage service imposed a religious obligation on the parties. But he thought it would be impious to declare those marriages to be the act of God, which had been effected by fraud and perjury, and brought about by means in direct contradiction of the laws of God and man.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that as their lordships were about to go to a division, he begged of them to recollect, that no attempt had been made to shew that the clause in question was not contrary to the
661
Lord Stowell
said, that in all cases of this kind, they ought to consider how they could best legislate for the protection of the younger branches of the community. It was of the greatest importance, where marriages were about to be formed, that the utmost caution should be used. Formerly it was assumed, in all cases, that the consent of parents or guardians had been granted to those about to enter into the state of matrimony, although, in point of fact, little more was deemed necessary than the consent of the two parties themselves. In this state the matter continued for a long series of years, and that rule survived the Reformation. But soon after, the attention of the reformers was called to the propriety of strengthening the parental authority. The doctrine was then expressly promulgated, that where marriages were contracted without the consent of parents, they should be totally null and void, as was laid down in the "Reformatio Legum." Thus the law remained till the time of lord Hardwicke, when the disturbances in society, from the want of an efficient marriage Jaw, induced him to turn his serious attention to the subject. His act was superseded by that which had been passed last year, and it was found necessary, in consequence of the inconveniences experienced under that measure, to reconsider the subject. The committee, in turning their attention to it, found there were only four possible ways in which the authority of the parent could be secured. The first was that of nullity. He was charged with having, on this occasion, supported voidability in opposition to his former declaration on the subject. Now, he would say, that nullity in point of principle, appeared to him, up to the present moment, to be perfectly correct. But the general opinion was, that nullity was a monster against which every rational man ought to take alarm; and therefore it was abandoned. Another mode had been suggested by a noble and learned person—that of a remedy by a preventive measure. If he thought a preventive
662
663
664
Their lordships then divided upon the clause: Contents 22, Not-Contents 28. Majority against the clause 6.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, June 3, 1823.
CONDUCT OF THE LORD ADVOCATE
Mr. Abercromby
said, he was extremely glad that the period had at length arrived when he should be able, not only to redeem the pledge which he had given to that House and to the people of Scotland; but also to comply with the laudable desire expressed by the learned lord opposite, to have a question discussed in which he thought the conduct and character of that learned lord were deeply implicated. After the manner in which he had been goaded to the performance of the task which he had undertaken—after the manner in which he had been calumniated, and, with a perfect conviction of the truth of what he was stating, he would say, officially calumniated in
665
666
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
667
simul et semel.
ab origine,
mala fides
668
cessio bonorum.
669
Lord Binning
here asked, in what part of the printed minutes this was to be found?
Mr. Abercromby
said, this was not mentioned in the printed minutes; but it was a fact too notorious to admit of the slightest doubt. That it was not in the papers before the House, was in some degree his fault; but he had not thought it necessary to select it. However, he presumed no person would deny that the fact was so. Would the learned lord, or the noble lord, deny that the charge of theft was made against Borthwick—that a warrant was issued on that charge—and that, fur-
670
Lord Binning
asked whether the his charge by the magistrates could be produced?
Mr. Abercromby
said, he could not have thought it would have been necessary for him to reply to any objection of this kind. It was clear that Borthwick was before the magistrates, and that, thinking the charge without foundation, he was dismissed, without even having been held to bail. It was clear that he left Glasgow and went to Edinburgh soon after. This happened after the 12th of March. On the 17th, it appeared that a "concourse" was obtained from Mr. Hope, for prosecuting Borthwick at the instance of Alexander. What he sought to establish here, was what was apparent in all the proceedings; namely, that Mr. Hope must have known of the proceedings which had taken place before the magistrates at Glasgow. And here he thought it was that the conduct of the learned lord opposite was blameable, in having allowed the subsequent proceedings: for he must have known the circumstances which had passed at Glasgow, or have allowed the subsequent prosecution to go on without any inquiry into the circumstances out of which it arose. In either case he was guilty of as great a neglect of his duty, as could well be imagined of a person executing his office; for the simple question was, did Borthwick act under the authority of the decree of Glasgow or not? Now, if he did—and that he did he believed could not be denied—what greater neglect of duty could there be, than to prosecute him afterwards for his conduct on that occasion as for a felony?
671
672
673
pro loco et tempore,
pro hac vice,
674
now
675
676
677
The Lord Advocate
commenced by assuring the house, that the hon. and learned member who had just sat down could not feel greater satisfaction than himself, that the moment had arrived when this question was to be discussed and to be decided. Whatever had been its cause, certain it was that the delay that had already occurred had been most prejudicial to himself Nevertheless, he did not complain of it; he only denied that he had been in any way instrumental in producing it. No man had been more anxious than himself that the whole question should be brought forward as early as possible. He had been much surprised that the papers were not laid upon the table before the end of the last session; and if the hon. and learned gentleman, in what he had said on this point, meant to impute that he had been the occasion of the postponement, it was an error. He had written up from Scotland to the office of the Secretary of State, for an explanation of the fact; and he pad found that on the last day of the last session, the documents would have been brought up, but for the sudden and somewhat unexpected arrival of the usher of the black rod. In reference to the question before the house, he begged its indulgence while he was compelled logo over facts which he had before stated, and to repeat arguments which he had already urged. Of the manner in which the subject was brought forward last year, he had complained at the time. He complained now, and he should never cease to complain. For he had laboured under disadvantages of all kinds, and had not then the information now before the house, and on which he might securely rest his defence. He had not expected that the case of Borthwick would have been brought forward. He had, indeed, at that time one way of escaping from the difficulty he might have declared a fact subsequently avowed by his learned deputy, that he (the lord advocate) had given an opinion against the prosecution. The whole blame would, however, thus have rested on his learned deputy; but as he knew that he (the lord advocate) was officially responsible for the acts of his deputy; as he scorned not to sustain his share of responsibility; and as he was certain that the acts of his learned deputy would bear the strictest inquiry, he had not introduced that important and decisive circumstance. It had been declared to the house and to the country in the
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, he rose with considerable embarrassment, because he was called to decide upon a case as a judge would be in a court of justice, after hearing but one side. His hon. and learned friend had substantiated a strong case of accusation to which there was no defence. The learned lord had totally passed by, or mistaken, the nature of the accusation. He had talked all along in the plural number. He seemed to think that Mr. Hope was concerned with him, as in a sort of partnership for the administration of justice. Whereas, Mr. Hope was, with respect to this investigation by the House, nobody. The House could know nothing of his responsibility; he was not even an officer of the Crown, he was only a deputy to the earned lord He (Mr. J. P. Grant) knew of no power possessed by the lord advocate to put parties upon their trial for high crimes, which he could transfer to a deputy. He must do that part of his duties in his own capacity—according to the directions of his own mind—on his own view of each particular case. He might depute the conduct of the trials, or appoint persons to assist him in gathering and arranging the facts; but to him alone did the country look for the decision. The learned lord had said, that the powers of his office had been much exaggerated. His powers were, however, enormous, and there was no responsibility attached to them but to parliament. The learned lord would not say that he was answerable to any other tribunal. He had talked of an action for wrongous imprisonment; but the action had been brought, and the only remedy was that the court adjudged that the learned lord should produce his private informer who was to take the place of defendant. Now the learned lord was not only officially, but morally and really responsible foe all that had taken place on this occasion. The learned lord admitted, that the instructions to his deputy were, that there was no ground for the prosecution. This should have placed the prisoner in the same condition as he would have been
685
686
Mr. Home Drummond
said, he had never heard a more singular attack than this, for a grave accusation had, been made against the lord advocate, that he had not performed all the numerous duties of his office in person. Now, bethought it would be clear to any one who knew the multifarious duties of the learned lord, that it was impossible for him to deliver his opinion on every case. The learned member was a friend to the liberty of the person; but did he forget when he required the opinion of the lord; advocate on every case, that the effect would be to imprison men for a, longer time than was necessary, in order to obtain that opinion? Very few cases required much legal learning or experienced; but when any such did occur, the solicitor-general acted for the lord advocate, when that officer was absent. As to the charge of demanding excessive bail, it was known that moderate bail had been required but had not been put in, this party, for some reason or other best known to himself, declining to take advantage of it. The lord advocate had been accused of deserting the Diet
pro loco et tempore,
l.
687
Mr. Kennedy
said, he was surprised at the conclusion to which the hon. member who spoke last seemed to have arrived. He certainly did not wish to overload the lord advocate with official duties; but he thought that Scotland had a right to demand, if not his opinion on every case, at least that he should exercise some discretion on matters passing through his office. Scotland was not to be told, because the characters of member of parliament and lord advocate were united in one person, that the duties of one should be unperformed, while the learned lord discharged those of the other. If it was impossible for him to fulfil the functions of both, he should return to Scotland, and another person should fill his situation in that House, and thus leave him at liberty to perform those duties so requisite for the proper administration of justice in Scotland. It had been stated by the hon. member opposite, that low bail had been offered. But, supposing this to be true, what did it prove? Why, that the law had not been properly administered; for, by the law of Scotland, the offence with which Borthwick was charged was not bailable. The hon. member had stated the conduct of Borthwick to have been highly criminal: and yet the lord advocate himself had stated, that it was not a fit case for prosecution, and did not in any way approach to felony. Indeed,
688
Lord Binning
said, he rose with much anxiety and solicitude. A near relation: of his was among the parties interested, and he trusted that the House, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, would think him justified in prolonging, for a short time, the discussion. The house would recollect, that when the hon. and learned gentleman opposite brought forward this question last session, the motive imputed to the law-officers of the Crown in Scotland, was
mala fides
mala fides
689
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said; he had read the whole of the papers and those who knew him better than the noble lord, would be satisfied, that he would not give any vote to inflict pain or censure; on an individual; were he not satisfied that it was deserved.
690
After a brief reply from Mr. Abercromby, the House divided. Ayes, 96. Noes, 102. Majority against the motion, 6.
List of the Minority,
Abercromby, hon. J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Allan, J. H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Althorp, visc.
Martin, J.
Barnard, visc.
Milbank, M.
Barrett, S. M.
Milton, visc.
Benett, John
Monck, J. B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Moore, P.
Bentinck, lord W.
Maxwell, J. W.
Bernal, R.
Newport, sir J.
Brougham, H.
Normanby, visc.
Browne, Dom.
O'Callaghan, J.
Byng, G.
Ord, W.
Brownlow, C.
Palmer, C. E..
Barry, J.
Pelham, hon. C.
Calcraft, J.
Pelham, J. C.
Calvert, N.
Philips, G.
Carter, J.
Poyntz, W. S.
Cavendish, lord G.
Ramsden, J. C.
Cavendish, hon. H.
Rice, T. S.
Chamberlayne, W.
Ricardo, D.
Chaloner, R.
Rickford, W.
Cradock, S.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Crompton, S.
Robarts, A. W.
Daly, James
Robinson, sir G.
Davies, J.
Russell, lord J.
Denison, W. J.
Scarlett, J.
Denman, T.
Scott, James
Duncannon, visc.
Sefton, earl of
Ebrington, visc.
Smith, J.
Ellice, Edw.
Smith, hon. R.
Evans, W.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Stanley, hon. E.
Folkestone, visc.
Stewart, W. (Tyrone)
Forde, M.
Stewart, sir J.
Glenorchy, visc.
Sykes, D.
Grant, J. P.
Talbot, R. W.
Grattan, J.
Taylor, M. A.
Griffith, J. W.
Tierney, G.
Guise, sir B.
Titchfield, marquis
Gordon, Robert
Townshend, lord C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Webb, Edw.
Hume, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hurst, R.
White, col.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Whitmore, W. W.
Hotham, lord
Williams, John
Lambton, J. G.
Williams, W.
Lennard, T. B.
Wood, M.
Lushington, S.
TELLERS.
Leyceater, R.
Hamilton, lord A.
Maberly, W. L.
Kennedy, T. F.
691
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 4, 1823.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
Mr. Jones
rose to call the attention of the House to a paragraph which appeared in the "Morning Chronicle" of that day, reflecting on the proceedings of that House last night, without, however, intending to found any harsh measures thereupon. The paragraph to which he alluded was as follows:—"The small majority of six last night in a House of 198, is perfectly decisive of the sentiments of members with respect to the abominable proceedings in the case of Borthwick. An analysis of that majority mill be a curious exhibition. We should like to see the names: they must be most valuable partisans: they are evidently not men to stick at a little." He begged to call the attention of the House to the nature of the motion. It was not a motion of a general nature, but it was limited to a most severe censure upon the lord advocate. It called upon the House to declare, that the conduct of that learned lord had been unjust and oppressive. He did not mean for one moment to say that the proceedings which had taken place against Borthwick were not unjust, oppressive, and illegal; and if the motion had been directed against those persons who, in his opinion, were the authors of those proceedings, he would have voted for it: but, having perused the papers which had been laid before the House, and listened to the charge which had been made against the lord advocate with as much attention as possible, he must confess—
The Speaker
put it to the House, whether the course in which the hon. member was proceeding was consistent with its orders or with its dignity. Nothing could be more clear than that any notice of the proceedings of the House was a breach of privilege; but would the privileges of the House, or its dignity or character, be maintained by an explanation of the nature, of the motion, and of what would have been the hon. member's conduct if the motion had been differently framed? He would put it to the hon. member himself, whether, instead of maintaining the dignity of the House by entering into an explanation, amounting almost to an apology he was not in. reality lowering it?
Mr. Jones
acknowledged that he felt
692
The Speaker
repeated what he had before said, as to the paragraph in question being a breach of privilege. It was in the breast of the hon. member to exercise his discretion under the circumstances of the case.
Mr. Jones
said, he had felt himself called upon to notice the paragraph, because he was one of the majority which the editor had alluded to, in the terms which he had read to the House. In voting as he had done last night, he hoped he had acted conscientiously, and according to the opinions of the independent body of electors whom he represented. He did not come down to that House as the partisan of ministers or of the Opposition. It was said, that those who voted in the majority last night would not "stick at a little." That expression admitted of two inferences. If it were meant, that the majority would not be easily prevented from supporting a good and praiseworthy motion, he had no objection to it; but if it were intended to insinuate that they would not hesitate to vote for an improper measure, he would say that it was calumny. He did not intend to call Upon the House to take any proceedings against the editor of the "Morning Chronicle," whom he believed to be a very respectable gentleman. He moved, "That the said Newspaper be delivered in, and the said Paragraph react."
Mr. R. Martin
seconded the motion.
Mr. Hobhouse
hoped that the hon. member would, upon consideration, see the propriety of acting upon the suggestion which had proceeded from the chair. There would be an end put to all public business, if the House were to be called upon to interfere in every case in which hon. members might conceive themselves to have been improperly censured. Every member must have found observations directed against him in those papers which were opposed to him in politics. Not a single day passed in which hon. members did not find their conduct ten million times more misrepresented than that of the hon. mover was in the paragraph which he had noticed. It really would be preposterous to found a motion on such a passage.
693
Mr. Canning
hoped the hon. member would not press his motion. In cases where an individual found his own conduct grossly misrepresented, it was very natural that he should take any means of righting himself; but great inconvenience would arise if every member forming one of a majority against which reflexions had been made were to take up the time of the House by explaining his motives, and, in fact, re-debating the question upon which he had voted. He hoped that the hon. member, having satisfied his own nice sense of honour, would allow the subject to drop.
Mr. R. Martin
said, he would not second any motion which was preposterous. He was surprised the hon. member for Westminster should call any motion which was a breach of privilege preposterous. He (Mr. M.) thought that he could not refuse to second a motion which was a breach of privilege. To call the motion preposterous was—a preposterous expression.
The motion was then withdrawn.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.]
Colonel Wood
rose and said:—Sir, in rising to explain the resolutions with which I shall conclude, I feel I ought to apologize for venturing to embark on so difficult, so delicate, and at the same time so important a subject; and certainly I should not have done so, had I not been encouraged by the assurances of many gentlemen, that they consider the plan proposed for ameliorating the Law of Settlement the most practicable plan that has been suggested for the consideration of the House. Neither, Sir, should I have intruded myself on your notice, if I had not long felt convinced, that this was a subject intimately connected, not only with the comforts, not only with the happiness, but with the liberties of the great mass of the British population.
694
695
696
l.;
697
698
699
700
1. "That the various provisions of the laws for the Settlement of the Poor have given rise to a course of expensive and embarrassing litigation.
701
2. "That frauds are frequently committed, and, in many parts of the kingdom, generally adopted, to defeat the obtaining of settlements by poor Persons, who may at future periods, become applicants for parochial relief.
3. "That the Removal of poor Persons who are incapable of maintaining themselves, to the places of their settlement, is frequently attended with much trouble, expense, and litigation; and with grievous oppression to the industrious and honest amongst them.
4."That it is not expedient that any poor Person or Persons should be removed from any Parish, Township or Place, (by reason of such poor Person or Persons being chargeable or incapable of maintaining him or themselves) between the first day of August 1823, and the first day of August 1824, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil for the space of Fifteen years;—or, between the first day of August 1824, and the first day of August 1825, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of Fourteen years;—or, between the first day of August 1825, and the first day of August 1826, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of Thirteen years;—or, between the first day or August 1826, and the first day of mist 1827, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of Twelve years;—or, between the first day of August 1827, and the first day of August 1828, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of Eleven years:—or, between the first day of August 1828, and the first day of August 1829, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of Ten years;—or, between the first day of August 1829, and the first day of August 1830, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of Nine years;—or, between the: first day of August 1830, and the first day of August 1831, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been Principally resident or domicil, for the space of Eight years;—or, between the first day of August 1831, and the first day of August 1832, in which such poor Person
702
5. "That from and after the first day of August 1837, no poor Person or Persons should be removed from any Parish, Township or Place, by reason of such poor Person or Persons being chargeable or incapable of maintaining him or themselves, in which such poor Person or Persons shall have been principally resident or domicil, for the space of One year."
Lord Althorp
said, he agreed entirely in the principles of the resolutions, that he should give them his support, though he had some doubts as to the extent of their benefit. The evils of the law of settlement were—1. Their interference with the freedom of labour.—2. The expenses of removal.—3. The expense of litigation. The first of these evils, the mea sure would, in proportion as it came into effect, lessen; and, of course, the second in some degree, as those who had been resident for 15 years would not be liable to be removed. But, as to the expense of litigation, he doubted whether the effect might not be to increase it. To decide what was residence, would be left to the discretion of the magistrates; and he feared this would be a constant ground of appeal to the quarter sessions. Under the present mode of gaining a settlement, by hiring and service for a year and a day, there were constant
703
Mr. Scarlett
said, that though the result of his efforts last year were not calculated to encourage him again to enter upon this topic, still the subject was of such vast importance, that he could not avoid saying a few words. If the House had last year gone into the committee with him, he would have proposed some such measure as that which was now brought forward by his hon. friend; and he, now came forward to redeem his pledge to his hon. friend, to support such a measure whenever he might bring it forward. He differed from his noble friend, who thought that the proposed alteration would increase litigation. He, on the contrary, was satisfied that it would materially diminish it; because the right to remove would be limited by a residence of a certain number of years. As the measure proposed that all persons who had resided in any parish fifteen years should not be liable to removal, all the litigation which applications for the removal of such persons now gave rise to would be cut off. And it was to be remarked, that in proportion to the time that a man had resided in a parish in which he might have spent his youth and strength, became the temptation to remove him to another parish, to be supported in age and infirmity. No new source of litigation was created; the mass of, litigation, therefore, must be decreased, and in no inconsiderable degree. He was convinced that no measure would palliate the evil of the poor-laws, unless the mischief was checked
704
705
706
l.,
l.,
l.
Mr. Lockhart
contended, that the proposed measure would produce as much litigation as the existing law, from the extreme uncertainty, not only of legal constructions, but of facts necessarily arising as to the question of residence.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was of the utmost importance that the House should be in possession of the clearest information before they proceeded to legislate on this important subject. The resolutions involved, not merely the general principle, but a number of multifarious details, upon which it would be scarcely possible to found any practical measure during the present session. Under these circumstances, he recommended the hon. member to withdraw his resolutions, and ask for leave to bring in a bill, which might be committed
pro forma,
Mr. Monck
knew of but one remedy for the evil of the poor-rates, and that was their total but gradual extinction.
Colonel Wood
withdrew his resolutions; and gave notice, that to-morrow he would move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the Settlement of the Poor.
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. J. Williams,
in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, said, that if his object were, to produce a change in the state of the Court of Chancery, rather than to restore what had been altered, he should despair of Success; because he was well aware that the argument or clamour,
707
708
709
dubitandi patientia
710
"Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis at ille
Labitur el labetur in omne volubilis æ vum."
711
712
713
714
v.
l.
l.
l.
s
d.
"As long as pocket shall hold out,
No end to immortal suit"
s.
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
v.
715
l.
v.
v.
l.;
v.
716
v,
v.
v.
v.
v.
717
v.
l.
died of a broken heart,
*
*
v.
"This assertion appeared to my mind so improbable, that, being a man unencumbered by any profession or employment, I determined to search into its truth, and I applied to a professional friend, who is generally and deservedly esteemed in the parish where the infant died, to make similar inquiries: the result of our inquiries was the same, and we learnt from the infant's friends, and the medical gentleman who attended him on his death-bed, that there was not any reason to suppose his death was occasioned by a chancery suit, or anything connected with one; and I shall prove he had not any cause to grieve about it. Before his death
718
he used often to lament that there could be no salvation, no grace, for such a sinner as himself; but he did not make any unkind allusion to the court of Chancery, or to the noble lord, or other judges who preside there. I am in possession, through the information of those who knew him, of the particulars of the offence that grieved him, and greatly depressed his spirits, which he refused to disclose to his doctor; but delicacy forbids my entering into the detail. This sentimental suitor, represented to have died of a broken heart, occasioned by a chancery suit, was a labouring gardener, and he lived with a person at Peckham. He was buried at Linfield, in the twenty-third year of his age, in July 1816; and during his infancy there had been spent for his maintenance and education 466
l.
l,
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
719
s.
d.;
s.
d.;
l.
s.
d.
l.
720
721
forte
722
723
724
The Attorney General
commenced by observing, that however various the topics introduced in support of his motion by his hon and learned friend, he finally rested his case on the personal attack made upon the character of the lord chancellor. Before, however, he met his hon. and learned friend upon that subject, he felt it necessary to allude to something which had been stated respecting a legislative measure which was said to be in contemplation, in reference to the attendance of the noble and learned lord in the court of Chancery. He had not heard of that measure, but he did understand that, in the other House, the accumulation of Scotch appeals was so great as to make it necessary to inquire how the inconvenience could be remedied; and one of the objects of that inquiry was, to allow the lord chancellor more time to attend to the business of the court of Chancery. But, it was not on account of arrears of business in that court that a necessity for greater despatch existed. There were, in fact, no arrears of business in that court: but there was an increase of business, arising out of the increased population and wealth of the country, which produced a proportionate increase of litigation. With respect to the vice-chancellor's court, which his hon. and learned friend denied to give any ease to the suitor in. the determination of chancery suits, he would satisfy the House that that was very far from being the case. So far from the prophecies having been fulfilled which were pronounced before the establishment of the court, as to its inefficiency, he way sure he could convince the House, that its utility had been practically proved, and that his hon. and learned friend was quite mistaken in his assertions. It was allowed on all sides, at the time when the court was instituted, that the business of chancery had increased to an extent which rendered it impracticable for any person, however gifted, to keep under the business of the court. It was believed by many, that an effectual remedy would be,
725
726
727
728
l.,
l.
729
l.
l.,
l.
l.
730
731
732
Mr. M. A. Taylor
commenced by observing, that this was a question well worthy the most serious attention of the House; and he would, for the information of those who had not thoroughly considered it, place the facts in the shortest possible compass. There never was a subject brought forward in parliament that stood on stronger grounds than this. He and other individuals had often, introduced it; for they felt it to be most necessary, that an inquiry should be instituted into the general practice of the court of Chancery, and into the appellant jurisdiction of the individual at the head of that court. The learned attorney-general had entered into this discussion with some degree of warmth, because he supposed that the hon. and learned gentleman who brought forward the motion had made some invidious observations upon the eminent individual at the head of the court of Chancery, as well as Upon several of the judges in Westminster-hall. Now, for his part, he did not think that his hon. and learned friend, the originator of the present motion, had stated any one point that could be construed as invidious towards any individual in the court of Chancery, or any other court. He admitted, that the lord chancellor filled a very high and a very important situation: but if it were to be said, when a motion of immense importance was brought forward, "Oh, this nearly relates to a person of great rank and consideration, you cannot touch upon his conduct, without betraying an invidious feeling, and therefore you must forbear from introducing the subject," there, would, be an end at
733
734
l.
735
736
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
737
Mr. Denman
said, that as this was a most important question, and as he observed that some hon. gentlemen on the other side had been busily engaged in taking notes, he wished the House to have the benefit of them, and would therefore move, that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
The House divided: For the adjournment, 59; against it, 120. After this motion had been disposed of, Mr. Grey Bennet moved, "That this debate be adjourned till Friday." Upon this the House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 133. Mr. Ross next moved, "That the debate be adjourned till this day six months."
Mr. M. A. Taylor
warmly opposed the motion. Was this, he asked, to be the answer to the suitors who were suffering martyrdom by the delays of the court of Chancery? Were they to he told that their complaints should be investigated six months hence? Such a motion was no friendly act to the noble and learned lord at the head of that court. It was to be represented that he, pure and unsullied as he was, trusted his defence to a six months' adjournment. He (Mr. T.) had personally no other feelings but those of regard and respect towards that noble and learned lord; but, if he were his bitterest enemy—if he wished to destroy his well-earned fame—if he wished to see him go down the page of history tainted and dishonoured—what course better adapted to attain that result could he pursue, than the motion brought forward by the noble lord's professed friends on the other side? He believed the noble and learned lord was essential to the existence of the motley administration of which he was the chief member. It was he who cemented the tinsel patchwork of the orange-liberal-protestant-catholic administration of the day; and his coadjutors were now going to declare, that they dared not defend the noble and learned lord's conduct on just grounds! The noble and. learned lord would treat his friends as they deserved.
738
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, that no desire existed on his side of the House to avoid discussion; but it did not fellow that hon. gentlemen might choose to be pointed at, and called on to speak at the convenience of their opponents. He therefore begged his hon. friend to withdraw his motion, and consent to an adjournment till to-morrow.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the debate was adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 5, 1823.
BARILLA DUTIES.]
Mr. Denison
presented a petition from several merchants and importers of Barilla. The hon. member stated, that previously the duty on the importation of barilla had been 11
l.
l.
s.
Lord G. Somerset
vindicated the conduct of government, and said that the distresses of the petitioners had been much exaggerated.
Mr. Bernal
complained of the vacillating policy of ministers, on matters relating to trade.
Mr. Campbell
said, that the distresses of the petitioners were greatly exaggerated.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that whatever the distresses of the kelp manufacturers might be, ministers were bound to have taken that circumstance into consideration before they lowered the duties on barilla. He
739
Mr. C. Grant
said, that if the intended increase of the barilla duties was unjust, the towering Of those duties last year was a gross act of injustice to the kelp manufacturers; because it was provided in the salt tax repeal bill, that no alteration should take place in the barilla duties; and yet, in a month afterwards, a bill was introduced which had the effect of reducing them one half.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that this did seen a measure of most crying injustice, as well as of impolicy. The kelp manufacturers, on their own shewing, would reap little benefit from it, and all the advantage they appeared to hope to reap from it, was the compelling the purchase of their bad articles, which they found unsaleable when better was to be had. He was informed that good kelp still sold readily, and with no greater reduction in price than had taken place in barilla. But, in fact, the barilla was chiefly necessary to the soap manufacture in London, where kelp never had been used; and it was most monstrous to tax the soap of the people of England—an article of the first importance to the health, the cleanliness, and the comfort of the community, because bad kelp, from certain parts of the coasts of Scotland and Ireland would not sell.
Mr. E. Ellice
said, it was matter of regret to see regulations affecting trade brought in one day and repealed the next—a policy which embarrassed commercial transactions; It had been admitted, that the advantage of the measure to the kelp manufacturers was doubtful: but the injury to merchants and importers of barilla was positive. It had latterly been the policy of ministers to place restrictions on importation—a policy which was most injurious. The measure, if carried, would be fraught with injustice.
Ordered to lie on the table.
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon Mr. J. Williams's motion, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Arrear of Business in the Court of Chancery, and the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and the causes there of,"
Mr. Denman
rose. He could not, he
740
741
742
743
744
l.
745
"Full little knowest thou that hast not tried,
What hell it is in suing long to bide;
To lose good days that might he better spent,
To waste long nights in pensive discontent;
To speed to-day, to be put back to-morrow;
To feed on hope, to pine with fear and sorrow;
To have thy prince's grace, yet want her peers;
To have thy asking, yet wait many years;
To fret thy soul with crosses and with cares;
To eat thy heart through comfortless despairs;
To fawn, to crouch, to wait, to ride, to ronne,
To spend, to give, to want, to be undonne."
746
747
748
749
750
"An age that melts with unperceived decay,
And glides in modest innocence away;
Whose peaceful day benevolence endears,
Whose night Congratulating conscience cheers;
The gen'ral fav'rite as the gen'ral friend,
Such age there is, and who shall wish its end?"
751
752
753
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, he felt additional difficulty in addressing the House upon this question, because he, in fact, had been included as a party in the charge. The office he had the honour to fill brought him within the sweeping accusation at least of the hon. member for Durham, who had objected to the whole system, and to every branch of the court of Chancery. It had been said by his hon. and learned friend who last spoke, that the present motion by no means implied a personal attack on the lord chancellor. But, whatever might have been thought of it before, certainly the speech which the House had just heard had converted it into a direct and personal accusation. It was worthy of notice, that the complaint was not confined to excessive dilatoriness; but the lord chancellor was charged both with a want of judgment and a want of knowledge. His hon. and learned friend seemed to dissent from this statement.
754
755
l.
v.
756
Mr. Williams
disclaimed having cast such an imputation upon the lord chancellor. He had used no such expression, nor had he given any opinion on the trans action to which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded.
Mr. Courtenay
said, the hon. and learned gentleman had made the statement upon information received from the adverse solicitor, who complained of the decree having been surreptitiously obtained [hear! from Mr. Williams]. It was true, that the hon. and learned gentleman had given no opinion of his own. He had dexterously left it to the House to exercise its own judgment; but no man could pretend to say, that the impression sought to be made on the House was not, that the chancellor had made a surreptitious decree. He was sure that his hon. and learned friend who spoke last, from the manly tone in which he always addressed the House, would not shrink from saying that such was the nature of the charge. The evidence was much too loose on which, to ground so serious a charge. It was said, that the interviews took place before the decree and with a view to making the decree. The fact was, that the cause was decided in the ordinary and regular, way; the chancellor had pronounced judgment; and there was a material difference between seeing a solicitor after judgment given, and before. The only object of the lord chancellor in seeing the solicitor for one party, was, that he might be supplied with minute matters, absolutely necessary to the drawing up of the decree with nicety and precision. Such had been the constant course with ail chancellors; but the solicitor on the opposite side objecting to it, lord Eldon had taken an opportunity of noticing that objection in open court, and of stating at the same time, that, he not only considered the practice right and proper, but that he should always feel it his bounden duty to obtain information in that manner, with a view to making the minutes of the decree as precise and accurate as possible. This was the history of these interviews; and it was with the utmost astonishment that lord Eldon after wards found, that the solicitor had made a heavy charge for attendances upon him.
757
v.
v.
in esse
l.
v.
l.
l.
758
759
760
761
Mr. Abercromby
said, that not with standing the length to which the discussion had been already protracted, he hoped he should be pardoned if he offered a few observations particularly as, in what he had to say, he was sure he should give utterance not merely to his individual opinion, but to that of the country at large. In the first place, then, he was willing to admit, that the noble and learned lord was an individual gifted with the most extra ordinary acuteness of intellect—that, he possessed a most profound knowledge of law—that he enjoyed a most astonishing momory—and that he was endowed with a surprisingly correct and discriminating judgment. He believed, however, that the warmest friends and admirers of the noble and learned lord's character could not refrain from admitting, that he had one unfortunate infirmity of mind, which intercepted many of the benefits which would otherwise be derived from his great qualities; namely, a want of confidence in his own judgment, which must ever be felt by his friends to be a subject of regret, as it was felt by the public to be a matter of complaint, and, he had almost added, of injury. Though he admitted that no man could be more conscientiously inclined than the noble and learned lord was, to give a correct judgment, still he was surprised that it had never come athwart his mind, that the in jury derived from a long protracted, might almost be as great to the suitor as that derived from an unjust, judgment—It appeared to him, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Lincoln, had not been fairly treated in the course of this discussion. His hon. and learned friend had reason to complain of the manner in which he had been misrepresented by the side of the. House. It was not his
762
763
764
Mr. Wetherell
began by complimenting his hon. and learned friend, the member for Lincoln, upon the liveliness with which he had treated a somewhat heavy and Uninteresting subject. He gave his hon. and learned friend credit for a knowledge of equity business, scarcely to be expected from a gentleman not himself a practitioner in the court of Chancery. He differed entirely in opinion from his hon. and learned friend, and trusted he should be
765
766
de re
de persona;
officina
767
mentiris impudentissime!
officina
768
fac-similated
769
770
l.
dubitandi patientia.
771
arbitrium
772
Mr. Scarlett,
in rising to support the motion, said, that however pre-digested the speeches of other members might have been, his hon. and learned friend had shown nothing like pre-digestion in the able speech which he had just concluded. He had heard much, in the course of this protracted discussion, of the prudence of judges and of the despatch in the courts of Chancery. It might be said, that counsel had been heard both from the court of Chancery and the courts of Common Law. But, was there no one else worth hearing? Were there no suitors present? Had no gentleman been a minor under the protection of the court? Was there no member present who had been so happy as to obtain a decree in his favour, with costs awarded him? If such there were, he would implore them to get up, and he would entreat the House to hear them. Let not the speeches of counsel be attended to, but Jet them hear what the suffering witnesses had to say; for, if the House intended to do impartial justice, it ought to hear evidence. He was certain, that however he and his hon. and learned friend might appear to differ in that House, they would not differ out of it; and that though they might disagree as to what was necessary, there would be no dispute between them that something was required. He would tell the House on what grounds he meant to support the motion. He had too much respect for the lord chancellor to pronounce a panegyric upon him in parliament; but he might be allowed to say, that the fame of
773
774
775
Mr. Broughum
rose. He began by observing, that he was not surprised at the impatience which had been manifested by the House, when he considered the lateness of the hour, and that it was the second night of a debate on a subject as dry as could well occupy its attention, and in the course of which so much talent, ability, and discretion, had been displayed on both sides; but more especially by his hon. and learned friend, who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House. He must nevertheless, regret, with his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken, that the whole of the debate had been confined to the legal members of the House. He could have wished that, as well as the artists and practitioners in that court—which, in as well as out of the House, had been admitted to be a court of pain and peril, of loss and suffering, of delay and anxiety, of expence, of misery, of penury, and even in some instances the cause of death itself—he could have wished to have called up in witness before the House, some of those who had suffered, not the last, but the scarcely lesser evils—some of the parties to a Chancery suit—some hapless man bending under the weight of penury, the consumption of means, exhaustion of body, and almost of vital energy—some of those who had gone for relief into that court, where it was technically said, relief could alone be obtained. He could have wished that some such one would
776
777
778
779
780
Io Triumphe—
l.
781
782
ad absurdum.
l.
l.
l.
mala fide
783
784
785
786
787
l.
Mr. Hume.
—The noble lord has a patent place too.
Mr. Brougham
said, he was obliged to his hon. friend for suggesting to him, with his visual accuracy, that the noble lord had a patent place also. Was it not very fitting that the House should be consulted on the matter of this vice-speaker's appointment? The justice of the court of King's-bench, they knew, held a perpetual deputation of this office of vice-speaker.
788
789
The Solicitor-General
said, he felt it his duty, after the many personal attacks which his hon. and learned friend who spoke last had made, to say something, even at that late hour, especially with reference to that much-respected character the Master of the Rolls. Considering the affliction under which that upright judge and able lawyer was labouring, and that his hon. and learned friend had denied any intention of alluding to that individual personally, he thought a conclusion might have been obtained, by other means than those employed by his hon. and learned friend. The number of cases decided in ascertain number of years in the Rolls court while sir William Grant presided, might have been compared with the number decided in a similar period by the present Master of the Rolls. The number in the former instance might be found greater than in the latter; but the difference was inconsiderable. At the time the present I Master of the Rolls was appointed, there was an arrear of between 4 and 500 cases in the court, and since that nearly 1,000 other cases had come before it. All those, with the exception of about sixty, were now decided; which left an average of between three and four hundred for each year. He therefore thought that, considering the long and severe affliction with which that learned personage had been visited, the harshness of observation which his hon. and learned friend had made use of, might have been spared.—The attack upon the lord chancellor of Ireland was equally unfounded. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that, out of a hundred decisions come to by the lord chancellor of Ireland, fifty had been, on appeal, reversed; and from that fact, the hon. and learned gentleman had drawn the preposterous conclusion, that it was an equal
790
791
Mr. Secretary Canning
rose, amidst loud cries of "question." The House, he said, might be assured, that at that late hour, and after the length to which the debate had already gone, it was not his intention to add more than a few minutes to it. Nor should he have risen at
792
793
794
Sir F. Blake
asked, if the present question was to be decided by the suitors of the court of Chancery during the last thirty years, where the Noes would be found? He would answer, now here. He felt for those suitors. Those who were present might all be in that unhappy predicament before long, and therefore he would most cordially support the motion.
After a short reply from Mr. J. Williams, the House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 174. Majority against the motion, 85. The House adjourned at half-past two o'Clock.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Fergusson, sir R.
Althorp, visc.
Glenorchy, visc.
Anson, Hon. G.
Grant, J. P.
Barnard, vise.
Grattan,J.
Benett, John
Griffith, J. W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Guise, sir B. W.
Benyon, Benj.
Gipps, G.
Blake, sir Francis
Hobhouse, J. C.
Bright, H.
Hume, J.
Brougham, H.
Hurst, R.
Byng, G.
James, W.
Calcraft, J.
Jervoise, G. P.
Calcraft, J. H.
Kennedy, T. F.
Campbell, hon. G. P.
Kemp, T. R.
Campbell, W. F.
Lamb, hon. G.
Carter, J.
Lambton, J. G.
Cavendish, lord G.
Langston, J. H.
Chaloner, R.
Lemon, sir W.
Coffin, sir I.
Leonard, T. B.
Creevey, T.
Leycester, R.
Cradock, col.
Lushington, Dr.
Davies, T.
Leader, W.
Denison, W. J.
Maberly, W. L.
Denman, T.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Ebrington, visc.
Marjoribanks, S.
Ellice, Edw.
Milbank, M.
Evans, W.
Milton, visc.
Earrand, R.
Monck, J. B.
795
Newman, R. W.
Scott, James
Normanby, visc.
Sebright, sir J. S.
O'Callaghan, J.
Sefton, earl of
Ord, W.
Smith, Robert
Palmer, C. F.
Sykes, D.
Philips, G. sen.
Talbot, R. W.
Philips, G. H. jun.
Taylor, M. A.
Powlet, hon. J. F.
Tierney, G.
Price, R.
Titchfield, marquis of
Pym, F.
Townshend, lord C.
Rice, T. S.
Webb, Edw.
Ricardo, D.
Whitbread, S. C.
Rickford, W.
White, col.
Robarts, G. J.
Williams, sir R.
Robarts, A. W.
Williams, W.
Robinson, sir G.
TELLERS.
Russell, lord J.
Williams, J.
Scarlett, J.
Abercromby, hon. J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 6, 1823.
RECIPROCITY OF DUTIES.]
The House having, on the motion of Mr. Huskisson, resolved itself into a committee on the Reciprocity of Duties,
Mr. Huskisson
said it now devolved upon him to state shortly the nature of the alteration which he was about to propose in the commercial policy of the country. Although that alteration was in itself most important, and an entire departure from the principles which had hitherto governed our foreign commerce, yet his plan was so clear, and the benefit to be derived from it so obvious, that he trusted he should, in a few words, shew the committee the propriety of adopting it. Honourable members were aware that it had for a long time, indeed from the passing of the Navigation act, been our policy to impose upon cargoes, brought in foreign vessels, higher duties than those imported in British bottoms, and also in many instances to allow smaller drawbacks upon articles exported in foreign, than upon those exported in British ships. Now, whatever might be thought of the policy of such a measure, it was all very well so long as the nations with which we traded acquiesced in it. But when once the attention of those countries was called to it, it was not likely that such an inequality could last much longer. Accordingly it was found that the greatest commercial nation in the world, after Great Britain, and our great rival in trade—he meant the United States of America—finding the pressure of this tax, immediately commenced the retaliatory, system, by imposing duties upon all articles imported into that country by
796
797
798
1. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that his majesty be authorized, by order in council, to declare that the importation or exportation of merchandise in foreign vessels may take place upon payment of the like duties, and with the like drawbacks, bounties, and allowances, as are payable or granted upon similar merchandise when imported or exported in British vessels from or to countries in which no other duties are charged, or drawbacks, bounties, and allowances,
799
2. "That his majesty may be authorized by order in council, to direct the levying and charging of additional duties of customs, or the withholding of any drawbacks, bounties, or allowances, upon merchandise imported or exported into or from the united kingdom, in vessels belonging to any country in which higher duties shall have been levied, or smaller drawbacks, bounties, or allowances, granted upon merchandise when imported into or exported from such country in British vessels, than are levied or granted upon similar merchandise when imported or exported in vessels of such country."
Mr. Ellice
said, that agreeing as he did with every thing which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, it was not his intention to enter into the details of the proposed measure. He rose solely for the purpose of repeating a request which he had made last year. He hoped that while the right hon. gentleman was taking off these restrictions, he would take care so to reduce the duties upon the materials used in ship-building, that the British might be enabled to compete with the foreign ship-owner. Take the article of hemp for instance. A duty of 9
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Huskisson.
—That forms a part of my measure.
Mr. Ellice
—Then I have nothing more to say.
Mr. Sykes
said, that when he considered; that this bill would go to the root of the naval system of Great Britain, and that under the law as it now stood, that navy had flourished and become great, he could not help recommending the utmost caution, before the proposed alteration was adopted. He hoped that, under the impression of such a feeling, it was not too much to ask the
800
Mr. Wallace
merely rose to express his general concurrence in the resolutions of his right hon. friend. He did not mean to deny, that the system of discriminating duties which this country had adopted had been of advantage, as long as foreign powers were disposed to submit to it; but now, when every country was desirous of affording protection to its own commerce, it was impossible that such a system could continue without producing retaliation. He was perfectly convinced that a system of reciprocity between this and other countries would be found to be the most advantageous that could be pursued. It would not change his opinion of the propriety of his right hon. friend's proposition, to find that it was opposed by the shipping interest; for, in the course of his official experience, he had found, that on every occasion when the ship-owners had come forward to oppose a public measure originating with the government, they were universally in the wrong. With respect to what had been said about the necessity of delay, he must observe, that if the measure was desirable at all, the sooner it was adopted the better. If the ship-owners were hostile to the proposed bill, parliament, be had no doubt, would soon be made acquainted with their sentiments; for he had always found them very ready to state their objections to any measure which had been proposed by him. He believed that the fears which had been expressed of the injury likely to result to the mercantile interest from carrying into effect the views of his right hon. friend
801
Mr. Robertson
opposed the resolutions, on the ground that, if carried into effect, they would increase the distresses under which the shipping interest at present laboured. He would prove, from documents in his hand, that the shipping interest was not in so flourishing a state as had been represented. In the period from 1821 to 1823, there had been a falling off in ship-building to the extent of 161 ships, and 122,000 tons. In the same period, there had also been a decrease in our navigation, to the amount of 732 ships, 129,000 tons, and 8,000 seamen. Such had been the consequence of the system recommended by political economists. The end of that system would be, to drive the trade of Great Britain into the hands of foreign countries. This was the only country in Europe which was abandoning the system of protecting duties. A few years ago, when America obtained some concessions from us, she wished to obtain similar concessions from France; but the French government would not yield a jot, and imposed a light duty on importations from America, who, in her turn, did the same with respect to France. The views entertained by the president of the Board of Trade might be favourable to the mercantile interests, but they were certainly prejudicial to ship-owners and builders.
Sir J. Coffin
said, that the hon. member who had just sat down, seemed to entertain serious alarms for nothing at all.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that the country was much indebted to his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) for the enlightened views he had taken, and the measures he had brought forward, to improve the commerce of the country. Parliament had, at length, begun to find out, that restrictions on commerce were restrictions, not on other countries, but on ourselves. It certainly was a question of policy whether England should take off the duties without receiving reciprocal advantage from foreign powers; but, if foreign powers recognised the same liberal principle, there could be no doubt that the advantage to England would be double the advantage which any other country could derive from the regulation. An hon. member had said, that it would be to his personal advantage to second the principles laid down, but that personal benefits ought to be sacrificed for the good of the navy. Now,
802
Mr. T. Wilson
rose, not to oppose the resolutions, but to express a hope that if the bill to be introduced should be found to operate injuriously to the shipping interests, government would repeal the duties which affected ship-building.
Mr. Marryat
said, he knew it as a fact, that the duties between France and the United States of America were reciprocal. All the British ship-owners complained of labouring under great disadvantage, and the loud complaints of that body were certainly deserving of attention. It was stated, that five-sixths of the carrying trade between Great Britain and America was carried on in American ships. Now, it was not too much for the ship-owners to expect, that all the disadvantages which the British government could remedy would be removed. He was of opinion that the duty on timber imported from the Baltic ought to be reduced; and with that exemption he would support the principle of the bill. The inconvenience under which the ship-owners laboured from the present system were striking. It was the duty of this country to act upon liberal principles, and to give way in some instances, in order to preserve the commercial interests of Europe, and of this country in particular.
The resolutions were agreed to.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Dominick Browne
strongly objected to the bill, the provisions of which, he contended, were calculated rather to irritate than conciliate the people of Ireland. He thought it would be better not to press the bill now, but take time to consider the subject; and with that impression on his mind, he must oppose the Speaker's quitting the chair. He should, instead of the House now going into a committee, propose, that the further proceedings on this bill be postponed to this day six
803
Mr. Dennis Browne
said, he did not wish to revive angry recollections, but he would say, that the former policy of England towards Ireland was fraught with injustice and oppression. Ireland had a flourishing woollen manufacture, a branch of trade which, if encouraged, would have gone on progressively advancing, and would of itself have been a source of national prosperity. Yet king William promised his parliament to put down that trade; and his majesty kept his word. The Irish woollen manufacture was destroyed, and a fatal blow was thereby given to the prosperity of Ireland. The growth of tobacco was also prevented; and Ireland was prevented from disposing of her wool to any country but England, and to England only at her own price. The hon. gentleman went on to explain the motives which induced the Irish parliament to take away the agistment tithe. The regulations on this head were most objectionable in principle, and would prove most burthen-some in operation. He strongly objected to the power being given to the arbitrators, to advance the claims of clergy at their own discretion. The bill was so objectionable, that he should oppose its proceeding any further at present. He thought the measure should rest where it was till the next session, and that a parliamentary commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the several parishes in Ireland, and to report their observations to the House.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he was one of those who felt that some of the provisions of the bill were highly objectionable; still he was most anxious that the measure should go to a committee. The bill contained principles to which he never could agree; and if it were not amended, it would be his painful duty to oppose it. The mea-
804
Sir J. Newport
was of the same opinion. He thought if they now stopped the bill, it would have an ungracious appearance. They had not yet reached the clauses which were the most objectionable. He was of opinion they should go through the committee, and render the bill as efficient as possible; and after it came out of the committee, every gentleman would be at full liberty to reject or support it as he thought proper.
Mr. W. Bankes
disapproved of the bill as it now stood; but, in deference to the Irish gentlemen, he would not oppose its going into a committee.
Mr. Wetherell
repeated his objections to the measure. If it was at all events to be rejected, he thought it was immaterial at what stage the rejection took place. He should therefore oppose going into the committee.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, it was scarcely possible that a measure of such magnitude and importance, involving so many opposite interests, and exciting so many apprehensions, should not be liable to some objections. If the hon. and learned gentleman thought the bill incapable of amendment, the most parliamentary course would be, to suffer it to go through the committee with all its defects, with the avowed intention of opposing it when it should come out of the committee; but it would be most unusual and unfair to strangle the measure in its present stage. If the bill were thrown out in the present stage, the disquietude out of which it had originated would necessarily be increased, and its rejection would not merely be the loss of a good, but a great practical misfortune.
Colonel Barry
did not think the measure could be rendered acceptable by any modification. If the compulsory clause were abandoned, he should have no objection to the measure, being rendered as unobjectionable as it was capable of being rendered; but, if that clause were persevered in, he should resist going into the committee; for he was satisfied that the measure, so far from having a conciliatory
805
Mr. Peel
said, that his right hon. friend's objection to the compulsory clause was not a valid reason against going into the committee, because he would have a full opportunity of discussing that clause, and stating all his objections to it, in the committee. For his own part, if the compulsory clause were omitted, he would lend his aid in endeavouring to make the bill as perfect as it was capable of being made; but he would not consent to any principle of compulsion, unless the full rights of the church were secured.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
net only objected to the compulsory clause, but thought the principle of the bill so objectionable, that even if that clause were withdrawn, he should still feel it his duty to oppose it. He would consent to go into the committee, with the declaration that his objections to the measure were not only unabated but increased, and with the anticipation that he should be ultimately compelled to vote against the whole bill.
The House having resolved itself into the Committee,
Mr. Goulburn
called the attention of the committee to an amendment which he thought founded in justice. The object of it was, that where tithes had been paid or agreed for, and the sum so paid or agreed for was not adequate to the just claim of the clergyman, it should be in the power of the commissioners to add to their award a sum not exceeding one-third of the amount of the tithes.
Mr. Calcraft
thought it would be sufficient to give the commissioners a power to add one-fifth.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
thought the mode of appointing commissioners so vicious, that he should not consent to give them any discretionary power. The effect of this amendment would enable the commissioners to give the clergyman a compensation for tithes which no one had ever thought of demanding.
Colonel Barry
said, it would remove some of his objections to the bill, if an appeal, were given from the decision of the commissioners, to, the lord-lieutenant in council.
Mr. Goulburn
said, he-should oppose any such amendment, because he thought an attempt to reach such a nicety in legislating upon this subject would have the effect of making the bill inoperative. In some parishes there were 2,000 persons
806
Mr. Goulburn's
amendment was agreed to.
Upon the clause giving to the umpire the power to fix the amount of composition to be paid by any parish,
Mr. S. Rice
contended, that the rule by which the rate of composition was fixed, should be the amount received by the clergyman on the average of the last three-years. He alluded to the resolutions adopted at a meeting of the noblemen and land proprietors of Ireland, held some time ago at the Thatched-house tavern, and contended that the basis of those resolutions was the same as that on which he now wished to have the present mode of valuing tithes in Ireland established. It should be recollected that the cleryman would gain a considerable advantage by having his present precarious income made certain.
Mr. Goulburn
protested against the course which the hon. member proposed to adopt. When he proposed to take the last year's receipts as a standard, did he recollect what was the present state of man parts of Ireland? the difficulty there had been in collecting any tithe at all, and how unnaturally the incomes of the clergy had, in many instances, been reduced? He denied that the resolutions adopted at the Thatched-house tavern would bear the construction put upon them by the hon. gentleman. Those resolutions stated, that, for the tranquillity of Ireland, it was desirable that, for the present pre carious income of the clergy, a certain equivalent should be given them of the full value of their tithe. Now, a full equivalent must mean something equal to what they were entitled to under the law: it never could be meant that the precarious income of the last year or two was to be taken as the standard of full equivalent.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the object of those who agreed to the resolutions which had been adverted to, was, to give to the clergy a certain, instead of a precarious
807
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
thought the clergy would obtain a great advantage by getting security for their incomes on the land of Ireland, instead of precarious payment as at present, from an insolvent peasantry.
Mr. Dawson
objected to the proposition. Did the House know what at present was the state of the South of Ireland, and of the clergy in that part of the kingdom? He had that day received a letter from an individual In that quarter, upon whose statements he could rely: and, amongst other instances, the writer stated, that the clergyman of a parish valued at 800
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. S. Rice
had never contended that the value of the living was to be estimated upon thereceipt of last year; but in speaking of compensation to a man for what he had never had, he contended they were not called on to give a compensation for what it was not likely the clergyman would ever recover. He would give as much in the case of the 7,000
l.
l.
Mr. Peel
condemned this mode of valuing compensation, as cruel and unjust to the clergyman.
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, that a three years' average out of the last seven years might
808
Mr. Ricardo
thought the composition should be regulated every three years, and that such regulation should be fixed on the average price of corn for the last three years.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the clause for regulating the mode of the award by the commissioners,
Colonel Barry
proposed, that a right of appeal should be allowed to persons who paid 5
l.
Mr. Wetherell
felt objections to placing these new powers in the commissioners, and was still more opposed to giving so large a power to the appellant jurisdiction with which the lord lieutenant, with his council, was to be intrusted. He considered that those powers were at variance with all the existing laws for the regulation of church property.
Mr. Plunkett
said, that examples of arming the Irish government with a similar power might be found. The lord lieutenant and his council were the court of appeal for cases in which salvage, which had been awarded by the parish officers for useful service in rescuing from ship wreck, should be called in question. They had the same power in the case of minister's money and in several others. He thought the appeal was necessary to pre vent the corruption or misconduct of the commissioners of award.
Colonel Barry
objected to this clause, because it would convey to men who were not likely to be well qualified, the power of judging in all questions of tithe many of which involved nice and subtile points of law.
Mr. S. Rice
strongly objected to this clause, which went to give the clergy their, extreme rights, and greatly to extend their present incomes. In eases where
809
Mr. Hume
wished to know if it was intended to introduce a clause into the bill, declaring that no clergyman should be entitled to composition who did not reside on the living?
Mr. Goulburn
replied, that he had no such intention at present. The bill was already sufficiently incumbered with provisions, and there were besides other reasons which rendered it inexpedient to add regulations upon a subject which could not be said properly to belong to it. Nobody could be more anxious than he was to enforce the residence of the clergy of Ireland. During the short time he had been in that country, his efforts had been directed to promote so desirable an object; and although he would not pledge himself to take any particular steps at present, he was convinced that some such measure was necessary to secure the permanent improvement and amelioration of the people.
Mr. W. Bankes
said, he must object to this clause, which went to constitute the lord lieutenant in council a court of equity.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
objected to the clause, which, in two-thirds of Ireland, would give to the clergy a payment of tithe never contemplated. The bill, in its present state, would endanger the very existence of the Established church, and, instead of a measure of conciliation, be one of irritation.
Mr. Welherell
opposed the clause, because it would compel the government to take in some cases a bad title, and yet give to the clergyman a larger tithe than he would otherwise have had.
Mr. C. Grant
thought great credit was due to the government, for having origin-
810
Mr. Goulburn
said, there were two questions before the committee; namely whether they should adopt the amendment, or resist the clause altogether. To adopt the amendment would be dangerous, as it would be to adopt a principle which might be applied to other species of property. It would be better to leave out the clause altogether.
Mr. Abercromby
, though he was a friend to Catholic emancipation, was no' friend to Catholic ascendancy. If this clause should pass, he agreed that the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland was not worth five years' purchase. He objected to it, but approved of the bill. He hoped some arrangement might be come to, which should send it forth as a relief to the clergy in Ireland.
Mr. Peel
was desirous that the compulsory clause should be committed altogether. If he were asked, whether he wished for a commission to estimate and to give to the clergy the full value of their dormant rights, he replied at once, that he wished for no such thing. But he was opposed to the compulsory clause upon principle.
The Committee divided: For the Amendment, 39. Against it, 84. The clause was then agreed to, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 9, 1823.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, the report of this bill was brought up. Counsel were then called in, and Messrs. Adam and Wilde appeared at the bar as counsel, and were heard against the bill. As soon as they had concluded, Mr. Huskisson moved, "That the Amendments made by the Committee to the Bill be now read." Upon which,
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose and said, that feeling a sincere interest for the welfare of the population affected by the present bill, he should trouble the House with a few remarks upon it. He would not, he said, follow the example of the Learned
811
812
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
813
Mr. Huskisson
said, that he might admit the whole of the facts stated by the lion, gentleman, and also by the learned counsel at the bar, and yet oppose the amendment. It was said, that the bill would have the effect of increasing the poor-rates, by throwing the weavers upon them for part of their subsistence. Now, if the poor-rates had not been increased much in Spital-fields, it should be recollected, that the weavers there, in periods of distress, had received very considerable assistance from the public purse. But he was prepared to contend, that, if the present regulations were continued, instead of rendering the weavers partly dependent on the poor-rates, they would make them entirely so, by depriving them of all employment. It could not be denied, that if there existed a competition in any part of the country, by which the work could be done for half the price paid in London, the effect would be to deprive the masters in London of all business, and of course the workmen of employment. They would therefore be in a worse situation than the weavers, in the country; for, undoubtedly, the business would be transferred to that part of the country where it could be done cheapest.
814
Mr. Ellice
said, he would, not go into an inquiry into the principle of the bill, but he thought there were some facts connected with it, upon which the House ought to have information before it proceeded further. He would admit, that it was an unwise principle to regulate the price of labour; but parliament had regulated the price of bread and other articles; and if one such regulation was to be done away with, so ought all. If the Spital-fields acts ought to be repealed, many others ought to be repealed also. On all accounts, if it were only to obtain the peaceable assent of the artisans in the metropolis, who were by no means the unthinking uneducated people the right hon, gentleman imagined them to be, he implored him to allow the whole matter to he again brought under consideration in the ensuing session.
Colonel Wood
wished the measure to be postponed till next session. It had been his fortune to command, for a number of years, a regiment of militia, which was chiefly supplied with recruits from Spital-fields. Now, several of the men who had served under him had requested him to say a
815
Mr. P. Moore
complained of the manner in which it was attempted to hurry this bill through the House. He had not had time to road over the evidence which had formerly been collected upon this subject, neither, he believed, had the right hon. gentleman. He trusted that he would allow the bill to be fully deliberated in a committee next year.
Mr. T Wilson
was of opinion, that the repeal of the Spital-fields acts would be beneficial to the weavers and artisans generally. Still he thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be advisable to allow the bill to go to a committee above stairs.
Mr. Hume
said, that if he could persuade himself that any fresh information could be afforded upon this subject, he would have no objection to go into the committee. But, what information could they get by such a proceeding, which they were not already in possession of? He was convinced that it would only be a waste of time to take the evidence of the weavers themselves; and, as to the evidence of the master manufacturers, the House had it already, and one and all of them called for the repeal of these impolitic acts. With regard to the argument raised upon the statement that the wavers had never applied to the poor-rates for relief, he should merely observe, that the evidence attached to the report on the poor-laws distinctly proved that statement to have no foundation in fact. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman opposite, that these acts had not promoted the manufacture's Spital-fields.
Mr. Bright
was of opinion; that inquiry was, never more called for. What was asked for was merely inquiry. And, ought the House to refuse it merely because some persons talked largely about the principle of political economy? The hon. gentleman then entered into some details to show the disturbances that had prevailed at Coventry and in Spital-fields, before these acts for the protection of the workmen were passed. Distress, confusion, and discontent, might be the result if these acts were repealed. The trade of Coventry would be removed to London, and it would be easy for a few dissolute men to breed disorders in the metropolis.
816
Mr. Ricardo
was as anxious for inquiry as any member, in cases where it was at all necessary; but, admitting all that the opponents of this bill stated they could prove, it would not change his opinion. If these acts were indeed so beneficial, they ought to be adopted all over the country, and applied to every branch of manufacture; but the question was, whether labour should or should not be free? The quantity of work must depend upon the extent of demand; and if the demand was great, the number of persons employed would be in proportion. If these acts were repealed, no doubt the number of weavers employed in London: would be greater than at present. They might not, indeed, receive such high wages; but it was improper that those wages should be artificially kept up by the interference of a magistrate. If a manufacturer was obliged to use a certain quantity of labour, he ought to obtain it at a fair price. It had been said, that the weavers of Spital-fields received very little from the poor-rates. True, And why? Because there was so little to be distributed among them. Very little could be raised in the parish; and sometimes, when great distress prevailed, resort had actually been had to government, for large sums for the relief of the poor. An hon. member for Bristol had talked about political economy; but the words "political economy" had, of late, become terms of ridicule and reproach. They were used as a substitute for an argument, and had been so used by the hon. member for Weymouth. Upon every view which he could take of the subject, the bill would be beneficial both to the manufacturers and the workmen?
Mr. G. Phillips
supported the bill. He thought that ministers deserved the highest praise whenever they had the manliness to break through any of the absurd regulations which fettered our commerce.
Mr. Brougham
said, he did not wish to give a silent vote upon this question, lest the grounds of that vote should be misunderstood. He approved highly of the principle which went to the repeal of the acts—acts which, he was most willing to allow, were framed upon no sound principles, and the continuance of which he
817
Mr. W. Smith
thought that the inquiry should be gone into, even though it should delay the measure till next session.
Mr. Monck
, though friendly to the principle of the bill, thought it ought not to pass unless accompanied by the repeal of the combination and emigration acts.
Mr. Byng
would vote for the committee as he did not think that a delay beyond a week would occur.
Mr. C. Grant
observed, that from the arguments advanced by the various advocates for the committee, it was evident that it would be impossible to finish its inquiry that session. The mere appointment of the committee would operate with respect to the bill as an adjournment, sine die; and that was a course which he could not agree to. It had been said that his right hon. friend, in submitting the present bill, had founded it on principles of political science, and not on any
818
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he was disposed to vote for the committee, not for the sake of obtaining further information, for he wanted none—not against the bill before the House, for he was friendly to it; but simply on the principle of conciliation towards those who, under a misconception of its effects, thought their interests were injuriously affected by it. He would accede the committee in condescension to the feelings of that large class of persons. But, if he thought its appointment would have the effect of postponing the bill till next session, he would not vote for it; because he was convinced the result of such a momentary attainment of their object would only continue the existing irritation, and renew future opposition to a measure which he felt ought to be carried into effect. Should a committee be granted, he trusted that by a wise selection of its members, and by framing the-instructions so as to limit the object of inquiry, the House would guard against such a result.
The House divided: For the Committee 60. Against it 68.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Denison, J. W.
Bankes, H.
Ebrington, lord,
Brougham, H.
Farrant, R.
Bennet, hon. H.
Gurney, H.
Benett, J.
Glenorchy, lord.
Bernal, R.
Grant, J. T.
Byng, G.
Grattan, J.
Bright, H.
Hutchinson, C.
Beresford, sir G.
Heber, R.
Calvert, C.
Houldsworth, T.
Calvert, N.
Hamilton, lord A.
Calcraft, J.
Honywood, W. P.
Cripps, J.
Irving, W.
Campbell,—
Jones, J.
Cooper, B.
Kennedy, T. F.
Curwen, J. C.
Knatchbull, sir F.
819
King, sir J. D.
Smith, W.
Leader,—
Sumner, H.
Lennard, T. B.
Tulk, G. A.
Mundy, E.
Wood, M.
Mansfield, J.
Wood, col.
Moore, P.
White, L.
Mackintosh, sir J.
White, col.
Monck, J. B.
Whitbread, S. C.
Maxwell, J.
Westenra, hon. H.
Nolan, M.
Williams, J.
O'Grady, S.
Williams, sir R.
Pitt, J.
TELLERS.
Pelham, J. G.
Buxton, T. F.
Robertson, A.
Ellice, E.
Smith, R.
LEEWARD ISLANDS—FOUR AND A
On the Order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply being read,
Mr. Creevey
rose and said, that according to a notice he had given, he should object to any further supply being granted, until the House had decided upon a grievance which he was now about to submit to them. That grievance was the duty of four and a half per cent which was levied exclusively upon all the commodities of the Leeward Islands. Upon former occasions when he had brought this subject before the House, he had done so upon the ground only of the misapplication of this fund. He had shown on those occasions, that this fund had been created by laws of the colonies which were still unrepealed, and for public specified colonial purposes, and yet that, in defiance of such laws, this fund was now pretty nearly absorbed in pensions amongst the higher orders of persons in this country; and he had sought the restitution of the fund to the original purposes for which it was created. Events, however^ had happened in the present session which induced him to take a new course upon this subject. He held in his hand five petitions which had been presented during this session, from the Colonial Assemblies of each of the Leeward Islands, Barbadoes, Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat, and which, with the permission of the House, he would read, condensing the substance as much as he could [Here the hon. member read the petitions]. He would ask the House, if stronger pictures of misery could be drawn, than those in their petitions? And he called upon them to observe, that this impost of 4½ hogsheads in the hundred out of all their sugar, with the same proportion out of all their, rum, and
820
l.
l.
l.
821
s.
l.
822
l.
l.
823
824
825
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that the question consisted of two parts. The first affected the right of the Crown to this particular branch of revenue; the second affected the right of the Crown to appropriate it in any manner which might be deemed suitable by his majesty's government. These topics had been frequently discussed within the walls of that House, and on each occasion both of these rights had been affirmed. He admitted, that the present state of the West-India islands was such as to make the House desirous of affording to that interest all practicable relief; yet it was also clear, that, when the tenure of the fund was considered, no argument could be derived from the manner in which if was applied, as' a ground for its abolition. With respect to the right of the Crown to dispose of this fund, it had never been denied, and when Mr. Burke introduced his measure of financial reform, he still left it at the disposal of the Crown. The hon. gentleman had specified instances of the manner in which this fund had been disposed of and in which he supposed some indiscretion to have been practised. As to what had been stated with respect to his own connexion with the fund, he was ready to admit the fidelity of the hon. gentleman. It was true that, many years ago, he had held an office, on retiring from which, by constant and uniform practice, he became entitled to a pension of 1,200
l.
826
Mr. Hume
said, that the present mode of supplying the deficiency of the fund was an innovation on all preceding practice, and ought to be put a stop to. A part of the droits of the Admiralty had of late been made applicable to the demands on that fund, and he thought the whole of the pensions now defrayed by the West-India Island duties ought to be taken from those droits. He saw no reason why the colonies should not be freed from the tax in that way.
Mr. Brougham
said, his hon. friend had, in the reference which he had made to the names of individuals, only performed a painful duty, which he felt himself bound to discharge, and which, without any invidiousness, he had carried into execution. He had stated a case with which he (Mr. B.) perfectly agreed. The Four and a Half per cent. duties had been formerly left to bear the burthens upon them as well as they could, but now another fund was drawn in, which was to make up the deficiencies. That was a strong argument for their abolition. A no-
827
828
The House then divided: For. Mr. Creevey's Motion, 57. Against it, 103.
EXPENSE OF THE CORONATION.]
On the question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair,"
Mr. Hume
said, he took the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a transaction of an extraordinary nature, and which demanded inquiry. He alluded to the Expenses of the Coronation. An estimate of those expenses had been laid before the House, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that the amount would not exceed 100,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
829
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
830
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the hon. gentleman ought not to be surprised that the actual expense of the coronation had exceeded the estimate of 1820, when it was recollected, that that estimate was founded on the supposition that the ceremony was to take place in that year; and that a considerable prior expense had been incurred in consequence. When, however, his majesty was advised to postpone the ceremony until the next year, that expense was of course lost. It was clear, therefore, that 100,Q00
l.
Mr. Bennet
characterised the whole charge of the coronation as a most wicked expenditure of the public money.
Mr. Curwen
said, he should vote against the amendment, as it did not appear that any public money had been mis-appropriated by the Crown.
Mr. Brougham
hoped his hon. friend would persevere in his amendment. Under any circumstances, an inquiry by a committee into the authority by which, the appropriation was made could, not be injurious. With respect to the items Of the charges, some of them were scandalously enormous. The country ought not to be insulted by such an expenditure as 24,000
l.
Mr. Bright
protested against the appropriation by the Crown of any portion of the public money without the previous sanction of that House.
Mr. Hobhouse
supported the amend-
831
The House divided: for the Amendment 65; against it 119.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 11, 1823.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
Mr. Huskisson
having moved the third reading of this Bill, the Lord Mayor moved as an amendment, "That the Bill be read a third time that day six months."
Mr. W. Smith
said, he was satisfied that at no very distant period the fears of those who were now so much alarmed at the measure would turn out to be unfounded, and that, instead of injury, benefit would accrue to them from the alteration.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that he hoped this bill would not be hurried through the House, it being merely a repeal of local regulations, where the parties themselves, if mistaken in their supposition, would be the only, sufferers by the law remaining as it stood. The fact, as far ns he could learn, being, that under the present Spital-fields acts there was a committee of workmen who met a committee of the masters, and who settled the rate of wages between themselves—the magistrate merely signing it for form, and being the authorized mediator in case of differences. Something of the sort took place in all trades. Make what combination laws you may, the necessity of an understanding between parties will always abrogate them in practice; and where there was a committee of journeymen in communication with a committee of employers, power of mediation on contested points existing somewhere seemed no unreasonable provision, and one which, in the present instance, appeared to have given satisfaction to a large body of people, who felt that in repealing it, the House was taking from them a necessary protection.
Mr. Ricarda
contended, that the effect of the existing law was, to diminish the quantity of labour, and that, though the rate of wages was high, the workmen had so little to do, that their wages were, in point of fact, lower than they would be
832
Mr. Peter Moore
was persuaded that if this bill passed, it would compel thousands of journeymen to seek parochial relief.
Mr. Bright
said, that the working classes believed this measure to be injurious to their interests, and it was the bounden duty of the House, therefore, to inquire into all the circumstances connected with it. The committee on the silk trade in the House of Lords, so far from advising the repeal of the existing laws, recommended an extension of them. He deprecated most strongly the precipitation with which a measure so deeply affecting the interests of a large body of the working classes, and which must necessarily have the effect of diminishing their wages, was hurried through the House without inquiry.
Mr. Hume
was satisfied that this measure would in its results be highly beneficial to the working classes.
Mr. Ellice
trusted, that if the right hon. gentleman was determined to press, the third reading of the bill, he would accede to a committee in the next session, to consider the propriety of a repeal of the combination acts, and other oppressive laws by which their interests were affected.
833
Mr. Huslisson
had no difficulty in stating in reply to the hon. member for Coventry, that when his hon. colleague should bring in his bill relative to the Combination laws, he (Mr. H.) should be perfectly ready to agree to the appointment of a committee to investigate the whole subject. He was an enemy to the principle of those laws; and with respect principle of those laws; and with respect to the bill prohibiting the emigration of artificers, he had already stated to the hon. member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume), that he should be ready to accede to a committee on that subject in the next session. The reason why he had objected to a committee on the present occasion was, that it was a local bill, and not a measure of a general nature.
Mr. James
thought, that not only the Combination laws, but the law prohibiting the emigration of artificers, ought to be repealed. Nor ought the House to stop there. The same principle of removing restrictions ought to be applied to the Corn laws.
Mr. Byng
did not see any practical evil in the present acts, and therefore could not concur either in the propriety or necessity of repealing them. The parishioners of Bethnal-green and Spitalfields had instructed him to oppose the present bill, and had informed him that they wished him to do so, because they reaped great advantage, and suffered no inconvenience, from the present system. He trusted that if that House would not inquire, the upper House would consent to the proposed inquiry.
The House divided: For the third reading, 53; Against it, 40: Majority, 13. The bill was accordingly read a third time, and passed.
RESUMPTION OF CASH PAYMENTS.]
Mr. Western
rose and said:—
834
not
not
835
not
not
undefined
not
s.,
836
and that justice required us to establish and perpetuate that measure of value which had been so long current, as near as the same could be ascertained.
837
establish the metallic currency as near the average value as possible of the paper currency which had lasted twenty-two years,
value
838
*
long period
*
839
*
s.
s.
s.
*
Years.
l.
s.
d.
1423 to 1451
0
10
7
1453 to 1497
0
8
5
1459 to 1560
0
9
2
1561 to 1601
2
7
5
1595 to 1636
2
10
0
1637 to 1700
2
11
3
† Debate on the report of the Bullion committe, May 6, 1811.
840
purchase wheat with gold. Now, sir, if we look to the prices of wheat, first, for one hundred and fifty years prior to the commencement of the war, to 1792 inclusive, we shall find the average, if taken of each ten years, from 32
s.
s.,
s.
*
l.
s.
d
fifteen
ten
seven
no advance whatever
*
s.
d.
1655
51
7
65
50
5
75
40
11
85
41
4
95
39
6
1705
42
11
15
44
11
25
35
4
35
35
2
1745
32
1
55
33
2
65
39
2
75
51
3
85
47
8
93
*
51
0
1803
80
1
13
100
0
*
841
ring to the Chelsea and Greenwich tables.
*
Well, then, I say, the Value of
gold,
doubled
money
settled into the new measure
*
Flesh per cwt.
Bread per lb.
Butter per lb.
Cheese per lb.
s.
d.
d.
oz.
d.
d.
Peace, 1755
27
9
1
for
14
5½
3½
War, 1760
31
6
1
for
13½
5½
3½
Pence, 1765
27
3
1
for
9½
5½
3¼
Peace, 1775
33
5
1
for
9½
6¾
3¼
War, 1780
34
6
1
for
11⅛
6½
3⅛
Peace, 1785
37
6½
1
for
10¼
6¾
3¾
Peace, 1790
36
10
flour per sack. 43s.
6½
4
ROYAL HOSPITAL CHELSEA.
Flesh per lb.
Bread per lb.
Butter per lb.
cheese per lb.
d.
d.
d.
d.
Peace, 1755
4
1½
7½
4
War, 1760
4
1½
7½
4
Peace, 1765
4
1½
7½
4
Peace, 1775
4½
1⅛
7¼
6¼
War, 1780
4¼
1½
7
4¼
Peace, 1785
4½
1 6\8
7
4½
Peace, 1790
4½
1⅞
7
4½
Eton College Table of the Price of Wheat.
l.
s.
d.
5 years before the war of 1756
1
14
4
Average of war to 1763
1
17
2
Price of 1764
2
1
5
Ditto 1765
2
8
0
Average of first 5 years after the war
2
5
2
5 years before American war
2
11
2
War from 1775 to 1782
2
6
6
Price of 1783
2
14
2
Ditto of 1784
2
13
9
5 years ditto
2
8
2
842
agricultural produce, and, indeed, other commodities, fell again, upon the same principles on which it had advanced to its former average value.
I am perfectly aware, that the recent rise in the price of corn, to about 60
s.,
s.,
generally
often
This restoration of the currency to the value prior to 1797 being established, it is clear, I say, that the money value of all produce and labour has in consequence reverted back, to their former rate, whilst money debts, and charges, and taxes remain
843
844
But I have said, this is not a question merely agricultural—it is not landlords and farmers only who suffer under the influence of Peel's bill; I contend, that all the industrious classes suffer. The manufacturing labourers feel it in the diminution of wages, though not equal to the labourers in the fields. But we know their money wages now are not by any means equal to what they were in the restriction currency, and if there was any thing of a deficiency in our harvests, we should find their situation very different; or I will add, if the foreign demand for our manufactures had not increased in an extraordinary degree soon after the passing of Peel's bill, their distress would have been great. The agricultural labourers, I am quite convinced, have experienced a defalcation in their earnings beyond that degree which can be counteracted even by the excessive depression in the price of corn. The diminution of their earnings cannot be estimated by the nominal price of their weekly pay. It is much greater than is indicated by that rule. The number of days occupied in looking out for work, and the harder bargains they must make in all contract work, must be thoroughly understood, before any thing like a just estimate can be formed of their real situation. I am confident that the most industrious and intelligent labourer practically understands that the money-price of bread, is to be considered
relatively only to their earnings,
when measured in corn,
845
Now, Sir, the grand consideration which I wish to press upon the minds of hon. members is, the unjust and destructive consequences of such a diminution of the money-earnings of industry, with a continuance of the same money-burthens which were laid on the people, or individually contracted in the money of abundance and of lower value. The aggregate money-earnings of the entire community, in other words, the national money income, is by so much diminished as the aggregate quantity of the circulating medium or money is diminished, whether metallic or paper, and its value enhanced. It is obvious and indisputable, that the weight of the public burthens depend wholly upon the amount of the national income. It is entirely relative. Sixty millions would be little to pay out of six hundred: it would be excessive to pay out of one hundred. I will not pretend to make any estimate of the defalcation in the aggregate money income of the country produced by Peel's Bill; it will be equally illustrative to show the effect upon the first branch of national industry; viz. agriculture, where estimates are somewhat more easy. Perfect accuracy is impossible; but I pledge myself to the moderation of my statement in round numbers. It is, indeed, so simple, that it admits of no deception. I take the rental of the kingdom, calculated on the property-tax at 50 millions. I suppose the gross produce of the land to be four times the rent, three times used to be thought enough; now it cannot be less on the average than four; in some instances I know it is five. Then, taking it at four, the gross income from the land is 200 millions, distributed between landlord, tenant, tithe-owner, tradesman, and labourer. Then I suppose the money-price of the produce to be, by the alteration of the currency, reduced 30 per cent, or say one-fourth, 25 per cent. That is, the price of wheat say from 80
s.
s.,
entire
846
lower
lighten
increase
Now, I put it to the House to determine whether, upon a consideration of the evident and total absence of any reflection upon these most important points, when Peel's bill was passed, it is not our indispensable duty to institute an immediate inquiry into the effects thus produced? I ask, whether, in the discussion which took place in this Mouse, any alteration in the value of the currency was contemplated by any one of the supporters of the bill, beyond three, four, or five per cent at most? I ask, whether one word was said, or thought was stated, relative to its influence on the public debt and taxes? I ask, if it was supposed that twenty-five or thirty per cent, was ever in the imagination of any body.
847
But, Sir, there is another most important question to be considered; and that is, the practicability of maintaining the currency we have adopted in the various changes in our situation that may occur relatively to other countries. Has the subject been ever considered under the supposition of Europe being again involved in war? I believe that the first shot that is fired will be the signal for a second recurrence to the Restriction currency. I am thoroughly convinced it is utterly impossible we can sustain a war expenditure, at all approaching even the last, in this currency of Peel's bill. I have, on several occasions made a variety of calculations upon the value of the currency now and during the war, showing, I think most indisputably, that the
real
*
*
TABLE of the CURRENCY in which TAXES were paid, in twelve Years, ending 1821.
Years.
Average Market price of Gold per oz.
Difference per cent between Market and Mint Prices,
Nominal Amount of Taxes.
Amount of Taxes in the Currency of 1792 and 1821.
£.
s.
d.
1809
4
10
9
16⅓
71,887,000
60,145,000
1810
4
5
0
91/10
74,815,000
68,106,000
1811
4
17
1
24½
73,621,000
55,583,000
1812
5
1
4
30
73,707,000
51,595,000
Sept. to Dec. 1812
5
8
0
38½
—
—
1813
5
6
2
361/10
81,745,000
52,236,000
Nov. 1812, to Mar. 1813
5
10
0
41
—
—
1814
5
1
8
30⅓
83,726,000
58,333,000
1815
4
12
9
188/9
88,394,000
66,698,000
1816
4
0
0
2½
73,909,000
72,062,000
Oct. to Dec. 1816
3
18
6
Under 1
—
—
1817
4
0
0
2½
58,757,000
57,259,000
1818
4
1
5
5
59,391,000
56,025,000
1819 (to Feb.)
4
3
0
6⅓
58,288,000
54,597,000
1820
3
17
10½
0
59,812,000
59,812,000
1821
3
17
10½
0
61,000,000
61,000,000
848
must be carefully examined; that, without doing so men's minds are deceived by the sound of figures. He then proceeds to state the amount of the charge of the most expensive periods of the war, the three years, 1810, 1811, and 1812, and 1813, 1814, 1815. The average depreciation of the currency in the former period was 21½ percent, in the latter 28½: the average
nominal
real amount at par
This effect is here most truly stated as far as it goes, but falls short of the absolute pressure; because the change in the currency operates, as I have before, explained, to so vast a reduction of the money-income of the country out of which these taxes are to be paid.
849
Now, Sir, I shall occupy no longer the time of the House. I will once more only remind the House of one or two points of the greatest moment for their consideration. First, that it is the paramount duty of parliament to grant with extreme jealousy, the imposition of any taxes upon the people; sedulously to guard the public purse; and that any mode by which the public burthens may be augmented, without this House perceiving the effect in the first instance, should naturally excite the strongest suspicions, and call forth our most diligent and attentive investigation. Can it possibly be denied, that Peel's Bill has augmented the burthens upon the people far beyond any calculation or contemplation at the time? And if such is the case, will any hon. member say, that we ought not to inquire into what it is we really have done? What a perfect mockery are we guilty of, in the parade of regulation respecting money bills, if such a case as this is to pass unnoticed, and not only unnoticed, but, if we wilfully turn our backs upon it! Nobody denies the depreciation during the suspension. Nobody denies the restoration of value. Does not the hon. member for Portarlington himself admit, that the difference exceeds his original statement to a considerable amount, and consequently that we have augmented the public burthen beyond our contemplation, or intention; that we have, in fact, enacted, through ignorance or inadvertence, that which we did not intend?—Upon the whole, Sir, I feel the strongest conviction upon my mind; that our duty demands of us irresistibly that we shall institute the inquiry I call for; and I therefore, Sir, move,
"That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the changes that have been made in the value of the Currency between the year 1793 and the present time, and the consequences produced thereby upon the Money-income of the country derived from its industry; the amount of the Public Debt and Taxes considered relatively to the Money-in-come of the country; and the effect of such changes of the Currency upon the Money-contracts between individuals."
*
Mr. Ricardo
observed, that the hon. member for Essex, and all those who took
*
850
851
852
853
five hundred millions
three hundred millions
854
855
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
856
857
*
*
858
859
The Marquis of Titchfield
said, that as he had seconded the motion, he was anxious to take an early opportunity of explaining the views and justifying the objects with which he should go into such a committee as his hon. friend, the member for Essex, desired to have appointed. But though, on many accounts, he was eager to express his opinions on this subject, that eagerness was nevertheless somewhat damped by the consciousness that he must appear under many disadvantages, and principally on account of the contrast that would be drawn, so much to his prejudice, between himself and the mover, who, from his experience, abilities, and long study of the subject he had introduced, was entitled to possess so much weight with the House and with the country. The cause which his hon. friend had undertaken, and with so much honour to himself had supported, although it belonged undoubtedly to all the productive classes of the country, was still more emphatically at that period the cause of that great body of men, who were till lately considered, and even still had the, name of it, as the most powerful portion of the community, but whose influence had, within a year or two, declined in so marked a manner—he meant the landed
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
*
*
867
868
best,
869
870
871
872
*
*
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
vice versâ.
882
883
884
885
886
887
The price of wheat was, from 1688 to 1792, divided into periods of war and peace, on the average—
£.
s.
d.
During the war of Revolution
from 1688
to 1697
2
10
8
Peace of Ryswick
from 1698
to 1701
2
12
6
War of Spanish Succession
from 1702
to 1712
2
4
11
Peace of Utrecht
from 1713
to 1739
2
0
4
War of Flanders
from 1740
to 1748
1
15
5
Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
from 1749
to 1754
1
18
2
War of American Boundaries
from 1755
to 1762
2
1
10
Peace of Paris
from 1763
to 1774
2
9
5
War of Revolted Colonies
from 1775
to 1782
2
1
11
Second Peace of Paris
from 1783
to 1792
2
6
2
Making on the average the price of wheat in peace greater than in the preceding war considerably more than five per cent.
So, to the surprise probably of the great bulk of the country gentlemen, war perhaps had a tendency to lower rather than to raise prices, and therefore threw them upon the state of the currency as the only solution of the great change they had experienced.
But, however indifferent it might be considered whether the old landed aristocracy should be displaced and the vacancy supplied by a new set of men, no one could dispute the importance of putting the country into a condition to undertake a war. That it was very far from being in such a condition he was perfectly convinced. He did not mean to say that, if the honour and safety of England were in danger, the resources of the state would be insufficient to enable it
888
forerunner of good; and their blindness, equal to their misfortunes, had led them to suppose, that the price of 60
s.
to engage in a war and to carry it through with as great vigour as distinguished it in the last contest. But nevertheless it was impossible not to be aware that, for all purposes not immediately British however much they might be so indirectly, the country was utterly unfit to go to war. If an invasion was threatened or a colony was taken possession of, there would, he doubted not, be perfect alacrity to take up arms against any enemy or any number of enemies; because, all private interests would be forgotten for the general welfare; and indeed the ultimate benefit of those private interests themselves would require it. But, at the same time, the particular interests of certain classes would be placed in such jeopardy by war, that no ministers would venture to recommend it, unless they
889
890
It was impossible, the noble lord said, to mention the general subject of war without referring to the state of things on the continent, since that had the most intimate connexion possible with the present discussion; for upon Mr. Peel's bill depended the question, whether the influence of England should be every thing or nothing at all on the continent. He was firmly persuaded that if the currency had been fixed at a juster standard, the interference of France in the affairs of Spain, so unfathomable in its consequences to this country, would not have taken place.
891
892
893
To all this it might be replied, that however lamentable this state of weakness might be, there was no hope of any remedy from the labours of a Committee on the Currency, and however great the mistake of 1819 might be admitted to have been, there was now no mode of repairing it. He was convinced there was no such occasion for despondency, and that the remedies were several, and one, indeed, easy and obvious. The nature of them it would be rather premature to enter into, because the evil to be remedied was not yet acknowledged; and besides such details were of course the peculiar province of a committee. Possibly the House might resolve, as a former House of Commons had done, that a Bank note and a shilling had been always equal to a guinea; and then, undoubtedly, there would be nothing to remedy, and the efforts of the hon. member for Essex would be extinguished in the most decided manner. In case of a more satisfactory result than such a one as he had anticipated as possible, he could not sit down without briefly mentioning the various modes of relief to which he looked. First came the expedient of an adjustment of contracts, that had been so much decried, to which the noble lord, the member for Salisbury, looked with so much confidence, that, as it was understood, he intended to propose an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Essex, for the purpose of narrowing the question to the merits of that particular remedy. He (lord T.) would not say more upon it, because he hoped the House would have the advantage of hearing that noble lord upon all the bearings of it. If he thought it practicable he would prefer it to every other plan, because by it alone would perfect justice be obtained. Not being very sanguine that such a plan could be carried into effect, he was more inclined to what would naturally be the proposition of the hon. member for Essex—namely, to alter the standard, and to place it at some point between 3
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
894
*
The noble lord then said, it had just occurred to him, that he had left unnoticed what had struck him as a very singular observation of the hon. member for Portarlington [Cry of Question, and Hear, hear!]. He would compress this last observation within the smallest possible limits. That hon. gentleman had said, that he could not see how an alteration in the currency was to assist the country in meeting a war. He (lord T.) was astonished at that observation, for the answer seemed obvious and undeniable. If the currency were to be depreciated 25 per cent, then the burthens of the people nominally remaining the same, would, in reality, be reduced 25 per cent, and that proportion would be disposable for the objects of the war without any fresh imposition of taxes. If such a depreciation were to be brought about without regard to justice, then, in his opinion, not only there would be no advantage at all, but, from the shock to public credit, the disadvantage of such a proceeding would be equal to the dishonour of it. Whether such a measure would be consistent with justice, was the great point in dispute, and that to which a committee would first devote its attention.
*The marquis of Lansdown. See vol. 8, p. 28.
895
He would now detain the House no linger than to remind them that to reject the motion would be to decline taking into consideration a subject the most momentous, and of the most anxious interest that had ever pressed itself on their attention. With reference to the foreign relations of the country, prudence and the national honour would manifestly recommend it; but, if the government and the parliament had come to the painful resolution, that England must consent to abandon for ever the lofty station she had so long held among the nations of the world, he trusted the House would think it worth while to take the course pointed out by his hon. friend, in order to avoid that great revolution in the landed property which must otherwise take place; and he would intreat the ministers more especially to reflect what their duty was to that great body of men, who had kept a Tory administration in power for near sixty years, and who, however they might have served their country, had at least served faithfully and zealously his majesty's present ministers and their political ancestors—the country gentlemen, whose very reproach to the rest of the community was their tame and undeviating acquiescence in the measures of all governments, whatever those governments might happen to he, and whatever they might choose to propose, and who had a claim therefore on their rulers for compassion; but if those rulers were deaf to the calls of gratitude, and dead to all sense of what they owed to that great, important, but much abused and long suffering portion of their countrymen, he would beseech them to pay some regard to their own doctrines of the horror of all revolutions, and he would suggest, that those who contemplate with the utmost alarm the smallest innovation, if it was to affect the salary of a public servant Or to injure the influence or a Borough proprietor, should not wholly disregard so extensive an innovation this, which was to sweep from the face of the land its present possessors, consigning them to beggary and to exile; and as a large portion of the present ministers had given proofs of energy and of a readiness to encounter difficulties, when their own individual interests had been at stake, he trusted that they would not entirely: neglect; the interests of that great body of men whose existence was at stake—that they would not be altogether indifferent to the rate of that class—that they would not shrink from task
896
Mr. Baring
said, he must deny that the present was a question which interested only one or two classes of the community. On the contrary, he considered it to be a question of the utmost importance to all classes of society, and he was anxious to state his opinion upon it, because he wished to account for what might appear to be an inconsistency in his conduct. Having, three years ago, when the question of the currency was under consideration, made a proposition to the House of a similar nature to that now made by the hon. member for Essex, it might he asked, why, three years later, he should feel it his duty to oppose the inquiry now called for. The noble marquis who had just sat down, had, in a very few words, pronounced his (Mr. B.'s.) defence, when he had said, that in the question of currency "time was every thing." And he would say, that the extract which the noble marquis had read from a speech delivered, in the year 1811, by that excellent and able man, Mr. Henry Thornton, explained exactly the principle on which the question now rested. It was impossible for any man to state precisely, that three, or four, or five years should be the determinate time, after which a currency that had been tampered with, should be restored to its original value. It was essentially a question of time—not limitable to any specific period; and if a legislature had been so unfortunate as to tamper with the currency of a country—whether they should afterwards return to the course from which they had departed or not, was entirely a question of time. Supposing that position to be generally admitted, if an alteration were made to any certain amount—to the amount of 15 or 20 per cent for instance—in the currency of a country, it would become a matter for argument, whether it would not be better to leave it on the principle of depreciation, rather than to return at once to the old standard. He was of opinion, however, that, though a committee at present would do no good, the hon. member for Essex had conferred a benefit on the country, in different ways, by the agitation of the question. In the first place, the numerous meetings throughout the country had induced the people to believe, that the interference of the legislature was called for with a view to
897
898
899
900
901
902
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 12, 1823.
RESUMPTION OF CASH PAYMENTS.]
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned Debate upon the motion made yesterday by Mr. Western, "That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the changes that have been made in the value of the Currency between the year 1793 and the present time and the consequences produced; thereby upon the Money-income of the country derived from its industry; the amount of the Public Debt and Taxes considered relatively to the Money-income of the country; and the effect of such changes of the currency upon the Money-contracts between individuals,"
Mr. Wodehouse
said, that the subject had always appeared to him to be not only of infinite importance, but also one which was most imperfectly understood. He was aware too of the prevailing unwillingness to enter upon it; an unwillingness which had been increased of late by the consideration, that the extreme depression of price was, for the present at least, removed; and he would therefore have been content to have given a silent vote upon the question, did not the particular reference that had been made to him seem to require an explanation. Before, however, he entered upon that point, he was desirous of saying a word respecting the probable continuance of the improved prices, and though not conscious of being more inclined than other men to give way to unwarrantable alarms, yet, as the experience of a century seemed to exclude such a rate of price as could be said to be tolerably remunerative under our present circumstances, such for instance, as that which existed at the present moment, he confessed he found it extremely difficult to settle down at once into the certainty, that all our apprehensions on this score were finally removed.
903
904
i.e.
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
*
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
"Moneta in justum valorem reducta."
*
912
913
Mr. James
said, he had not been so fortunate as the hon. member for Norfolk, for he had not read the writings of Mr. Locke and Mr. David Hume, on the subject of currency, &c. He had, however, read the Essays of his namesake (but not relation) Mr. James, and he had also read Mr. Cobbett's "Paper against Gold," and, in his opinion, that eminent public writer had thrown more light on the subject than all the others put together. He thought that government, by changing the currency, had done neither more nor less than aid the Bank of England in committing a gross fraud upon its creditors. Nothing, in his view, could benefit the country, but a rectification of contracts and a large reduction of the national debt. A greater violation of property had never occurred in any country. It was, in fact a. revolution marked by the most atrocious injustice; an injustice greater than any despotic government in the history of the world had before accomplished.
Lord Folkestone
commenced his speech
914
ad hominem.
915
916
917
*
l.
l.
*
918
dernier resort
919
920
921
922
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that after the full discussion which this subject had undergone during the last two nights, and after the repeated discussions which had previously taken place, he felt that it would be quite unwarrantable in him to trouble the House with any preliminary observations, and that his conduct would be exceedingly reprehensible, if he did not at once address himself to those main considerations which must influence every one on this important occasion. The hon. member for Essex had proposed, on the 12th day of June, that a Committee should be appointed to enter upon a number of the most momentous and complicated inquiries that could by possibility occupy the attention of any body of men. The hon. member had proposed that, at that period of the session, the Committee should take into its consideration the various changes which had taken place in the value of the currency since 1793, and the effects produced by the reformation of the currency on the money-income of the country derived from industry. Now, he confessed that, if he were on the Committee, he should not know what was meant by "the effects produced on the money-income of the country derived from industry," nor how that income, which was derived from industry, was to be distinguished from income growing out of other sources. The Committee was also to consider of the operation of the taxes pressing on the monied income;" but, above all, it was to inquire "into the effects produced by the change in the currency on the money-contracts of the country. Now, he would ask, was it possible to consider of all these subjects,
923
924
925
*
*
926
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
927
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
928
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
929
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
*
*
930
*
*
931
s.
s.
s.
s.
l.
s.
l
s.
d.
932
s.
s
s.
933
934
Mr. Bennet
said, he could, not help noticing, in the first place, the observation of the right hon. Secretary, respecting the time which the present motion would occupy, if it were agreed to—an argument which, to his mind, was unworthy to be used. It was paltry and technical. If the affairs of the country demanded it, parliament would sit as a matter of course. He well recollected, that, when a great crime was to be perpetrated, and when fraud and perjury and malice and treachery conspired to ruin an individual, parliament passed a whole summer in investigating the most disgusting and disgraceful question ever submitted to its inquiry. It was surely, then, a little too much to hear from the very government who had so occupied the time of parliament, an objection raised, that it could not, from the state of the seasons, devote its attention to the most important question of justice and right that had ever been under its investigation.
l
l.
l.
l
l.
l.
l.
l.
l
935
of all commodities.
s.
s.
l.
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
l.
*
936
l.
l.
*
*
937
938
939
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he felt it necessary to trouble the House with a few words, in defence of the course which he had taken upon this subject, during the many discussions which it had undergone in former sessions. He could not help observing, in the, outset, that he had entertained a wish and a hope, that the hon. member for: Essex, following the example of the hon. baronet, the member for Somersetshire (sir T. Lethbridge), and yielding to the reasons which had swayed that hon. baronet, would have withdrawn his motion, upon finding the altered state
940
941
942
943
The Marquis of Titchfield
denied, that he had made any such statement.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he had certainly understood his noble friend to have stated, that all rents would disappear. His noble friend had undoubtedly dwelt upon the impoverishment of the aristocracy; but, it was impossible to suppose that the in-cumbrances could absorb all the rental of the nobility and gentry of the country. His noble friend did not appear very sanguine as to the practicability of an equitable adjustment. He (Mr. H.) would not fatigue the House by going into any detail, to show the utter impracticability of such an adjustment. Was there a man living who could imagine for a moment, that the complicated transactions of thirty years were capable of undergoing such an adjustment? The House had heard a little the other evening, about the court of Chancery. But, if the principle of an equitable adjustment were to be acted upon, it would be necessary to have more courts of Chancery throughout the kingdom than public-houses; and even then, it would be impossible to dispose of all the cases in the space of thirty years. But, his noble friend, abandoning the notion of an equitable adjustment, had spoken of reducing the currency, as if that would be a measure of relief. His noble friend did not seem to be aware, that the effect of such a course would be to throw things into that state of confusion which he was most anxious to avoid; and besides being in principle a violation of all right, that it would ruin all credit and confidence. There was now a rise in the value of the commodities of the country. But, if the principle of the gentlemen opposite were to be acted on, there ought to be a standing committee of that House, to regulate the fluctuations and variations of prices. The hon. member for Taunton had stated, that the fall in the value of the precious metals was not only affected by banking operations in our own country, but by the paper issues of America, Austria, Denmark, and Russia. So that if the principle of the hon. member for Essex were once admitted, it followed, that we were at the mercy of those powers, so far as regarded our standard of value. America had only to make an issue of paper, by which the value of money would be lowered, and then we must have a committee, in order to fix what the value of money was. This was contrary to every principle laid down
944
945
Mr. Monck
rose amid cries of "question." He contended that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down was mistaken in measuring the depreciation by gold as compared with paper; since it was allowed that gold itself had varied materially, and was at one time reduced so low, as to command only one quarter of wheat for one ounce of gold; whereas, in all other times, one ounce of gold had commanded two quarters of wheat.
Mr. Attwood
said, that the justice of the measures proposed by the present motion, and the necessity for their adoption, had been already explained with so much more weight, and greater ability, than he could lay claim to, that he should endeavour to occupy the attention of the House but shortly, and should confine his observations to those topics on which the question mainly depended. He had heard no adequate reply given, nor, as he thought, even attempted to be given, to the principal arguments adduced in support of the motion. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last appeared to him to admit the most material pro-
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
s.
s.
d.
953
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
954
ad valorem
s.
955
It is true that this excessive speculation had its foundation in the diminishing value of money:
956
957
958
959
s.
s.
s:
960
961
l.
l.
l.
s
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
962
*
963
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l
s.
d.
l.
964
List of the Minority.
Attwood, M.
James, Wm.
Benett, John
Leycester, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Maxwell, J.
Barham, J. F.
Monck, J. B.
Brougham, H.
Moore, P.
Browne, Dom.
Pryse, P.
Denison, W. J.
Palmer, C. F.
Ellice, E.
Pelham, J. C.
Ellis, G. A.
Tennyson, C.
Folkestone, visc.
Wells, J.
Gordon, R.
Wodehouse, E.
Grant, J. P.
Wood, M.
Griffith, J. W.
TELLERS.
Hamilton, lord A.
Western, C. C.
Honeywood, W. P.
Titchfield, marq. of
MODE OF SELECTING GRAND JURIES
Mr.
965
presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Liverpool, praying that the House would take into consideration the mode of selecting Grand Juries, with a view of remedying the evils attached to it. The petitioners complained, amongst other things, that great inconvenience and injustice arose from the circumstance of a particular class of persons only being summoned to serve on grand juries. In consequence of this mode of proceeding, the grand jury of the county of Lancaster had become a sort of standing jury, the same names being continually placed on the panels. The petitioners attributed the failure of justice in the trials of the Manchester Yeomanry mainly to the manner in which the grand jury of Lancashire was nominated. One of the statements of the petitioners was, that the number of persons who had served as grand jurors in Lancashire, during the last 12 years, was only 38, whereas it ought to have been 163.
Mr. B. Wilbraham
thought, that the House ought not to interfere with the province of the high sheriff in summoning grand juries.
Lord Stanley
observed, that the mode of nominating grand juries in Lancashire was precisely similar to that pursued in every other county.
Mr. G. Philips
said, that the subject was one of the greatest importance. He believed that the allegations of the petition were strictly correct, and that the mode of selecting the grand juries of Lancashire partook much of the nature of a monopoly. Under such circumstances, it was not improbable that the political prejudices of the grand jury should interfere with the rights of justice. It certainly had created no little surprise in his mind, that the grand jury had thrown out the bills which were preferred against the Manchester Yeomanry. He was of opinion, that the subject of the nomination of grand juries should undergo a complete investigation.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.]
Dr. Phillimorc
presented a petition from: the rev. Dr. Poynter, praying that the Roman Catholics of England might be placed upon the same footing as those of Ireland, with respect to the performance, of the marriage ceremony.
Lord Nugent
said that the case of the; English Catholics with respect to the re-
966
Mr. Monck
approved of the removal of the restrictions on the celebration of lawful marriages by Catholic priests. In some parishes in London there were thousands of Catholics who married according to the rites of their own church, and whose children were consequently in law bastards and burthens to the parishes where they were born, instead of being removable with their parents.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he had a petition to present from the parish officers of a large and populous district, complaining of the burthen brought upon them, and the injury to the country in general, in consequence of the law making the marriage of Roman Catholics by their own clergy, unlawful. They represented the disregard of solemn vows, the abandonment of offspring, and the profligacy and distress occasioned by this useless and absurd law. The petition was from the churchwardens, overseers, and guardians of the poor of the parish of St. Luke's; they stated that in their parish, which contained 40,000 people, a large proportion of the population were Catholics, natives of Ireland, who preferred to be married according to the usage of their own religion and country. The children of all such marriages were in law bastards, had no natural guardians, were chargeable to the parish, from which they could not be removed with their parents, were legally orphans from their infancy, and were exposed to the wiles of seduction and to all the guilt and misery consequent on such a state. The petitioners prayed for the alteration of this law, which alteration would be an extension of toleration, without conferring the slightest degree of political power.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
thought, that some legislative measure should be introduced to remedy the evil; but many of the inconveniences complained of might be attributed to the conduct of the Catholic priests themselves; for they must know, that such marriages were null and void, and they ought, therefore, to refuse to perform the ceremony, until the parties had first been married according: to the rites of the Church of England. This was done by the Catholic priests in Durham, and if adopted in other places, would; obviate many of the evils complained of. At the same time legislative remedy ought to be provided.
967
Dr. Phillimore
said, he had framed I such a bill some years ago, but on sounding the opinions of certain individuals upon it, he found that it would excite opposition in another place.
Mr. Grey Bennet
hoped the learned I gentleman would not be deterred from introducing such a measure, by what he knew of the opinions of certain individuals upon the subject. The law as it now stood was a disgrace to the country. He I trusted the learned gentleman would not delay the introduction of his measure.
Mr. T. Ellis
expressed a hope that his learned friend would not be deterred from introducing the bill. Though not favourable to granting to the Catholics any accession of political power, he would go as far as any member to remove all their disabilities, short of the granting of such power.
Mr. P. Grant
also hoped, that his learned friend would not delay the introduction of the bill. It had been stated, that the marriage of Catholics by a Catholic priest in Scotland was valid. True, it was so, because marriage, by the law of the country, was looked upon as a civil contract; but, by an act of the Scotch parliament, still in force, a Catholic priest was subjected to heavy penalties for performing the marriage ceremony between two Catholics, though the marriage would still be valid. It had happened to him to have to defend a Catholic priest, in a prosecution instituted against him, for an infraction of this law. His client was fortunately acquitted, and he believed that since then further prosecutions under that statute were abandoned.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, June 12, 1823.
DISSENTERS MARRIAGES BILL.]
On the order of the day, for the second reading of this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdown
stated, that the purport of the bill was, to relieve Protestant Dissenters and Catholics from the situation in which they were placed by the former marriage act, which compelled them, in opposition to the scruples of their conscience, to one act of conformity with the doctrines of the established church. It had been admitted by men of all parties that they were entitled to some relief, and that some means should
968
The Lord Chancellor
regretted that he was obliged to oppose the motion of the noble lord. But, the very view which the noble lord himself took of it justified him in calling on their lordships not to make so great an alteration as' the bill contemplated, at so late a period of the
969
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he must give the bill, as it now stood, his decided negative; because it contained provisions to which he never could accede. The object of the bill he, however, admitted to be necessary and expedient, to a certain extent. He, therefore, differed from his learned friend, who wished the measure to be withdrawn altogether. Even at that late period of the session, it might be sent to a committee, to inquire whether a part of it might not be retained, if the object could not be effected by some other mode; and certainly the present measure did not appear to him to be the most advisable mode. The argument for the principle of the bill was unanswerable after we had recognized that principle in the case of the Jews and Quakers.
970
bonâ fide
Canterbury
971
The Bishop of Worcester
admitted that the bill was imperfect; but, with all its imperfections it might be sent to a committee, if it were only to show that the subject was deemed worthy of serious consideration. He conceived that some relief might be given; but what, he would not take upon himself to say. With respect to what had fallen from the noble earl, he had only thrown out a suggestion as to the marriage service; observing at the time, that it could not be carried into effect without the concurrence of the church, and even then he had only spoken of omitting certain parts of the service in solemnizing the marriage of Dissenters.
Lord Redesdale
opposed the bill, both in principle and in detail. It would have the effect of converting the licenced meeting-houses of Dissenters into so many Gretna-greens. As the bill now stood, two individuals, not Dissenters, but members of the the Church of England, mightget married under its provisions.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that, much as he desired to give relief to the Dissenters, he could not consent to give it to the extent proposed by the bill. He thought that by going into the committee a more unexceptionable bill might be produced next session.
The Bishop of Chester
objected to the bill, because it affected the discipline of the church and the interests of the clergy. He thought that time ought to be given to the clergy to present petitions to the House, if they should think it necessary to do so.
Lord Calthorpe
thought, that sufficient bad been stated to induce their lordships to go into a committee on the bill. He looked to the agitation of the subject without the smallest apprehension; because, the more the just rights and privileges of the Church, of England became the subject of consideration in Parliament, the more would that church recommend
972
The Bishop of Landaff
thought, that, before the legislature consented to such a bill as this, they ought to be satisfied who were the persons by whom, and under what forms, the marriages were to be solemnized. Excepting the Jews, the Catholics, and the Quakers, no Dissenters had any peculiar marriage service of their own. Was it not doubtful whether they would admit the service which the legislature might impose on them? The moral and religious interests of the community would not be safe, if such a latitude were permitted as this bill tended to allow. He admitted that it was a question well deserving consideration; but it was one which could not be decided off-hand. He wished it to be withdrawn for the present.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the real object of the bill was, to relieve religious scruples, and nothing else. The right rev. prelate had asserted, that the moral and religious interests of the community would not be safe under the provisions of this bill. Now, lie thought those interests were not much advanced by forcing persons, in despite of their religious scruples, to an occasional conformity. The right rev. prelate admitted that the subject demanded consideration. Why, then, not go into a committee, and see whether the bill could not be rendered satisfactory? With respect to the alteration of the liturgy, he doubted whether it could be effected, so as to include all Dissenters, without doing that to which he had a most serious objection; namely, converting marriage into a mere civil ceremony. There were few things which gave him more pain than to see the right rev. bench always indisposed to give relief to tender consciences. What was required of the legislature by this bill was but little; what the legislature at present required of the Dissenters was a very grievous obligation.
The Earl of Carnarvon
was anxious that the bill should go to a committee.
973
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that bad it not been from the apprehension that an insurmountable objection would be found to exist to such a proposition, it would have been proposed to substitute another form of marriage in the liturgy. He had introduced the measure, although late in the session, that it might receive as much consideration as possible, with no wish, however, to press it to a complete adoption. On the contrary, it was desirable that therecess should be allowed for the purpose of further digesting the bill. At the same time, however, he could not conceal the disappointment which he felt at the objections which had been made even to going into a committee on the bill, in order to see if the existing evil might not be remedied.
Their lordships divided: For the second reading, Contents 15; Proxies6–21 Not contents 15; Proxies12–27. Majority against the second reading, 6.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 13, 1823.
BARILLA DUTIES BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Barilla Duties acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was not his intention to establish a permanent law imposing a high duty upon barilla for the purpose of encouraging the manufacture of kelp. His measure was merely temporary. There were peculiar considerations belonging to this case which induced him to extend to the kelp-makers such relief and protection as was practicable. He owned that the distress among them was extremely great: not less than from 80,000 to 100,000 persons were, in some way or other, employed in this branch of trade; and, from motives of humanity, it was necessary to do something for them. He therefore proposed n resolution for raising the existing duty on barilla from five to eight guineas; the new duty to begin on the 5th of January 1824, and to continue for five years.
Mr. Denison
wished that sufficient time should be allowed to the soap-makers, to receive consignments of barilla contracted for under the duty of five guineas.
974
Mr. Campbell
strongly supported the resolution, observing that if it were not carried, 2,000 persons on his own estate only would be thrown out of employ.
Mr. Calcraft
felt himself called upon to support the resolution. Want and misery would be entailed upon the kelp-makers if it were not carried. He objected to high duties in general, but thought that in this case the injury to the merchants, &c. would be less than to a large population on the west coast of Scotland.
Mr. K. Douglas
thought it would be better to defer the measure till the next session, and that the kelp manufacturers would not suffer any material injury in the meantime.
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that much injury had been occasioned by the vacillating policy which had been pursued with respect to these duties. He thought that the measure could not be pressed too rapidly.
Mr. Ricardo
contended, that the only ground on which the resolution could be supported was that of humanity. The same reasons that now induced this augmentation, would exist at the end of five years to warrant its continuance. He objected to temporary expedients of this kind, and to the principle on which they were established.
Mr. T. Wilson
opposed the increase of the duty.
Mr. J. P. Grant
supported the proposition.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that every statement he had heard confirmed him in the opinion, that the re-imposition of the duty on barilla would be of little or no benefit to the kelp-growers, and would, as necessarily increasing the price of soap—one of the most material articles of common life—be one of the most shameful measures that could have been devised. He held in his hand a paper which had been directed to be delivered to Scotch and Irish members only; but he trusted the English members would do their duty to their constituents and not allow this bill to pass.
Lord Binning
denied that the benefit was imaginary. On the ground of humanity he claimed this increase of duty, though it might be in opposition to the cold rules of political economy. He did not care one straw for political economy in a case of this kind.
Mr. Marryat
condemned the variable policy out of which this proposition
975
Mr. Hume
said, that since the duty on barilla had been taken off, the price of kelp had risen. Unless the chancellor of the Exchequer, in a committee up stairs, could make out his case, he could not vote for the resolution.
Lord F. Gower
felt himself bound to support the proposition.
General Hart
would vote for the proposition, which he considered necessary for the support of a great part of the population of the north of Ireland.
Mr. Grey Bennet
thought previous inquiry absolutely necessary. Much had been said on the score of humanity, but he feared there was a great deal of self-interest mixed up with that appeal. The property in kelp manufactured had doubled since 1792, whilst every other species of property had decreased. He had a suspicion that this case, if investigated, would resemble the case of the Scilly Islands, which had been brought under consideration some years ago, and had taken a large sum out of the pockets of the people.
The committee divided: Ayes 100. Noes 20. Majority 80.
List of the Minority.
Calcraft, J. jun.
Proby, hon. G. L.
Cradock, col.
Parnell, sir H.
Douglas, W. K.
Palmer, col.
Denison, W. J.
Pares, T.
Gordon, R.
Philips, G. jun.
Grenfell, P.
Ricardo, D.
Gurney, Hudson
Rowley, sir C.
Hume, J.
Thompson, ald.
Maberly, J. L. jun.
Wilson, T.
Marryat, J.
Wood, Matthew.
BEER DUTIES BILL.]
On the order of the day, "that the report of this bill be now received" being read,
Mr. Denison
complained of the clause of the bill which prevented the brewers of table beer from making the medium description of beer without erecting new premises. This enactment he considered most unjust and oppressive. The table-beer brewers were ready to submit to any penalties to guard the revenue from any infringement of the laws. The bill accompanied by this clause was so objectionable, that he should wish to see it put off to another session; when a committee
976
Mr. Maberly
concurred in thinking the bill most unfair upon the brewers of small beer, who only wished to be enabled to retain the business they carried on, without the needless expense of erecting new-premises. The whole state of the trade required investigation. He would next session move to repeal all the duties on beer; which would put the poor who bought their beer from the brewer, on a level with those who brewed their own beer. The duty increased the price of beer to the consumer one penny per pot.
Mr. Monck
said, that the bill gave satisfaction to no one The effect of it was, to lay a new duty on small beer. Table beer, as the law stood, was allowed to be brewed at the rate of six barrels from a quarter of malt; the new beer was to be brewed at the rate of five barrels; and for this increased strength of 20 per cent, an increased duty of 150 per cent was charged. In the trade, restricted as it was, no man would be found to embark. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the strength to be four barrels to a quarter instead of five, something perhaps might be done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the restrictions on brewing in the same premises different kinds of beer, paying different duties, were necessary to prevent frauds upon the revenue and the consumer, by mixing them. As to the proposed change from five to four barrels a quarter, it would absolutely ruin the porter brewers; whose beer would be scarcely superior in quality, and who yet would remain charged with 10
s.
Mr. Bernal
insisted, that the precautions against mixing the two sorts of beer were both futile and vexatious.
Mr. C. Smith,
though not in the habit of opposing the chancellor oft he Exchequer, must vote against the bill.
Mr. Ricardo
thought the bill would be inoperative and it certainly was very unjust; as it, in fact, confiscated the property of the table-beer brewers. As to the idea of preventing weak beer from being put off on the public for strong, the public might be safely left to take care of itself. No harm could be done by passing the bill without the vexatious restrictions; at least for a year, by way of experiment.
977
Mr. Wodehouse
opposed the bill, and suggested that it should be postponed to the next session when a full inquiry might take place.
Mr. Marryat
wished to know the reason of the arbitrary distance of 200 yards which was required between one brewery and the other? He knew a brewer who had two premises 150 yards distant from each other. The erection of another would cost 10,000
l.
Mr. Herries
defended the bill, and thought the restrictions necessary, to secure to the public the full benefit of competition, by bringing a new race of brewers into the market.
The Marquis of Titchfield
opposed the bill as it stood, and considered that it would have no tendency to encourage the brewing of a better sort of beer, as the business would not be undertaken except by those who could incur the expense and risk of new buildings for the purpose.
Mr. Alderman Wood
opposed the bill, and suggested the removal of the beer duty altogether. The new beer would be such trash as no labouring person would drink. It would find no consumers, he hoped, in London, nor any where else.
The House divided: For the amendment, 26. Against it 32. The report was brought up. On the motion, "that the amendments made by the committee be now read a second time," the marquis of Tichfield moved as an amendment, "that the bill bere-committed." The house again divided: For the amendment 26. Against it 36. The report was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, R.
Phillips, G.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Phillips, G. jun.
Calcraft, J.
Pelham, C.
Coffin, sir I.
Rice, T. S.
Hume, J.
Ricardo, D.
Houldsworth, T. H.
Scarlett, J.
Marryat, J.
Smith, C.
Martin, J.
Titchfield, marquis of
Mundy, F.
Tulk, C. A.
Monck, J. B.
Wood, M.
Marjoribanks, S.
Wilson, T.
Newman, R. W.
Wodehouse, E.
Oxmantown, lord
TELLER
Palmer, F.
Denison, W. J.
CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the judicial fees received by the chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice moved, "That the ninth report of
978
Mr. Scarlett
rose to object to the entertainment of a motion so gravely affectting the character and honour of an officer of high judicial rank, at a period of the session when it was impossible to hope that they could draw the inquiry to a conclusion within the time of their sittings. He would support the motion, if introduced early in the next session; but he could not, under all the circumstances, refrain from opposing it, if pressed at the present moment.
Mr. S. Rice
protested, that his proceeding in this matter had been guided throughout by a sense of justice and a regard for the honour of Parliament. If he were compelled to postpone the discussion after the repeated delays which had occurred, he must be exculpated from any share in the blame. Let it be remembered, that, on the last occasion in which this subject was to have been discussed, an hon. member, who must be supposed to feel more interest in it than any other gentleman in the House, deprecated the delay, even of four or five days, as being in the highest degree prejudicial to the character and feelings of the high personage whose conduct was to be called in question. He would not therefore subject himself to the imputation of injustice by assenting as a matter of course to delay. From that quarter alone it could with propriety be asked of him; and if it were solicited by that hon. gentleman, and the call were backed by that of the House, then he would acquiesce. But in that case he would not take upon himself any future responsibility, nor would he feel himself engaged to renew his notice next session. He would leave it to those whose business it was to watch over the administration of justice to do as they pleased with it.
Mr. Scarlett
repeated his objections to having the character of a judge drawn into question, unless they were prepared to go through the whole of the case. The requisition of his hon. friend did not, he thought, perfectly consist with his visual kind disposition and good feeling. He felt the greatest sympathy for the young gentleman to whom allusion had been made; and after the opinion he had expressed he ought to be the last man in the House from whom any call of delay
979
Mr. Secretary Canning
agreed as to the propriety of postponing the discussion. He had examined the question, and he was prepared to vote upon some of the propositions of the hon. gentleman; but there were others, upon which, without further inquiry, he was not prepared to vote, and therefore he thought it had better be postponed till next session.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that if the inquiry were postponed, he would not pledge himself to renew it. If the postponement were forced upon him, he could not resist it: but he would say, that that postponement was he act and deed of his.
Sir J. Newport
thought the postponement unnecessary.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that it appeared to him that the majority of the House would be for delay.
Mr. Hume
enforced the necessity of taking up this long-delayed inquiry. Ministers ought to consent to go on with it, or at any rate to show some regard for the purity of the justice seat, by suspending the chief baron until it should be determined.
Captain O'Grady
said, he would not offer a single opinion on the subject of the inquiry. He certainly had given the learned member for Peterborough to understand, that if the House were decidedly in favour of postponement, he would not stand in the way for a moment; with this understanding—that nothing in his conduct should be drawn into an imputation on the conduct of the learned judge for whom he felt so deeply interested.
Mr. S. Rice
left it with the House, or with ministers, to prosecute the inquiry, should they now determine on a postponement.
Mr. Wetherell
objected to laying a responsibility on ministers which belonged to the House, and advised the postponement of the subject.
Mr. Peel
, though he thought delay ne-
980
Mr. Canning
said, that rather than undertake, the responsibility which the hon. gentleman would impose on him, he would go into the discussion at once.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that then he would go on.
Dr. Lushington
admitted that ministers ought not to promote this inquiry, because there was an influence naturally attached to their stations which must act prejudicially to the justice due to any parties against whom they might appear.
Mr. Denman
objected to further delay upon a case made out by two judicial commissions, and confirmed by two reports of that House. It was idle to suppose that there was no ground for suspecting the chief baron of malversation in his court. He strongly objected to the opinion, that ministers were not bound to take up the case officially. If it was not their duty on whom did the duty devolve? Were not the judges places filled by them? Had they really no responsibility in seeing that justice was not polluted by those whom they appointed? He maintained that the responsibility of this and every such inquiry rested with ministers, and would object to the postponement.
Mr. Secretary Canning
disclaimed, for his majesty's ministers, the right as well as the intention of interfering in this business as the promoters of it. The hon. and learned gentleman was quite mistaken if he thought he would be induced to fall into the trap which had been so ingeniously laid for him. He would not consent to swell, upon this occasion, the triumph of those gentlemen, who, upon other occasions, were his adversaries. No conduct of theirs should force the prosecution of the business into his hand, nor, if his advice were listened to, into that of any of the hon. friends with whom he acted. He would, if it should become necessary, attend at every step which should be taken, but he would do no more. The right hon. gentleman referred to the impeachments of Warren Hastings, and of lord Melville, in neither of which the ministers had taken any part, and concluded by expressing his opinion that the postponement of the inquiry was expedient under existing circumstances.
Mr. Wilberforce
was in favour of the postponement, on the ground, that many
981
Mr. Scarlett
then moved, as an amendment, "That the further consideration of the said report be postponed till the next session."
Mr. Hume
protested against any further delay, and stated that, in his opinion, the inquiry was about to be put off by connivance on both sides of the House.
Mr. Scarlett
repelled, with considerable warmth, the assertion that the proposed postponement was the result of connivance.
Mr. Wynn
thought the better mode would be, to refer the matter again to a committee.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
urged the necessity of going into the inquiry. When a judge was charged with criminality, he ought to be acquitted or condemned, with as little loss of time as possible.
Colonel Barry
said, if his hon. friend would pledge himself to go on with the inquiry next session, he would vote for the postponement; but if he declined doing so, he should call for immediate inquiry.
Sir J. Newport
was desirous that the inquiry should be proceeded in at once.
Mr. S. Rice
stated, that he had repeatedly offered to bring forward his charges, and had constantly been met by an application for delay. He would not, therefore, pledge himself to bring, the subject forward next session. The House should consider that there were two parties in this case. This procrastination must be painful to the learned person against whom the charge was made, and it must also be painful to the individual by whom it was agitated; who might, however unjustly, be accused of not being anxious to press forward this always-postponed accusation.
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, that his majesty's ministers were determined not to meet any case of this kind as they ought to do. They were the shelterers of every thing that looked like criminality. It was a part of their system. But their proceeding on this occasion must open the eyes of the inquiry. Here was an accusation brought against one of the Judges, of the land, and ministers refused either to place him in that situation of honour which his innocence justified, or to consign him to that punishment which his offence deserved.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he would ask
982
Mr. Brougham
said, he had the misfortune, on this occasion, to be one of those who had been, for the last three or four hours, guilty of a gross (he believed that was the expression) abandonment of his duty towards that House, by absenting himself from it, while this lively discussion was going on; and, therefore, according to that right hon. authority, he had no right to state his opinion. He was, however, in time to vote; and, though a man who had no right to vote on a great personal of political question, had certainly no right to speak on its merits, he believed it would be conceded to him that he who possessed the right of voting was also entitled to the privilege of stating the grounds on which he gave his vote. He was, however, happy to find that a new era was about to commence in that House, and that, henceforth, none were to deliver their sentiments who had not been present all the evening. Heretofore many complaints were made or empty benches, and on many occasions—and those, too, of importance—little else was encountered by the eye, except the brown and green colours which distinguished their seats, because gentlemen were disposed to com-
983
Sir F. Ommanney
said, "You paired off with me this evening." [a laugh].
Mr. Brougham
proceeded. He con-
984
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought it impossible that the hon. and learned gentleman, who seemed to have been occupied in a much pleasanter way than in doing his duty in that House, could have heard the remarks of the hon. member for Shrewsbury. He (Mr. Peel) had not objected to the hon. member for Shrewsbury's giving his opinion on the motion. What he had said was, and he still maintained it, that it was extremely unfair, on the part of the hon. gentleman, to prefer an accusation against his majesty's government without having any ground whatever for the charge. As to the tone of which the hon. and learned gentleman complained, it was the natural tone of a man who felt himself and his friends unjustly accused.
Mr. Bennet
observed, that having read the whole of the evidence taken before the committee, and endeavoured to make
985
The amendment was negatived without a division, and the House agreed to go into the committee on Tuesday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 16, 1823.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had a petition put into his hands, which, as it contained nothing disrespectful in its language, and related to a measure of very great importance to the petitioners, he thought it his duty to present. It was from the operative silk-weavers of Spital-fields against the bill now in progress. With respect to the disputed objects of the manufacturers on the one hand, and of the weavers on the other, he did not profess himself to be a competent judge. The subject was important, and he would, for the present, only express his hope that those who approached that House as petitioners asking its favour and protection, would continue to deserve it, by their peaceable and orderly conduct.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that it was the full and decided conviction of those by whom the bill in question was introduced, that the alteration of the law which it proposed was absolutely necessary for the just interests of the Spital-fields manufacturers. It was equally their opinion that the bill would not, in its operation, be found to militate against the interests of the labouring weavers. Such was the principle on which the measure was founded. It, however, turned out that many of the latter class took a different view of it, and a large body of the weavers of London and Westminster had petitioned against the bill. It was his opinion and his feeling, that, before the House proceeded to adopt a measure so interesting and important to that class of men, that they ought at least to receive a full and patient hearing. It seemed to be their impression, that the proposed alteration of the law would aggrieve them. They were, therefore, in fairness entitled to a hearing. The petitioners were a
986
Lord Ellenborough
said, he held in his hand two petitions, the one was signed by 179 manufacturers, the other was signed by about 10,000 persons, inhabitants of Bethnal-green, against the bill. He had heard, with great satisfaction, the observations of the noble earl on the general conduct of the petitioners. In those observations he cordially concurred. It was impossible to speak in terms of too strong commendation of the conduct of those persons—of the loyalty and good order which, for half a century, had distinguished them. They had been at all times inaccessible to those who endeavoured to turn the feelings of the people against the institutions of the country. In times of difficulty, of distress, of famine, they had been distinguished for their patience, their temper, and their respect for the laws. They had therefore no ordinary claims upon the indulgence of their lordships. The peculiarity of the bill before their lordships was this; it brought under the consideration of parliament regulations affecting the silk trade—it proposed alterations respecting that trade at a time when that trade was not only not in a state of depression, but when it was unusually prosperous. Of the improved state of that trade their lordships would form a judgment, when he stated that the annual quantity of silk imported 21 years ago, was 830,000lb. That the quantity
987
l.;
l.
988
The bill was ordered to be referred to a select committee, and the petitions were referred to the same committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 16, 1823.
LONDON BRIDGE BILL.]
The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill. On the clause for granting 150,000
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the grant, unless an arrangement were made to secure the repayment of it to the public. If the government had more money, than it wanted, it ought to remit it to the nation in taxes. He believed that the city of London did not want a new bridge, and that it was a gross job. Every purpose of a new bridge might be answered by increasing the water-way of the old one, which he understood might be effected for 100,000
l.
989
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that if the new bridge were a job, he was the author of it, but he altogether denied that it was a Job.
The hon. member then entered into variety of details, for the purpose of convincing the committee, that the present London-bridge was a nuisance to the city and ought to be taken down. He considered the sum now proposed a moderate one, and should therefore give the resolution his cordial support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
confessed that he had originally been reluctant to make this grant to the city of London, without seeing means provided for its repayment. He considered that the building of London-bridge was not so much a local as a national object. A plan had been suggested for repaying the money by a toll, but this would have been liable to so much public inconvenience, that he had not thought it expedient to resort to this mode of repayment. After having given the subject much consideration, he had ultimately, though not without reluctance, come to the conclusion, that he was justified in acceding to the grant.
The Lord Mayor
opposed the clause, and moved, that the Chairman report progress.
The House divided: For the clause 81, For the Amendment 12.
List of the Minority.
Astell, W.
Lockhart, J. J.
Calvert, C.
Monck, J. B.
Cradock, col.
Newnham, J. W.
Clinton, sir H.
Powlett, hon. W.
Dawkins, H.
Wells, J.
Hey gate, W.
TELLER.M
Lambton, J. G.
Hume, W.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.]
The order of the day was read for going into a committee on this bill. On the motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,"
The Hon. G. Agar Ellis
rose and said, that it was quite impossible for him to allow the bill, framed as it at present was, to go into any further stage of its progress, without entering his most decided protest against it. He had hitherto endeavoured, as far as he was able, to promote and assist its progress, hoping that the objectionable parts of it might be mended, and being, as he still was, fully convinced that a complete alteration in the Tithe system of Ireland was essen-
990
in toto
Mr. Goulburn
defended the measure, and expressed his hope 'that the House would proceed to render it as perfect as possible, though some of the objects originally in his view might not be accomplished by it.
Mr. Wetherell
said, that as no man could expect that the bill would ultimately pass, it was a useless waste of time to proceed night after night with the discussion of the various clauses.
991
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that it would be but fair to let the right hon. gentleman complete the measure he had begun. If the House rejected the bill, the right hon. gentleman would only have to return to Ireland, and to tell the people there that he had had the most benevolent views towards them, but that the House had refused to let him proceed with a bill, which if perfected would have remedied all their grievances.
Colonel Barry
thought it would be better to put an extinguisher on the bill at once, than hurry it through during the present session. He had no objection to proceed with the bill if it were allowed to stand over.
Mr. W. Bankes
supported the amendment, as the bill, in no shape, could be rendered palatable to him.
Mr. S. Rice
concurred in the amendment, but gave government some credit for a disposition to remedy existing evils. He feared, however, that the measure was not capable of modification.
Mr. Hume
contended that ministers had abandoned the ground upon which they introduced the bill. There was, besides, nothing useful in the bill. He thought, therefore, that it would be better to allow the people of Ireland to see that the delusion was complete, by discussing the whole of the Bill. Still he would vote for the amendment, if pressed to a division.
Mr. Peel
contended that no delusion had been attempted by government. If the present bill were lost, he should despair of originating any one which could satisfactory.
Mr. Abercromby
considered the bill as utterly useless without the modified compulsory clause, and therefore should vote for the amendment. He attributed the rejection of that clause entirely to the right hon. Secretary's (Mr. Peel's) sitting for the University, of Oxford.
Mr. Canning
admitted the inconvenience of occasionally giving the clergyman an augmentation of his income, but thought it far more dangerous to break through the rule upon which government had uniformly acted, of never compelling any transfer of property without giving the most ample indemnity. He trusted that the bill would not be lost in its present stage. If it was to be hung over to the next session, let it be first completed.
Lord Ebrington
supported the amendment.
992
Mr. Ricardo
urged the impossibility of fixing exactly, under any circumstances, what should be the right of the clergyman.
Mr. Wynn
supported the principle of ample compensation. He begged to remind the House that in dealing with tithes in Ireland, they were not dealing merely with church property; as one-third part belonged to lay impropriators.
Sir J. Stewart
said, that if the clergyman got the average of the last seven years without any addition, he would get more than he was entitled to. It would be better to put an extinguisher upon the bill at once.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that if the amendment was rejected, he would himself propose a modified compulsory clause.
The House divided: For going into the committee 51. For the Amendment 36. Majority 15.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Anson, hon. G.
Leader, W.
Bankes, W. J.
Lloyd, W.
Barry, col.
Moore, P.
Browne, hon. D.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Browne, James
Nolan, M.
Browne, Dom.
Normanby, lord
Brownlow, C.
Palmer, C. F.
Chichester, A.
Philips, G.
Dawkins, H.
Oxmantown, lord
Daly, J.
Tennyson, C.
Ebrington, lord
Ricardo, D.
Fleeming, J.
Stewart, sir J.
Fitzgerald, right hon.V
Wetherell, C.
Fitzgibbon hon. R.
Wood, M.
Forde, M.
White, col.
Hart, gen.
TELLERS.
Hume, J.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Hurst, R.
Rice,T. S.
Kennedy, T.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 17, 1823.
BEER DUTIES BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Maberly
objected to the measure as being most unjust in principle. It obliged brewers to erect the new works alluded to in the bill, at a distance from their present premises, and at a great expense—to try an experiment which might not succeed. To mark his opinion of the measure, he should take the sense of the house upon it.
Mr. Hume
objected to the bill, and suggested the propriety of deferring it to the next session, where a committee might
993
Mr. Monck
contended, that the bill was by no means calculated to remedy the evil which it affected to remove; for though any man might erect a new brewery in any town, with the view of selling under the price he found there, still the magistrates would have the power of refusing licences to houses where the new beer might be sold.
The bill was read a third time. On the question, that the bill do pass, the House divided: Ayes
64.
List of the Minority.
Birch, J.
Moore, P.
Bright, H.
Nugent, lord
Calcraft, J.
Oxmantown, lord
Carter, J.
Ricardo, D.
Cheere, M.
Robinson, sir G.
Coffin, sir I.
Scarlett, J.
Ebrington, lord
Smith, C.
Fergusson, sir R.
Wells, J.
Grant, J. P.
Wilson, T.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Williams, W.
Hume, J.
Wood, M.
James, W.
TELLERS.
Jervoise, G. P.
Maberly, J.
Kennedy, T. F.
Monck, J. B.
Lushington, S.
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
The House having, on the motion of Mr. Spring Rice, resolved itself into a Committee on the Conduct of the Lord Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer,
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that in presenting himself to the House, he felt how inadequate he was to the important task which he had considered it his duty to undertake, but having in the discharge of that duty undertaken it, he was aware he had no claim to any other indulgence than a patient attention to the statement which he should submit. There were, however, considerations connected with this subject, which made it of importance. The first was—and to that he should implore the most serious attention of honourable members—that this was a personal question involving the character of a high judicial officer in Ireland; and from those who might defend that character and above all from those who might feel-disposed to affirm the resolutions which he concluded with moving, their duty to the House and the country, and to the high officer, in question, required the most minute attention to the facts of the case There were besides these other grounds on which the question re-
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
ex parte
1001
Captain O'Grady
said, he need not assure the House that he rose under great embarrassment, which was considerably increased by a knowledge that the last time he had addressed the House on this subject, being unused to public speaking and unacquainted with the usages of courts of justice, he had given offence to the chief justice of the King's-bench in Ireland. He now took the earliest opportunity of saying that nothing could be further from his intention than to give the slightest umbrage to a man of such well-merited distinction and undoubted ability. When he was quoting the authority, and as it were, courting the protection of that high authority, it could not of course be his wish to impugn the noble lord's practice, or to cast imputations upon his conduct. It was not his intention to cast a slur upon any individual, and he hoped that the defence of the chief baron could be conducted without it. He was proud to stand forward on this occasion, because he felt conscious that he could vindicate the injured without the necessity of offending any man. He had awaited this discussion with the most intense anxiety—an anxiety wholly arising from a knowledge of the great disadvantage under which the chief baron laboured in having his case intrusted to the hands in which it was now placed. For he solemnly assured the House, that however painful it might be to him, he would have remained silent did he not in his heart think that truth and justice carried with them greater force
1002
1003
1004
1005
The resolutions were then put
seriatim
Mr. Hutchinson
contended, that neither himself nor the committee were in a state to pass any resolution tending to affect the character of the chief baron. He respected highly his hon. friend; but he must nevertheless tell him, that as a man of honour, he was bound not to advance a single step further in impugning the conduct of the chief baron, without first establishing his charges by a most solemn investigation at the bar of that House, affording to the learned judge the opportunity of cross-examining witnessess, and stating his own case. Would any man say that he was prepared to pass sentence of condemnation against a high dignified magistrate who for eighteen years had discharged the duties of his high trust with satisfaction to the country on
ex parte
The Solicitor-General
said, that although he had been a member of the committee above stairs, he had been prevented from attending its proceedings so regularly as he could have wished. Whether, with the advantage of more constant
1006
1007
1008
Mr. Hutchinson
suggested, that he had already moved that amendment.
The Solicitor-Generals
said, that in that case, he would sit down by seconding it.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that it was rather extraordinary the hon. member should express an anxiety that the chief baron should not be condemned unheard, and yet should propose an amendment, which would have the effect of preventing his
1009
Mr. Secretary Canning
stated, that he was ready to affirm the resolutions, as far as they were simply extracts of the reports; but as far as they contained matter of accusation against the chief baron, he was not prepared to affirm them. If the committee entertained the charge, he saw no constitutional mode of following it up but by impeachment; but, perhaps, at the present period of the session, and considering the appearance which the House presented, that course could not be satisfactorily pursued. He should be glad if any better mode of proceeding were suggested. Perhaps the proceedings might be suspended after the committee should have adopted an initiative resolution, which would operate as a warning to the chief baron to apply for permission to be heard at their bar.
Mr. Wynn
was of opinion, that as the two reports contained matters of accusation, the chief baron had already been forewarned of the necessity of entering upon his defence; and he had in some measure done so, by the two letters which he had written relative to those reports. He thought it might be an eligible mode to suspend the proceedings, with the view of giving the chief baron an opportunity of making application to be heard at their, bar. Ho would be glad if an hon. and learned gentleman opposite could tell him whether the chief baron was desirous of being heard at the bar? For if it were ascertained that he was not, the committee ought not to stay its proceedings.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that in his opinion there was no ground for coming to the last resolution; and, indeed, he thought any resolution would be exceptionable which implied a censure, as the reports only related to matters of fact from which no inferences of crimination ought to be drawn, as there was no proof before the committee, that the chief baron might not be entitled to the fees which the reports stated him to have received If the resolution were put to the vote, he f would move an addition, the substance of which would be, that the practice did not appear to 'tie known to the chief baron.
Mr. S. Rice
stated that in the course
1010
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought, that if there was any difficulty it was not to be obviated by postponement. There were several modes of proceeding. He did not approve of that course which would fix a resolution of censure upon a Judge. It was his opinion, that a person holding such a situation ought to be dismissed altogether, if guilty of the acts laid to his charge, but ought not, under any circumstances, to be partially degraded He did not approve of the mode of proceeding by
scire facias
1011
ad hominem
1012
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he would give no opinion whatever on the merits of the case. If any subsequent proceeding were to take place, there would be abundant opportunities for doing that. The committee had heard as fair and liberal an accusation from the hon. member for Limerick, and as judicious and meritorious a defence from the hon. relative of the chief baron, as any at which he had ever been present. When he (sir J. M.) left the House, which he had been unavoidably compelled to do, he understood that the difficulty was not whether the house should proceed, but as to the manner in which that proceeding should be conducted. But now, from the last part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, he understood there was an objection to ulterior proceedings.
Mr. Peel
said, he had expressed an opinion, that the proceeding by impeachment would be better than by address.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that the committee, so far from being called upon to decide the question, had no right to give an opinion upon it he objected strongly
1013
Mr. Secretary Peel
denied having said that the smallness of the offence ought to prevent a parliamentary proceeding against a judge. What he had said was, that the smallness of the amount almost precluded the possibility of a corrupt motive.
Mr. J. P. Grant
observed, that if he thought the smallness of the amount precluded the probability of a corrupt motive, he Would propose to pronounce that Opinion as the decision of the committee, and not pass the subject entirely over by reporting progress. If, on the contrary, he thought that corrupt motives did exist, he should think that, painful as would be the task, the House ought to proceed.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that his object in moving the amendment was, not to evade justice, but to do justice. What he objected to was corning to a decision on the merits of the case, in a state of ignorance With respect to withdraw he was quite ready however, to withdraw his amendment if the committee were disposed to adopt any other course.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. S. Rice
, to obviate some of the objections which had been made to it, moved the insertion in the fourth Resolution of the words, "appears by, and stated in."
Mr. Scarlett
, while he coincided in the spirit of the proposition of his hon. and learned friend, observed, that in a fort-
1014
Sir J. Mackintosh
felt the full force of the
argumentum ad inertiam
Mr. R. Smith
was apprehensive that the inquiry must stand over until next session. Some notice of the subject however, not of the nature of a prejudgment, ought to appear on the Journals of the House.
Mr. Canning
, while he admitted that the amendment to the first resolution made it, not a fact, but an inference from the Report of the Commissioners denied that a similar amendment introduced into the succeeding resolutions would have the same effect.
Mr. Wetherell
thought the real question was, in what shape the subject should be abandoned now, in order that it might be resumed afterwards? For his part, he saw no use in agreeing to some of the resolutions, unless the others were also adopted, If it were hot intended to proceed with the investigation this session the better way would be to postpone the whole matter to a future time.
The Attorney General
wished the first resolution to be postponed as well as the others. In his opinion, no culpability would attach to the chief born unless it appeared that he had knowing taken improper fees; and according to the report, he had only placed his signature officially to bills of costs that were not taxed, without examining them.
The House resumed. The Chairman, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
1015
Mr. Davenport
opposed the motion. He contended, that a more disastrous measure for the country could not possibly be introduced. The present bill proved more than any proposition he ever recollected to have been made to the House, the modern rage for legislation. What did the bill go to do? To overturn, at one blow, that system which their ancestors, for ages, had been anxious to establish. It would raise the interest of money to an unprecedented height, and the effect would be injurious to all classes of society. Those who wished to borrow money on the mortgage of lands, would be more especially affected by it. At present, they could procure money at the rate of 5 per cent; but let this did pass, and they would be charged an exorbitant rate of interest. Gentlemen might say, "If one person in the market won't lend money at a reasonable rate, another will." But this did not apply to persons residing at a remote distance from town, who knew nothing about the money market. He would move as an amendment—"That the bill be committed upon this day three months."
Mr. Ricardo
argued, that money ought to be placed on the same footing as any other commodity. The lender and borrower ought to be allowed to bargain together, as freely as the buyer and seller did when goods were to be disposed of. The hon. member who spoke last, feared that this measure would place the borrower entirely in the power of the lender. But, did the present laws alter his situation? Certainly not. Means were found to evade the law; for though the law said, "You shall not take more than a certain interest for your money," it could not compel a man to lend at that particular rate; and, therefore, he who wished to borrow at all events, and he who wished to lend at as high a rate of interest as he could get, both conspired to evade the law. These laws operated precisely in the same way as the laws against exporting the coin of the realm. Now, notwithstanding those laws, did not the, exportation of that coin take place? The only, effect of the statutes in that case was, to place the traffic in the hands of characters who had no scruples against taking a false oath. They were encouraged to evade the law and made a great profit by so doing.
Mr. J. Smith
said, that so far from
1016
Mr. Philips
hoped the bill would pass. The Committee by which the question was discussed, saw clearly the folly of those laws. Why should the person who had money to lend be placed under more disadvantageous circumstances than his hon. friend would be in regard to transactions in landed property He had heard nothing which could warrant the continuance of the existing law.
Mr. T. Wilson
agreed with what had fallen from the last speaker. Perhaps, in the present, state of the money market, he should not be entirely disposed to support this measure; but, thinking the existing law highly objectionable, he should vote for it. In Holland, where commercial interests were well understood, there were no usury laws. The fact was, that the interest of money could never be kept at a high rate, while it was left to it self.
Captain Maberly
, seeing the total inefficacy and impolicy of the existing law would also support the measure.
Mr. F. Palmer
opposed it, conceiving it to be most ruinous to the agricultural interest.
Mr. W. Smith
supported the motion.
Mr. Wynn
spoke on the same side, though he would be the last man to support the motion, if he thought it could
1017
Mr. Benett
, of Wilts, thought that if ever the interest of money should rise in this country above 5 per cent, the bill would be singularly beneficial to the landed interest.
The House divided: For going into a committee, 38. For the Amendment, 15.
List of the Minority.
Blackburne, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Cheere, E. M.
Powell, W. E.
Desborough,—
Plummer, J.
Douglas, W. R. K.
Pryse, P.
Estcourt, T. G.
Taylor, M. A.
Heathcote, J. G.
Webbe, E.
Jervoise, G. P.
TELLERS.
Kennedy, T. F.
Davenport, D.
Mundy, F.
Williams, sir R.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 18, 1823.
BURNING OF HINDOO WIDOWS.]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose to present a Petition from a most respectable meeting of the gentry, clergy, and other inhabitants of the county of Bedford. It was signed by two thousand four hundred individuals, and the petitioners earnestly implored the House to take such measures as may be deemed most expedient and effectual for putting an end to the practice existing in British India of Immolating Widows alive on the Funeral Pile of their Husbands. The hon. member said, that he was anxious to call the attention of the House to this petition, since it not only came from a most respectable body, but related to a question most interesting to the feelings of humanity. It appeared from the papers upon this subject, which had been laid on the table of the House, as well as from other documents equally authentic, that between eight and nine hundred widows were annually consumed alive in cur East Indian possessions on the funeral pile of their husbands. Surely, then, some attention was due to the subject on the part of the House. It appeared, that some of these dreadful scenes were accompanied with circumstances of the most revolting cruelty. It often happened; that the same day which deprived a son of his father, beheld him the executioner of his mother; and that he was seen applying the torch to the pile which was to consume the bodies of both. It not unfrequently occurred that, when the poverty of the par-
1018
1019
Mr. Wynn
said, that there could be no difference of opinion, as to the principle upon which the hon. gentleman urged this abolition of the horrible practice referred to. All of them must alike deplore the existence of these melancholy effects of superstition. Considerable difficulty would, however, attend any practical measure which might be adopted, with a view to putting an end to this barbarous custom. The cases of successful interference on the part of other nations, which the hon. gentleman had referred to, were not parallel; since it was evident, that the same experiment, might be safely made in a small possession, which could not be hazarded without great danger in a territory so immense as that which was subject to the British dominion in India. Horrible, however, as the practice was, it was one as old as any known in India. It had existed at least as far back as the time of Alexander the Great; and it had taken such deep hold of the natives, and was founded on such strong feelings connected with the religion of that country, that the feared that any attempt to put an end to it, by force, would be ineffectual. He therefore much doubted, under all the circumstances, policy of legislative interference in a matter which it would be better to leave to the judgment and discretion of the local government.
Mr. Hume
observed, that the subject had occupied the attention of the government India, and that as strong measures of prevention had been adopted as could well be taken, without interfering with the religious prejudice's of the people. By
1020
Mr. Wilberforce
said, it appeared clear to his mind, that if proper means were resorted to, there would be found no greater difficulty in putting an end to this horrible custom, than there had been found in putting an end to a similar practice under the government of marquis Wellesley. He was sorry to find that the practice was increasing, and had' extended itself to places in which it had not formerly existed. As to the sacrifices being voluntary, how could a sacrifice be called voluntary, where the wretched victim was bound down to the stake to prevent the possibility of escape? He hoped that his hon. friend would persevere in his intention of bringing the subject again before the attention of the House.
Mr. Forbes
said, he had once thought that the practice might be put down by legislative interference, but he had since had reason to alter his opinion, and thought that no regulations would be sufficient to check it. It was the opinion of the marquis of Hastings, that the means which had been taken to prevent, had tended rather to increase, than mitigate the evil. The widows would equally satisfy the barbarous superstition which prevailed in India, by being burned, drowned, or buried alive. If the existing practice could be abolished, the number of victims was not likely to be diminished. He was convinced that force would be of no avail; though he believed that a good deal might be effected by persuasion.
Mr. Money
was of the same opinion, and wished the subject to be referred a committee, that some measure might be devised for checking the horrible practice.
The Petition was then read; setting forth,
"That the Petitioners contemplate with extreme concern the practice existing in British India of Immolating Widows alive on the Funeral Pile of their Husbands; that, from official Returns now before the public, it appears that the number' so immolated in the Presidency of Calcutta alone, in the years 1817 and 1818, amounted to upwards of 1,500; that, assuming this calculated to be a standard
1021
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
HINDOO INFANTICIDE.]
Mr. Buxton
next moved, for "Copies of all correspondence which has taken place on the subject, of Hindoo Infanticide, and of all proceedings of the Indian government with regard to that practice."
Mr. Wynn
said, he had no objection to the motion, but he feared that the efforts of the government would be found not to have been more effectual in repressing this practice, than they had been in the case of the immolation of Hindoo widows.
The motion was agreed to.
EMPLOYMENT OF THE PEASANTRY OF
Mr. S. Rice
presented a petition from the Hibernian Philanthropic Society, praying that the House would take into considera-
1022
Mr. Goulburn
said, he could have no objection to the appointment of the committee. On the contrary, he would such a measure his best support; but he feared that if the committee were to employ themselves in considering the practicability of Mr. Owen's plan, however benevolent the intention of that gentleman might be, they would find their time not very well bestowed. At the same time, he trusted they might be able to devise some measure which could be carried into effect.
Ordered to lie on the table.
OLIVE (STYLING HERSELF) PRINCESS
Sir Gerard Noel
rose for the purpose of moving that the petition which he had on the 3rd of March presented from the Lady calling herself Olive, princess of Cumberland, should be referred to a select committee, She had, he observed, been now for three years applying, but without effect, for the payment of a sum of money alleged to have been bequeathed to her by the will of the late king, which she declared to be necessary for the payment of for ejects. He was afraid he should find it difficult to make himself understood. He was an old member of that House, though he was not an old speaker in it; and he feared that the cause of this lady would not be much advanced by any adventitious aid from any eloquence of his. His was not the eloquence which could make a bad cause appear good; but certainly he ever would have taken up the present if he had not thought it always a good one. Whe-
1023
1024
"Flectere si nequeo Superos, Acheronta movebo."
1025
Mr. Hume
said, he seconded the motion with great pleasure; not because he had any acquaintance with the petitioner, but because, after what had pablicly occurred on the subject, it appeared to him that her claims had become a serious question which ought to be settled. The petitioner claimed to be a branch of the royal family. Whether she was so or not, he did not know; but ministers, in defence of the dignity of the royal family, ought to take some steps against a supposed or real impostor, who in every newspaper had publicly asserted her right. It appeared that the petitioner was in possession of certain documents, one of them bearing the signatures of his late majesty, of Mr. Dunning, and other witnesses. This appeared to be a good document. The right hon. Secretary seemed to intimate a doubt regarding it: but the signature of Mr. Dunning had been proved by the best evidence that could be found. This document, formed the principal ground on which he (Mr. H.) seconded the motion; for it appeared that his late majesty died without a will, and in common acceptation it appeared to nm that this paper was a will, and that it could be so proved before the proper courts. This lady had been imprisoned for debt, and her creditors had brought her claim into court, demanding to be administrators of the personal property of his late majesty. This ought to have been done by the party who took possession of the personal property of the late king, for there was nothing in law, that he was aware of, that ought to have prevented it. The judge in the court to which the petitioner appealed, had not pretended to deny the authenticity of the documents. He had only said, that he had no authority to take cognizance of the claim. He him himself had seen a document in the late duke of Kent's own hand writing, stating that lord Warwick had told his royal highness the whole transaction, as also that he had been ordered by his late majesty not to disclose it until after his majesty's death. The duke of Kent was so convinced that this statement was true, that, under his own hand-writing, he had promised to pay this woman a certain sum of money; thus showing that he believed her to be the legitimate daughter of his
1026
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. baronet had imposed upon him a duty of rather an embarrassing nature. The subject was so exceedingly ludicrous, that he really felt called upon to beg pardon of the House for occupying its time regarding it. It seemed that the hon. baronet considered himself acting under the obligation of a royal command, believing the individual for whom he appeared, to be a princess of the blood. Such, certainly, was not his (Mr. Peel's) opinion; and upon the whole, perhaps, the best course he could pursue was, to state that truth, and those facts which it was the object of the hon. baronet to elicit. To pass over the case in silence might, perhaps, confirm groundless suspicions. He would therefore proceed to show, that this lady was either herself practising the most impudent imposture, or that she was the innocent dupe of others. The hon. baronet had omitted to state his case. It was therefore necessary for him (Mr. Peel) to detail it; and he would do so as shortly as possible. There were two brothers of the name of Wilmot; the one, Dr. Wilmot, the other a Mr. Robert Wilmot. The person now claiming to be princess of Cumberland was the daughter of Robert Wilmot. Proof of her birth and baptism existed, and for a considerable time 6he had been contented with this humble origin. But in the year 1817—(very possibly before that date she had pretended to be other personages)—she discovered that she was not the daughter of Robert Wilmot, but of the late duke of Cumberland, brother to his late majesty, Geo. 3rd. She did not then, indeed, pretend that she was the legitimate but the illegitimate daughter; and, in 1817, a petition, signed "Olivia Serres," was presented to his majesty by a person on her behalf, which contained these words—"May it please your royal highness to attend to the attestations which prove this lady to be the daughter of the late duke of Cumberland by a Mrs. Payne, the wife of a captain in the navy. Mrs. Payne was
1027
Sir G. Noel
interposed to state, that the late lord Warwick had given the papers in question to the duke of Kent. The petitioner did not obtain them until after the death of lord Warwick.
Mr. Secretary Peel
added, that they had not been forthcoming until the death of every party whose signatures they purported to bear: even the accoucheur who attended her mother, died in 1818, a year before the claim was advanced. The attesting witnesses were, Mr. Dunning, lord Chatham, and lord Warwick, and their names were used to prove a secret marriage, and the consequent birth of a child in 1772—no other, as was pretended, than the present Mrs. Serres. To account for the long belief that she was really the daughter of Mrs. Wilmot, she asserted that Mrs. Wilmot having bee delivered of a still-born child, the petitioner, the daughter of the duke of Cumberland, was substituted for the sake of concealment, and that Mr. Dunning and lord Chatham had consented to that substitution. The story was full of fabrications from beginning to end. They
1028
l.
l.,
*
*
1029
my
1030
1031
Sir Gerarà Noel,
in reply, contended that the House ought not to be satisfied by the pleasantry of the statement of the right hon. gentleman. Assertion was no proof. If lord Chatham were out of office, it did not show conclusively that he had not signed the documents bearing his name. If the right hon. gentleman had nothing to fear, why did he not consent to the committee? He should press the, question to a division, if he stood alone, and did not retract an iota of what he had stated.
The hon. baronet, on consulting with one or two members near him, afterwards said, that he would not be so impertinent as to trouble the House to divide. The motion was therefore instantly and loudly negatived.
BRITISH ROMAN CATHOLICS TESTS
Lord Nugent having; moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir G. Hill
said, that he rose for the purpose of expressing his unqualified dissent to the measure. Those who advocated the bill did so from an opinion that the peaceable demeanour of the English Roman Catholics entitled them to at least a participation of equal privileges with those of that persuasion in Ireland, whose conduct was the very reverse. He whished, however, to warn the gentlemen of this country against a measure which had produced such injurious consequences in Ireland, where he would assert, they had not enjoyed one year of substantial tranquility since l793, when the elective franchise had been conceded to the Catholics. Whereas, from 1783 to 1793, when they had no such Privilege, the country was at peace. If this bill was passed, he was convinced that energies
1032
Mr. W. Bankes
could not suffer any stage of this bill to pass, without entering his protest against it. He objected to it altogether, notwithstanding the anomaly in the condition of the English and Irish Roman Catholics.
The Attorney General
would not now oppose the bill, but he wished to state his objections to the clause which went to relieve every person from the oath of supremacy.
Mr. Peel
said, that in the present bill he saw many objectionable clauses, which he would not, however, discuss in the present stage; but he could not help objecting to the removal of the oath of supremacy on the part of those who were candidates for office. As far as regarded the elective franchise, he had no objection to grant it to the English Roman Catholics without any restriction: but as a qualification for office generally, he considered the oath to be indispensable. The Catholic would otherwise be put on a more favourable footing than the Protestant or Dissenter.
Mr. Bankes
thought the bill should not proceed until the House was in possession of better information, as to the object of it, than had yet been afforded. The phraseology of the bill was by no means correct or explicit, even as to the purposes suggested by the noble lord himself. Did the noble lord mean to say, that English Roman Catholic subjects were to take no oath at all? Were those subjects not even to be bound by the same obligations as Protestant Dissenters and Church of England men? He contended, that if the bill now introduced should ever pass the House, it would be necessary very considerably to extend the present list of excluded persons. His main objection to the bill referred mainly to the constitution of the British parliament: for he was decidedly adverse to extending to Roman Catholic subjects the elective franchise in any degree. With respect to Scotland, the principle of the noble lord's bill would embrace the repeal of the act of Union.
Mr. Wetherell
said, that he should now content himself with briefly recording his objections to the bill; but in the committee he should feel it his duty to oppose almost every line which it contained. It
1033
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 19, 1823.
STATE OF IRELAND.]
The Duke of Devonshire
rose to submit his promised motion on the State of Ireland, and spoke nearly as follows:—My lords; it was not my intention to occupy the time of your lordships until an opportunity should present itself on the discussion of the subject which, was expected before this to have been brought under the consideration of this House. But fearing that the delay which has occurred in another place might prevent that discussion from coming on in due time, and feeling, that it would be a great misfortune if this session of parliament were suffered to terminate its proceedings without allotting one night at least to the consideration of the State of Ireland—of the wrongs of its people—of the acts and conduct of its government; I have, therefore, my lords, however ill qualified to discuss a subject so important and so comprehensive, yet, trusting to the indulgence of this House, and to the active support of the noble friends by whom I am surrounded, stept forward to call your attention to the state of Ireland, to the sufferings, and just complaints of the people. My lords, I am the more desirous to do so, because it is easy to foresee that we shall be again called upon to continue that rigorous and coercive system under which Ireland is suffering—under which she has suffered so deeply and so long. My lords, I am most anxious to suggest to the House the means that strike my mind, as best calculated to lead the way to the mitigation of those evils which have damped the energies, and retarded the progress of improvement in a country rich in natural advantages, and richer still in the character of its inhabitants.
1034
1035
1036
1037
1. "That this House has learnt with the deepest regret, from the information laid before it during the present session, by command of his majesty, that a general spirit of violence, manifesting itself in outrages of the most alarming nature, has for some time prevailed in many parts of Ireland, and that, in the opinions of his majesty's government, extraordinary powers are required for the protection of the persons and property of his majesty's subjects in that kingdom.
2. "That this House will be ready to concur in any measures which may be found indispensable for the prompt and
1038
Earl Bathurst
denied that there was any evidence to substantiate the charges against his majesty's government which the noble duke s speech contained. That the parliament had, since the period of the Union, been employed solely in passing coercive measures, it was sufficient to refer to the Statute book, to see the unfounded nature of that charge. The agriculture of Ireland was undoubtedly an object, of the first importance; and, in 1806, the free importation of corn was allowed into this country from Ireland, at the same time that the free importation from foreign countries and from our own colonies was forbidden, and the monopoly of the grain market was thus given to Ireland. And at a subsequent period, when the prices were raised at which corn might be imported into this country from foreign countries and from our colonies, it was suffered to remain in the same state as to Ireland. However much political economists differed as to the propriety of the measure, they all agreed that it was the most important boon which could be conceded; and, if their lordships referred to the quantities imported, they would see that, in the last year, it was quadrupled, as compared with the year before the Union. Let their lordships also look to the different measures that had been introduced for the improvement of the administration of justice in that country; which was the first object to which the noble duke had called their attention; but from the manner in which he had commented on it, their lordships might be led to suppose that no one measure had been adopted relative to it. The noble earl here instanced the present improved mode of selecting the sheriffs, which was now similar to the practice in this country; the corrected mode of levying fines where recognizances were forfeited; the improvement of receiving evidence by grand
1039
l.
l.
1040
1041
The Earl of Clare
said, that his noble friend seemed to think he had complained that government had done nothing for Ireland. Now, his observation was, that enough had not been done in the way of amelioration, and that the extent of the wretchedness was not known in this country.
Viscount Clifden
said, he was aware that, according to the arrangement made at the time of the Union, Ireland was to pay about seven millions and a half towards the general expenses of the empire. But the wretchedness to which that country was reduced rendered the payment impossible. Government, however, would have a Union, and they must take the consequences. One of the great grievances of Ireland was, the number of her absentees, which number the Union had increased; but the evils which a long system of misgovernment had imposed upon that unhappy country, were as numerous as the stars of heaven. He Strongly condemned the tithe-system in Ireland; which, he said, had been the main cause of all the burning and bloodshed which had occurred. Even in England the tithes occasioned great discontent, but in Ireland they produced misery unparalleled. It was said, that tithes were of divine origin. It might be so; but this he knew, that they were the cause of envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. The very mode of their collection was oppressive in the extreme. The proctor did not go till the crop was taken off die grounds; and then, if the farmer did not agree to his valuation, and submit to his demand, he was taken into the Bishop's Court, where the vicar-general was not only a churchman, but was judge and jury in his own cause. Their lordships as a body, knew no more of the state of Ireland and her sufferings, than they did of the state of Japan. He did not pretend to decide the precise point where obedience terminated, and resistance might begin; bat this he knew, that it would be difficult to conceive a case of greater oppression than that of empowering a person to decide in his
1042
1043
The Earl of Darnley
said, he had been anxious, from the beginning of the session, to draw the attention of the House to the important subject now before it, and should, therefore take that early period of the debate for submitting his sentiments to their lordships' consideration: He felt that the time was now come, when the government should put its shoulder boldly to the wheel, and without fear of consequences, reverse the system which had been so long and injuriously acted upon in the sister country. If a decisive step of this sort were not speedily adopted, that island, which might have been made the best bulwark of the empire, must inevitably fall to destruction. Although many laws had passed within the last twenty years for the amelioration of the sister country, they had proved of little use. Even recently, after having confided in the hopes which were held out by his majesty's ministers that the situation of Ireland would engage their closest attention, although they certainly had introduced some acts which appeared to be of a beneficial tendency, he was now obliged to come to the conclusion, that nothing had actually been done for the unfortunate country in question. It was indeed true, that, in the other House of Parliament, many wearisome nights had been spent upon a late investigation relative to Ireland; but, instead of its producing any benefit to that country, the result had been—the triumph of an intolerant party and the elevation of an obscure stationer in Dublin to the head of the Orange faction. He must also admit that the subject of the Commutation of Tithe had engaged the attention of the other House of Parliament; but he doubted whether their lordships would ever see the consummation of the measure. The bills which his majesty's government had brought in, with the view of relieving; Ireland from the oppression of tithe, gave, In reality, no satisfaction to those most conversant with the state of that island. On the contrary, it was believed, that those bills would not only enable the Church to exact as much as it did now, but even a greater amount of revenue. The policy of England, ever since its connection with Ireland, was, he regretted to say, directly the reverse of all other countries similarly circumstanced. The principle upon which it proceeded was, that of dividing the people against themselves, and of maintaining a difference
1044
1045
1046
The Earl of Gosford
said, that a more important motion than the present never came before their lordships. The measures which had been hitherto adopted to tranquilize Ireland, had entirely failed of their object, and that country was at the present moment on the very verge of rebellion. He therefore trusted, that the House would not separate, without taking some steps for the protection of the peaceable and well-affected part of the community. Hitherto, the whole system pursued in Ireland had been one of mal-administration: and until it was reformed, there could be no hope that the situation of the sister country would improve.
The Earl of Caledon
said, that, in his opinion, all the expectations which had been formed from the present government of Ireland had hitherto been totally disappointed.
Lord Maryborough
said, that the present was a question which touched so intimately on a country with which he had been long and extensively connected, that he should not consider-that he had discharged his duty to the administration of which he formed a part, to his noble relation at the head of the Irish government, or to himself, if he did not avail himself of the earliest opportunity of stating his sentiments to the House, and of giving his decided negative to the motion. It was impossible to conceive a motion of more importance at the present moment, than that which the noble duke had felt it his duty to submit to the consideration of the House. No man was more sensible than he was, of the sincerity of the wishes which the noble duke had expressed for the welfare of Ireland, or knew better than he did the benefits which he had conferred on his numerous tenantry. He was ready to acknowledge the dignity and propriety with which the noble duke had brought forward the motion; but he must confess, that there was, at the same time, something in the manner in which the noble duke had stated his views on the subject to the House, which did injustice, not only to the present administration and to the present parliament, but to every administration which had governed Ireland, and to every parliament which had sat from the period of the Union to the present day. Before their lordships came to a division upon this question, they ought
1047
1048
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1049
l.
l.
1050
1051
Lord Holland
asked, whether this then,
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
"What'er is best administered is best."
prima facie
1061
1062
The Earl of Limerick
said, that although an opinion was elsewhere entertained, that the disorders in Ireland were caused by religious differences, he was convinced of the fallacy of that opinion. He would not pay so bad a compliment to the upper classes of Irish Catholics as to suppose that they countenanced such outrages. He was equally ready to acquit the priesthood; and he behaved that the promoters, as well as the actors, in the disorders, were altogether confined to the lower, orders of the people, He had had interviews with two captain Rocks; for their lordships must know that there were as many captain Rocks as there were bands of rioters, and these persons had told him what their object was. These men avowed to him, with perfect tranquillity, that their first wish was, to drive away, the heretics, and to take their property. This was the aim they, had in view, and until they had accomplished it, they assured him they would never be quiet. He was no advocate for severe laws; but when a whole province was given up to fire and sword, when the ordinary administration of the laws was not sufficient for the security of the peaceful inhabitants, he could not feel any reluctance in adopting strong measures. He had assisted, on a former occasion, in carrying into execution the measure to which he alluded. He had done so because he thought it necessary. It was enforced under the inspection of persons of high judicial authority, and no sentence had been passed which was not merited, nor upon any, one whose guilt had not been clearly proved. If the assertion was true, that, in Ireland there was one law for the rich and, another for the poor, he protested he, was ignorant of it. Without meaning to flatter the noble lords opposite he, must confess that they had made every exertion in their power for the restoration of tranquillity. He had been originally all advocate for the catholic institution at Maynooth; but recent experience had convinced him, that it was productive of much harm, and he now thought, that Catholics, by being educated, abroad would return not only better Catholics but better subjects. After some remarks
1063
Lord King
, said, that their lordships had heard great credit taken for remedying evils in Ireland, the existence of which, until the remedial measures were brought forward, had always been denied. The ministers, too, had given up taxes in Ireland. And why? Because they could no longer collect them. He wished those who, exposed inquiry; would read the Insurrection Act—an act which seemed more suited to a slave island and a slave population, than to the inhabitants of a free country. His majesty's ministers reminded him of a certain clergyman, not the most exemplary in his practice, who had had, this is the cursedest parish that God ever put breath into. I have been preaching to them for five and twenty year, and they are as bad as they were before." His majesty's ministers, in like manner, with their parish of six million of souls, had been holding forth to them on the necessity of tranquillity; yet, strange to say, this parish, more irritated by acts than tranquillized by words, was as turbulent as ever it had been. Ireland was certainly a country
sui generis.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that after all they had heard last year in that House and so other places; after the declaration of the noble earl opposite, that if there could not be found a remedy immediately, for what was then called, and
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
s.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, it was impossible for him to avoid stating, in a few words, the grounds on which he should object to the motion of the noble duke; particularly as he had been so pointedly alluded to in the course pf the debate. The motion was not a motion for inquiry merely. It commenced by expressing a regret, in which every one must agree, at, the strong measures which were rendered necessary for the safety of Ireland; but it also expressed the noble duke's sentiments as to what the government of Ireland had been. He would admit, that every noble lord who thought there had been a systematic defect in the government of that country, would be fully warranted in voting for the motion of the noble duke. But he should deny the position of the noble duke. He would admit that evils existed. He did not deny the expediency of seeking for some remedy; but he denied the cause to which those evils were attributed, and he could not accede to all the measures proposed for their relief. It had been truly said that the whole of the late reign had been one succession of acts of beneficence. That much had been, done for Ireland, and that she was now reaping the benefit of it, no man in his senses could deny. It had been said, that all which had been done was a mere act of justice. He acknowledged that whatever benefits a government conferred on a country, could only be termed acts pf justice; but he would say that with respect to many pf those; acts that that, had been done for Ireland, which would
1069
1070
1071
The Bishop of Kildare
defended the parochial incumbents of Ireland from some aspersions which had been cast on them, and maintained that they had uniformly discharged their duty in the promotion of parochial schools within their different districts.
The Earl of Carnarvon
strongly urged the necessity of entering upon an immediate inquiry into the state of Ireland. He had been surprised to hear the noble earl opposite talk of the boons which the government had granted to the Irish nation. Now, if the distresses of Ireland had arisen from causes unconnected with the government of that country, any measure of amelioration might not improperly be called a boos; but, when the evils complained of were the result of misgovernment alone, it was barely an act of justice to remedy them. He was convinced, that if the motion were not carried, no inquiry would take place on the part of government. The state of Ireland seemed to be too appalling for the contemplation of ministers. They shrank from the inquiry, and wished to let all the
1072
The House divided, for the original motion; Contents 43; Proxies 16–59. Not-contents, 66; Proxies 39–105. Majority against the motion, 46.
List of the Minority.
DUKES.
Clare
Somerset
Thanet
Devonshire
Cowper
Grafton
Grey
Leinster
Breadalbane
MARQUIS
Denbigh
Lansdown
VISCOUNTS
EARLS
Clifden
Darlington
Anson
Rosslyn
LORDS
Roseberry
Belhaven
Lauderdale
Gwydir
Grosvenor
King
Carnarvon
Cawdor
Donoughmore
Lynedock
Gosford
Alvanley
Caledon
Auckland
Tankerville
Saye-and-Sele
Cork
Foley
Jersey
Holland
Ilchester
Dacre
Fitzwilliam
Ellenborough.
Essex
Bolton
Darnley
Calthorpe
Proxies.
DUKE
Minto
Bedford
Derby
MARQUIS
VISCOUNTS
Downshire
Bolingbroke
EARLS.
Duncan
Waldegrave
LORDS
Albemarle
Yarborough
Charlemont
Crewe
Besborough
Dundas
Fortescue
Suffield
Spencer
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 19, 1823.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—PETITION
Mr. James
said, he had a Petition to present from 3,107 inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, comprising many respectable tradesmen, but for this most part the mechanics and artisans, on whom in case of need, the country depended for defence, complaining that they were excluded from the share to which men
1073
Sir I. Coffin
expressed his belief that the hon. member and the petitioners, were labouring under mental delusion. He did not know where the distress and misery of which they talked existed. For his own part, he never saw in any other country so many fat, sleek, well-clad, and contented looking people as he saw in England.
Mr. James
observed, that the individuals whom the gallant admiral had seen, and whom he represented to be so fat and sleak in condition, must be individuals who lived on the taxes.
Ordered to lie on the table.
1074
PETITION OF MR. BUTT, COMPLAINING
Mr. Hobhouse
seeing the attorney-general in his place, took the opportunity of presenting a petition, to which he had already called the attention of his majesty's law officers. The petition came from Mr. R. G. Butt, whose case he should proceed to state as briefly as possible. It would be in the recollection of the House, that Mr. Butt brought actions of false imprisonment against sir N. Conant and Mr. Newman, the keeper of Newgate, having been imprisoned before a bill of indictment was found against him, and that the Jury returned a verdict in his favour with 1
s.
l.
l.
1075
The Solicitor-General
.—He did not offer to pay it.
Mr. Hobhouse
resumed. The solicitor-general denied, in a manner not the most courteous, that Mr. Butt had offered to pay the debt. He (Mr. H.) took the liberty to say that he had offered to pay it: but, whether he had or had not was immaterial to the main question. The main question was, the legality of the transaction; and he believed that even the learned solicitor with all the modest assurance which belonged to him, would not venture to stand up in his place, and assert that the Treasury could legally make itself the creditor of an individual, by paying the
1076
The Solicitor-General
said, that since the hon. member had mentioned the case on a former day, he had brought the correspondence between Mr. Butt and the Treasury, day after day in his pocket, which, he believed, would have satisfied the House that the Treasury had acted with the greatest moderation and forbearance towards Mr. Butt. Today he had not brought down the letters in question, but he would state the nature of the transaction to the House. Mr. Butt, after having been convicted in the court of King's-bench, published a most offensive libel upon lord Ellen-borough and the marquis of Londonderry, which he caused to be placarded in all parts of the town. The secretary of state sent to sir N. Conant, desiring him to take measures to prevent the continuance of this nuisance. Sir N. Conant accordingly issued a warrant for the apprehension of Mr. Butt, and upon his refusal to give bail, Mr. Butt was committed to Newgate. Mr. Butt having been advised that the whole transaction was illegal, brought actions against sir N. Conant and Mr. Newman, the keeper of Newgate, in the court of Common Pleas, in order to try the legality of the warrant. The case was conducted on the part of sir N. Conant, not by the Treasury, but by sir N. Conant himself and his own solicitor. A special verdict was found, and a special case reserved, in consequence of the great importance of the question, involving, as it did, the legality of another transaction which had been much discussed in that House—he alluded to the well-known circular of lord Sidmouth. The case was elaborately argued in the court of Common Pleas, and the court, after much consideration, were of opinion, that the warrant was legal, and judgment consequently passed against Mr. Butt. As Mr. Butt could not pay the costs, which amounted to 500
l.
1077
Mr. Denman
could not understand how the Treasury had a right to apply the public money to the buying up of the debts of an individual, and thereby to keep him in prison at their pleasure. He trusted that a proceeding like the present would not be repeated; as it gave to the government an unlimited power of oppression.
Mr. Hobhouse
denied that the solicitor-general had taken the edge off the case. One point only he had made clear; and that was that the law had been violated; for he had not ventured to maintain that the Treasury had a right to pay the expenses of a private law suit. He begged the House to consider what an engine of oppression such a power might become, if, when magistrates committed any act of injustice and oppression, the government could defend them out of the public purse. It was merely to say, that sir N. Conant and not the Treasury, had defended the action in question. The learned solicitor had talked of the moderation and forbearance of the Treasury. Those qualities belonged only to the just exercise of power, but the Treasury had no just power. They had acted under an usurped authority. It was absurd, therefore, to talk of their moderation and forbearance.
The Attorney General
repeated the statement of the solicitor-general, and contended that the conduct of the Treasury was neither unjust nor illegal, in remunerating sir N. Conant for expenses which he had incurred, at the instance of
1078
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had founded his opinion of its being illegal to hold individuals to bail on charges of libel, upon the authority of lord Camden; and trusted that the House would not attach too much weight to the counter decision of the court of Common Pleas, when he informed them, that in that court, for the first time since the Revolution, a judge had ventured to stand up for the character of the Judges who had tried the Seven Bishops, and to state, as Mr. Justice Park had done, that lord Camden had, in particular, pressed too hard upon the character of that wretch, Mr. Justice Allybone. He understood well what was meant by the sneer of the learned attorney-general; but he would tell him, that he did not think the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, on a point where the liberty of the subject was concerned, to be worth that! [Snapping his fingers]. Every body knew for what purpose they were sent into that House; every body knew out of what wood it was that an attorney and solicitor-general were hacked.
Ex quovis ligno fit Mercurius.
1079
Ordered to lie on the table.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURT.]
Mr. Lennard
Mr. Curwen
objected to the motion, and maintained that not the slightest imputation could rest upon the barrister who, with so much ability, presided over the county court of Middlesex.
Mr. Grey Bennet
was of Opinion, that a committee could not be better employed that in inquiring into the establishment of this court, and whether it could not be improved and the salaries diminished.
The House divided: Ayes 18. Noes 44.
List of the Minority.
Benyon, B.
Palmer, C. F.
Browne, D.
Ricardo, D.
Caleraft, J.
Robarts, A. W.
Duncannon, visc.
Robarts, G.
Grattan, J.
Rice, T. S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Taylor, M. A.
Hume, J.
Western, C. C.
Leycester, R.
TELLERS.
Monck, T. B.
Lennard, T. B.
Martin, J.
Benner, H. G.
Nugent, lord
PROMOTIONS IN THE NAVY.]
Mr. Hume
said, that the motion, of which he had given notice, was a very important
1080
1081
1082
Admirals
10
Vice-Admirals
19
Rear-Admirals
19
Captains
444
Commanders
160
Lieutenants
1409
Making a total of
2061
Officers.
Admirals
67
Vice-Admirals
68
Rear-Admirals
75
Captains
850
Commanders
803
Lieutenants
3994
Marking a total of
5857
Officers.
Admirals
59
Vice-Admirals
64
Rear-Admirals
70
1083
Captains
829
Commanders
814
Lieutenants
3720
Making a total of
5556
Officers
1084
1085
l.
l.
l.
l.
1086
1087
1088
Date of Commission at Commander.
Officers passed over.
Sea Service in peace.
J. Gore
May, 1808
125
3
ys.
3
mths.
J. C. Carpenter
April, 1809
137
1
ys.
4
mths.
R. Hockings
April, 1809
137
1
ys.
10
mths.
G. B. Allen
July, 1809
144
2
ys.
3
mths.
J. Cod
May, 1810
158
4
ys.
0
mths.
R. L. Colson
June, 1810
166
4
ys.
3
mths.
Edw. Lloyd
May, 1811
194
2
ys.
11
mths.
J. Gedge
Sept. 1811
211
4
ys.
8
mths.
B. M. Kelly
Nov. 1811
213
2
ys.
10
mths.
H. F. Jauncey
Feb. 1812
216
4
ys.
3
mths.
1089
Date of Commission.
George Luke
June 23, 1794
George Robinson
Nov. 5, 1794
J. Johnson
April 27, 1801
J. Douglas
April 29, 1802
James Grant
Jan. 12, 1805
W. J. Hughes
Sept. 25, 1806
Wm. Coote
May 6, 1807
B. Warburton
Dec. 16, 1807
H. C. Thompson
Aug. 29, 1808
C. Beacroft
Oct. 3, 1809
H. N. Rowe
May 2, 1810
T. L. R. Laugharne
Feb. 12, 1811
J. H. Garrety
May 3, 1811
1090
1091
that
1092
five
1093
1. "That it appears, by returns to this House, that there were 3,994 lieutenants, 813 commanders, and 851 post-captains, on the list of the royal navy, in January 1816, and that, notwithstanding so great a number of officers on the list, there has been, between 1st January 1816 and the 8th of January 1823, an additional number of 860 promotions (exclusive of post-captains to be admirals), viz. of 513 midshipmen to be lieutenants, of 222 lieutenants to he commanders, and of 125 commanders to be post-captains: and that although peace has existed for seven years, there were on the 8th January 1823, 3,720 lieutenants, 814 commanders, and, 829 post-captains on the list of the royal navy; a number more than sufficient to officer a fleet of twice the number of ships of every description in the british navy, if they were all at sea at the same time.
2 "That there are 814 commanders on the list of the royal navy, and 57 of them now on full pay, of whom only 7 were promoted during the last ten years active warfare (from 1803 to 1813), and 50 who have been promoted since June 1814, the termination of the war in Europe.
1094
3 "That many of the promotions have been made in the royal navy without due regard either to the length of service, to the merit of the midshipmen and officers, or to the efficiency and advantage of the navy, and that the expense of the half-pay of the officers of the navy, necessarily great after a long war, has been thereby greatly and unnecessarily increased to the country.
4 "That there were 6,949 officers and men in the corps of royal marines in January 1816, and 8,494 in January 1823, being an increase of that corps of 1,545 men and officers in seven years; but there were only 5 first commissions granted, and 32 promotions to higher rank, in that period.
5 "That there were 950 pursers on the list of the royal navy in January 1816, and 747 in January 1823, showing a decrease of 203 in the seven years, exclusive of 16 pursers added to the list in that time.
6 "That an humble address be therefore presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the manner in which the right hon. the lords of the admiralty have exercised their power, both as regards the placing on full pay those officers already on the list, and the promotion of the several officers to higher rank in the navy, since the peace in 1815."
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that the hon. member; while he stated himself to be a friend to the navy, had advocated principles which would be destructive to the service which he affected to uphold. He was sure that any one who had paid attention to the means by which the glory of the British navy had been achieved, would be convinced that the principles laid down by the hon. member would, if I they had been acted upon hitherto, never have allowed it to have attained its present high and splendid pre-eminence. The hon. member had set out with high sounding calculations, but the number of abuses which he had been able to allege was very small. He had laid great stress on the numbers promoted by interest and family connexions; but he (sir G. C.) considered it of great moment that persons of rank and importance in the country should be induced to enter the service. When persons, born to every advantage that society could afford, chose to abandon the comforts of which they were in possession, to fag with others
1095
1096
1097
1098
Sir Byam Martin
defended the principle of promotion adopted in the navy. He asserted it to be unconnected with parliamentary influence, and said, that out of seven promotions which had taken place in one batch, two only, were the friends of persons who supported the present administration.
Sir Isaac Coffin
contended, that the system of promotion at present pursued was much superior to the old one, and adverted to the condition of the fleet that sailed under commodore Byron in the American war, when there were officers on board who had not seen the salt sea for 16 or 17 years. He was convinced, that the happy mixture of different orders which composed the naval service, enabled us single-handed to fight the world.
Mr. F. Palmer
thought it right that, in such a case as the present, some attention ought to be paid to public opinion. Whether officers were promoted on parliamentary influence or were not, an inquiry ought to be instituted.
Captain Gordon
vindicated the promotion of midshipmen as being indispensably necessary for the good of the service.
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, that the only grounds of promotion ought to be merit and standing in the service; and on this ground he was at issue with those who advocated the existing system. The gallant admiral near him had compared
1099
Mr. Secretary Cunning
said, he had always thought, that the reverse of the hon. gentleman's proposition was the one which was most generally accepted; namely, that we were disposed to extol past times at the expense of the present. He was of opinion, that the case of the hon. mover had been most triumphantly met by his hon. and gallant friend near him. So ably had his hon. and gallant friend justified the principle of selection adopted by the admiralty, that what had been charged as abuse, had turned out to be merit. He considered the question to be resolved into this—whether promotion should go by seniority altogether, or whether a portion of it should be left open to discretion? He contended that the statement of the hon. member had not at all borne out the case which he had pledged himself to establish. With regard to the present state of the navy, he believed that very little difference of opinion existed. He thought that the present plan of the service was the best which could be devised to preserve the glory of the navy in time of war, and to maintain it in peace; and that it was in perfect analogy with the mixed principles of the British constitution.
Sir F. Ommanney
arose amidst loud cries of "question!" mixed with symptoms of disapprobation. We understood him to suggest to the lords of the admiralty the propriety of advancing officers in the navy according to seniority. He particularly recommended to their lordships' consideration that valuable class of officers, who acted as masters and masters mates. He wished to know from the gallant admiral near him, how many masters had been promoted since the war? He felt deeply upon this question, as his own father had been greatly ill-used, and exposed to the most galling and heart-breaking neglect. He trusted that the government of the country would afford protection to those brave officers who had
1100
The amendment not being seconded, fell of course to the ground.
Mr. Hume
said, he should not delay the House with many observations, as he had, in reality, little to answer. What he contended for had been admitted by the gallant admiral (sir G. Cockburn), and declared by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) to be a most triumphant answer to the charges made; namely, that promotion in the navy was given to branches of noble families and to parliamentary interest; "that it was to that class the country must look for its safety and the House its defence." He refused his assent to that principle, as a new and dangerous one, and contended that merit and length of service were the principles on which promotion in the navy had, in better times, been made, and had raised the navy to its late pre-eminence; and it was on officers so promoted that the country could best rely in the hour of danger. Were not lords St. Vincent, Exmouth, Duncan, Nelson, &c. examples? If every man of family who chose to enter the navy were, agreeably to the gallant officer's declaration, to be intitled to promotion, on his simply passing the number of years required by the service, he trembled for the British navy at no distant period, and he protested against such proceedings—It had been asserted confidently, that a large portion of the promotions had been given to merit, and part only to parliamentary and family interest: in one instance, six to one. But whilst he agreed in the propriety of joining those claims, he contended, that the examination of the navy list would show, that merit and length of service had got but a very small share of the employment or
1101
1102
The previous question was then put on the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth resolutions and negatived. On the third resolution, the House divided: Ayes 32; Noes 153.
List of the Minority.
Aubrey, sir J.
Nugent, lord
Bernal, R.
Palmer, C. F.
Bright, H.
Pryse, Pryse
Barrett, S. M.
Robarts, col.
Coke, T, W. jun.
Ricardo, D.
Creevey, T.
Stuart, W.
Denman, T.
Sefton, lord
Foley, John
Smith, J,
Griffith, J. W.
Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Webb, E.
James, W.
Williams, J.
Jervoise, G. P.
White, L.
Kennedy, T. F.
Wood, M.
Lennard, T. R.
Whitbread, S. C.
Lambton, J. G.
TELLERS.
Maxwell, J.
Hume, J.
Monck, J. B.
Bennet, H. G.
Noel, sir G.
1103
JURORS QUALIFICATION BILL.
Mr. Western
said, that he rose to submit to the House a motion which involved in its consequences, matters of very great importance. The object of it, as his notice indicated, went to an alteration in the Constitution of Juries, in so far at least as related to the qualification (by possession of property) of those who may be called upon to perform the important functions of a juror.
personal
real
s.
s.
1104
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
lowest
1105
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Lester
seconded the motion.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, the question was of such vital importance, that he certainly should not oppose the bringing in of the bill, though he hoped the hon. member would allow ample time for its consideration. The House would recollect that last year an experiment had been made of the benefit likely to accrue from the establishment of a third assize, This had been found completely successful in the home counties, and it was most desirable that it should be extended to all. It was, however so closely bound up with the measure which the hon. member for Essex had in had that they ought to watch with caution how far the one was likely to impede the other.
1106
l.
l.
l.
l.
CORONATION EXPENSES.]
Mr. Hume
now rose to submit his motion on this subject. His objection, he observed, was not so much to the amount of the money expended, as to the principle of its application. A part of it, the House was aware, was paid out of the money given by France as indemnity to this country. The whole sum amongst the several allied powers was 750,000,000 of francs, of which 125,000,000 were paid as our portion. In 1816, the House were told that details would be given of the application of the sums received by this country. The House, however, did not hear of it till 1821, when the late Chanceller of the Exchequer stated, that there were 500,000
l.
l
1107
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1108
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he would not rest his objection to the committee, on any wish to conceal from the House the manner in which the sum expended on the coronation had been applied. There was no wish of that kind on the part of government: indeed, it was not imputed that any misapplication had taken place, though an imputation had been cast of a desire for concealment. With respect to the first estimate being so much less than the sum subsequently expended, he would say, that many of the services at the coronation performed by the household were abolished by Mr. Burke's bill, and no traces were left as to what the expenses of particular departments would be likely to create. They were left almost to guess in many instances; so that there could be no certainly as to the whole sum: and when in 1820, it was fixed at 100,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
1109
l.
l.
l.
1110
l.
l.
l.
1111
The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 127.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Farrend, R.
Bankes, H.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Barratt, S. M.
Foley, T. H.
Belgrave, vis.
Grant, J. P.
Benett, John
Grattan, J.
Benyon, B.
Griffiths, T. W.
Bernal, R.
Gordon, R.
Birch, J.
Heathcote, G. T.
Bright, H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Brougham, H.
Honywood, W. P.
Carter, J.
James, W.
Clifton, vis.
Jervoise, G. P.
Coke, F. W.
King, sir J. D.
Colburne, N. R.
Kennedy, T. F.
Creevey, T.
Knight, R.
Denman, T.
Lambton, T. G.
Duncannon, vis.
Lennard, F. B.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Leycester, R.
1112
Leader, W.
Russell, lord G. W.
Maberly, J.
Searleft, J.
Maberly, W. L.
Scott, J.
Martin, J.
Smith, J.
Maxwell, J.
Smith, hon. R.
Milbank, M.
Smith, W.
Monck, J. B.
Stewart, W. (Tyrone)
Musgrave, sir P.
'Taylor, M. A.
Normanby, vis.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Nugent, lord
Titchfield, marquis of
Noel, sir G.
Townshend, lord C.
O'Callaghan, J.
Webbe, E.
Ord, W.
Western, C. C.
Palmer, C. F.
Whilbread, S. C.
Pares, T.
Whitbread, W. H.
Powlett, hon. W.
Williams, J.
Pryse, P.
Williams, sir R.
Ricardo, D.
Williams, T. P.
Robarts, G. J.
Wood, M.
Robinson, sir G.
TELLERS.
Rowley, sir W.
Hume, J.
Russell, lord J.
Bennet, H. G.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 20, 1823.
LIBRARY OF THE LATE KING—BRITISH MUSEUM.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in submitting to the committee a vote for the erection of a new building, for the reception of his late majesty's Library, at the British Museum, observed, that he supposed the gentlemen whom he then addressed had read the report relative to the magnificent donation of his majesty. That report fully stated the reasons why his late majesty's library should be placed in the custody of those who presided over the British Museum. Though he had not, in consequence of the pressure of public business, been able constantly to attend the meetings of the committee from, whom that report had emanated, he was yet satisfied, from the discussions which had taken place there, and from the concurrent feeling of all those whom he had consulted on the subject, that the most convenient situation, in every respect, for the disposition of that library, was under the roof, of the British Museum. But the committee was, perhaps, aware, that the state of the British Museum was such as rendered it perfectly incapable of containing the treasure winch the bounty of the sovereign had bestowed upon his people. If, there fore, the library were attached to the British Museum, it would be necessary that means should be found to provide a suitable building for its reception. The
1113
l.
l.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that in objecting to the motion, he did so with considerable diffidence, considering the superior information on this subject which Was possessed by those gentlemen who formed the committee, and who had drawn up the report. Still, however, he had many and great objections to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, which he felt himself bound to state to the committee. In the first place he wished it to be understood, that he made no objection what-
1114
l.
l.
l.
1115
1116
1117
recherchá
1118
l.
1119
Sir C. Long
said, that although he gave the hon. gentleman credit for the motives which had prompted the appeal he had just made, he must differ from him with respect to the intention of his majesty, which, he belived, was, to render a service to the public, and which it was the duty of the House to make as conformable as possible to the public convenience. The on gentleman, in calling the library of the British Museum, one of the most complete in Christendom, had greatly over-rated it. It was, in fact, only the fifth or sixth public library in Europe. It consisted of only 125,000 volumes, and must therefore be called almost insignificant, when compared with that of Paris, which appeared by the catalogue published last year, to contain 450,000 volumes. He would not be understood to depreciate the British Museum library, which was highly curious and interesting, but which was incomplete as a general collection. It was necessarily so; having been formed from the private collections of persons, whose object in making them had been to illustrate some favourite branch of science. Whereas, the library of his late majesty was, on the contrary, perhaps the most complete, for its extent, that had ever been formed. It was obvious, therefore, that this must be in every respect, a valuable acquisition; and he believed he was authorized in saying, that his majesty would prefer its being added to that of the British Museum. The quietest place was assuredly the best for purposes of study; but the hon. gentleman would choose the noisiest spot perhaps in London. He had never met with any one who thought that Whitehall Chapel would be a convenient place for a national library. It had, besides, been used upwards of a century for the celebration of divine service; and if it were now converted into a library, a considerable sum must in consequence be expended, in building a church for the use of the guards.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, there were two questions put in issue, in the vote before the House, which his hon. friend, the mover of the amendment, had not sufficiently distinguished, The first was, the union of the two libraries, and the other, the proper site of the building in which they were to be contained. The House must recollect, that the British Museum, whether the king's library should be united to that which it already contained or not,
1120
1121
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1122
1123
Mr. Lennard
entirely concurred in the propriety of uniting the two libraries.
Mr. R. Colburne
was decidedly in favour of a union of the two libraries. He rejoiced to hear that they were about to lay the foundation stone of a national gallery of paintings. It was rather singular that this was the only country in Europe which did not possess such an establishment, although by far the richest in the world in that branch of the arts.
Mr. Croker
regretted that he should be obliged to differ however slightly from his right hon. friend (sir G. Long), whose speech upon the present occasion was such as was to be expected from the elegant acquirements and refined taste of his right hon. friend. He (Mr. Croker) was anxious so to shape their proceedings as if possible to obviate certain objections which had been started on the other side. With this view, he suggested the propriety of omitting the words which directed that the new building should be erected in that disgraceful place known by the name of the British Museum. He was most desirous that there should be erected a building worthy of the magnificent bequest of his majesty: but he could not enter into that huckster-like feeling which recommended that a part of the library should be disposed of; and the less so when he found that the trustees were at the same time applying for a grant of 40,000
l.
1124
1125
"So when some cit his weak invention racks
"To dine, like peers, at Boodle's or Almack's;
"Three roasted geese salute th' astonished eyes,
"Three legs of mutton, and three butter'd pies."
1126
Mr. Bankes,
as an individual connected with the important trusts of which the management of the British Museum was the principal object, felt that a very per-sonal attack had been made upon him—
Mr. Croker
disclaimed any intention of making a personal attack.
Mr. Bankes
said, that however that might be, the hon. gentleman had not been very scrupulous to adhere to facts as they now stood; and, from the total error under which he appeared to labour as to the internal arrangement of the Museum, he was apt to suppose that the hon. gentleman had not very lately visited that establishment. He had described the forms of the rooms in a manner totally at variance with the fact. First, with respect to the Townley Venus, it was placed in a kind of rotunda, which had no more resemblance to the form of their table than a circle had to a square. A second mistake of the hon. gentleman was, his description of the building said to be fitted up for the reception of Memnon's head, but which had in reality been fitted up for the reception of two curiosities, one of which was an extraordinary sarcophagus, which had been given by his majesty. Again, with respect to the staircase, which had afforded the hon. member an opportunity of lugging in the battle of Copenhagen and lord Nelson head and should he had only to say, that the joke, however apparently good, was lost; inasmuch as the staircase of the British Museum was not of wood but of stone, and was considered the handsomest thing in the metropolis, being curiously supported upon the principle of a half arch. The hon. gentleman then entered into a general defence of the conduct of the trustees, and declared his intention of opposing the amendment.
Sir C. Long
defended the conduct; of the trustees, and said that the hon. secretary of the Admiralty was completely misinformed as to what had passed in the committee.
Mr. Bennet
complained of the want of convenience which was felt in the British Museum, and said that much money had been expended on that building to very little purpose.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said be should vote with the chancellor of the exchequer.
1127
Mr. Maberly
thought, that the disposition of the money which was to be expended in a new building should be placed in the hands of a committee.
Mr. Hobhouse
rose to withdraw his motion. He would take that opportunity of observing, that his hon. and learned friend had attacked, not anything, certainly, which he (Mr. H.) had stated, but something which he had himself advanced. Like Tom Thumb, "he made the giants first, and then he killed them." His hon. and learned friend had broached a plan which was as liable to objection as any that had been proposed from any other quarter [a laugh].
Mr. Croker
The committee divided; the numbers were, for the original motion 54, against it 30.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 23, 1823.
BRITISH ROMAN CATHOLICS TESTS
Lord Nugent
, on rising to move the order of the day for the committing of this bill, said;—I trust the House will indulge me with leave to make a few observations. When I first offered to the House, the observations that occurred to me in its support, I stated, that I had carefully avoided all communication with those who were principally the objects of it. I stated then, as I feel still, that I should have very much regretted the seeing them petition for any act of imperfect toleration like this. I should have very much regretted the placing them within so painful
1128
sine qua non
1129
1130
against
1131
one
all
1132
B. A.
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that being friendly to the general principle of the bill, he conceived this to be the proper stage at which to offer his objections to the course taken by the noble lord. The objects of the bill were three-fold; first, the elective franchise; secondly, the qualification for certain offices; and thirdly, the qualification for a place in a corporation. With respect to the first, he had no objection whatever that the Roman Catholics of this country should be placed upon a footing with their Irish brethren in that respect: but it should be observed, that they now enjoyed the elective franchise, unless indeed one of the candidates should propose to the sheriff to put the oaths of supremacy and allegiance to the voters. For himself, he had no possible objection to the repeal of the 7th and 8th of William, by which the Catholics of England were affected. But the motion of the noble lord went to repeal the oath of supremacy in England, leaving only the sacramental tests in force; now, this was not placing the Irish and English Catholics upon the same footing inasmuch as all persons in Ireland who filled the higher offices were obliged to take both. With respect to the oath of abjurati also, there could be no objection; as it only called upon the parties to declare that no foreign potentate or power held, or ought to hold, spiritual or temporal authority in these realms, contrary to the laws and constitution of the country. With respect to the other tests, why, he would ask, should a magistrate refuse to take the same oaths which were imposed upon the lord chancellor and the other officers of the first distinction in this country? If he might presume to advise the noble lord, he would recommend him to divide his bill into two parts, separating the clause which went to give the elective franchise from the other parts of the measure. He hoped, indeed, that the noble lord would confine himself to the principles upon which he grounded the introduction of the bill. The noble lord had been totally silent with respect to the Catholics of Scotland.
1138
Lord Nugent
said, it was his intention to introduce a specific clause with respect to Scotland.
Mr. W. Bankes
opposed the bill, because he considered it as the first step to ulterior and dangerous concessions.
Mr. Brougham
thought the hon. member for Cambridge had better reserve his objections until the bill went into a committee. He agreed with the right hon. secretary, that the bill ought to be divided into two parts, which might be effected by moving in the ordinary way an instruction to the committee for that purpose. There could be little doubt that the first part of the bill, relative to the elective franchise, would pass if it formed a separate measure. If the other part of the bill should not pass, the Catholics would have lost nothing; they would be in precisely the same state as before.
Mr. H. Bankes
opposed the motion. The principle of extending the elective franchise formed his strong objection to the measure.
Mr. Canning
recommended the noble lord to divide his bill into two parts. The question respecting the elective franchise would then be discussed on its own merits. He would also recommend the noble lord to confine his bill to the precise principle stated in his notice; namely, to place the English Catholics on the same footing with the Irish Roman Catholics.
Mr. Wetherell
opposed the motion.
Lord Nugent
rose, merely to say, that in consequence of the suggestions of the right hon. secretary of state for the home department, and feeling the value of his support, he certainly, should shape his proposition in the manner that would ensure it his entire support. He (lord N.) cared but little as to the machinery by which these measures of obvious justice were to be gained, in the principle of which the right hon. gentleman had expressed his concurrence with him. Looking only to the substantial benefit to be gained by the measure, he should certainly conform himself strictly to the suggestion the right hon. gentleman had thrown out. He disliked as much as ever, the imposing any particular form of oath upon the Roman Catholics exclusively. But he did not see any great objection, if the right hon. gentleman wished it, to the making the Roman Catholics repeat, for the privilege of enjoying office, the oath which they now took, or were supposed to take, for the privilege of ex-
1139
The motion was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into the committee.
LOTTERY.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that he had stated in an early part of the session, that it was not his intention, after its termination, to propose any thing in the nature of another lottery. He had expressly intimated, however, that he should have to bring forward a lottery proposition on the present occasion; and, remembering what was the apparent feeling of the House when he had last mentioned the subject, he trusted no objection would be taken to the resolution he had now to submit: more particularly as it was but just, that the parties principally interested in this department of the public revenue should not be taken, as it were, by surprise. He would therefore move, "That towards raising the supply granted to his majesty, the commissioners of his majesty's Treasury be authorised to contract with any person or persons for the sale of any number of tickets, to be drawn in one or more lottery or lotteries, not exceeding 60,000, at such price, and under such rules and regulations, as the said commissioners shall think proper."
Mr. Leycester
opposed the resolution. He observed, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to recommend his proposition, by stating that it was the last session in which he should have to bring it forward. But why was the country to be infected with this moral pestilence for another year, seeing the misery and vice which it disseminated in every part of the kingdom.
The resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 24, 1823.
PETITION OF THE HON. BASIL COCHRANE COMPLAINING OF THE CONDUCT OF THE VICTUALLING BOARD IN THE EXAMINATION OF HIS ACCOUNTS.]
Mr. Denman
said, he rose to present a petition from the hon. Basil Cochrane, complaining of the irregular and oppressive mode of doing business, as pursued by
1140
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
.
1141
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that he had the honour of a seat at the board of Admiralty, when this transaction was under discussion. Business had been done to the amount of a million and a half; forty-nine packets of letters had been written on the subject, it was not, therefore, singular, that it should be a case of difficulty. The accounts had been often discussed. It appeared to him to be like an amicable suit between the parties. The petitioner had been contractor in India since the year 1794, and he had charged one and a half per cent commission, and twelve per cent interest for money lent to government. These demands could not be complied with; he knew the board to have been most anxious for the adjustment of all the accounts: and he lamented that the settlement had been deferred to the year 1822.
The Solicitor General
expressed his astonish men t, that the hon. and learned member who had presented the petition, did not state why the original balance against the petitioner was reduced from 9,129
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1142
Mr. T. Wilson
thought, that the charge of delay on the part of the victualling board, remained untouched. The system pursued by the board was at once oppressive to the individual, and prejudicial to the public.
Sir I. Coffin
said, that the passing of the public accounts required much time, and was attended with great difficulty.
Mr. Grey Bennet
thought, that the public was always a loser by the slow passing of accounts. He thought that the public offices had been much stinted with regard to clerks, and hoped that this inconvenience would be remedied next session.
Sir G. Cockburn
wished to remind the House that the delay had not taken place in the office; the accounts having been settled in the year 1811. The delay, down to the year 1819, had been occasioned by the law proceedings.
Mr. Croker
agreed fully with the hon. member for Shrewsbury in his ideas. The accounts even had not been in dispute since the year 1794; they were brought into the office in the year 1808. For his part, he could bear the most unequivocal testimony, not only to the integrity, but also to the celerity and zeal of the Victualling board. He thought, that, for peace sake, a greater degree of indulgence had been shown to the petitioner than was consistent with strict propriety.
The Attorney General
said, that the petitioner did not arrive, as he asserted, from India in the year 1806, but in the year 1807; neither was he sent for He came of his own accord, and he know his accounts were the first investigated.
Mr. Hume
thought, that this was a fair specimen of the manner in which the public accounts were passed.
Mr. Denman
was of opinion, that what had been said by the law officers of the Crown did not satisfactorily account for the delay that had appeared in the transaction. He would therefore move "that the petition be laid on the table and printed."
1143
l.,
1144
l.
s
l.
s.
d
1145
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
d
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.,
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
1146
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.;
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s
d.
l.
1147
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.,
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.]
The order of the day having been read for the second reading of the Bill for continuing the Irish Insurrection Act, Mr. Goulburn moved, That this Bill be now read a second time." Upon which,
1148
Sir Henry Parnell
addressed the House as follows:
*
Mr. Speaker
;—I do not feel, that the House will require from me any justification of my conduct, when I propose to it to adopt a different course of proceeding in respect to Ireland, from that which the right hon. gentleman has called upon it to pursue. Because, if ever there was a time when it was the duty of every member belonging to Ireland to come forward and offer his opinion to the consideration of the House, the present circumstances of that country call upon them to do so; and if I were to remain silent on this occasion, feeling as I do, that much more is absolutely necessary to be done than what the right hon. gentleman proposes to do, I should be guilty of nothing short of a great neglect of my public duty. Parliament is highly interested in every thing which may tend finally to put down disturbances, to compose discontent, and to conciliate the affections of the people of Ireland; and, therefore, let the merits of the motion be what they may, which I shall submit to the House, it will, by promoting discussion on the state of Ireland be productive of a good effect.
*
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
*
*
1154
*
*
1155
1156
Counties in which Disturbances have taken place,
1801.
Wicklow, Wexford, Tipperary, Limerick.
1806.
Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim.
1811.
Tipperary, Waterford, Kilkenny, Limerick.
1813.
Waterford, Westmeath, Roscommon, King's county.
1814.
Queen's county and county of Longford, in addition to the last mentioned counties.
1816.
County of Lowth also in addition.
1819.
Galway, Roscommon, Kilkenny, Cork, Westmeath.
1822
Sixteen counties since 1821. All Connaught sworn. The association of Ribbon-men established in five or six counties.
Years
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1796 to 1802
6
That Martial Law was in Force from 1803 to 1805
2
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1807 to 1810
3
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1814 to 1818
4
That the Insurrection Act was in force from 1822 to 1823
1
Out of a period of 27 years, these laws were in force for
16
1157
Period.
Years.
1.
From
1792
to
1802
10
2.
1803
1805
2
3.
1607
1810
3
4.
1811
1818
7
5.
1819
1823
4
26
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
modus operandi,
1166
1167
1168
*
*
1169
1170
1171
*
*
*
A. B.,
1172
1173
inspeximus
1174
1175
1176
1177
*
*
1178
cedents, that all the while Wales rid this kingdom like an incubus: that it was unprofitable and oppressive burthen." Your ancestors did, however, at length open their eyes to the ill husbandry of injustice. They, found, that the tyranny of a free people could, of all tyrannies, the least be endured; and that laws made against a whole nation were not the most effectual methods for securing its obedience Accordingly, in the 27th year of Henry the eighth, the course was entirely altered. With a preamble, stating the entire and perfect rights of the crown of England, it gave the Welsh all the rights and privileges of English subjects. A political order was established; the military power gave way to the civil; the marches were turned into counties. But that a nation, should have a right to English liberties, and yet no share at all in the fundamental security of these liberties, the grant of their own property, seemed a thing so incongruous, that eight years after, that is, in the thirty-fifth of the reign, a complete and not ill-proportioned representation by counties and boroughs was bestowed upon Wales, by an act of parliament. From that moment, as by a charm, the tumults subsided; obedience was restored; peace, order, and civilization followed in the train of liberty. When the day-star of the English constitution had arisen in their hearts, all was harmony within and without.
—"Simul alba nautis
Stella refulsit,
Defluit saxis agitatus humor:
Concidunt venti: fugiuntque nubes;
Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto
Unda recumbit."
Parl. Hist.
1179
1180
Mr. Pitt
, in his speech of the 31st of January, 1799, says, of Ireland, Whoever considers the state of Ireland, in the hostile division of its sects, in the animosities existing between ancient settlers and original inhabitants, in the unfortunate degree of want of civilization, which marks that country more than almost any
1181
to give
will
1182
extend
will
1183
1184
*
*
"Every part of the soil of Ireland, every person inhabiting that soil, were justified in seeking redress, not soliciting it at their hands, but demanding it as a right. Why did they unite with Ireland, unless they meant to give her a Union in the advantages and participation in the constitution of this country, as well as in the name? When they consented to the Union, they were bound, in the sight of God and man, to provide for the happiness of that country; and, unless they faithfully discharged that duty, they usurped a power over it they had no right to exercise.—
Parliamentary Debates,
1185
Mr. Grattan
seconded the motion. The system of governing Ireland by force had, he said, been tried long enough to prove that it was of no effect. Every means having the character of coercion had been readily granted by parliament. Insurrection acts, the constabulary act, special commissions, sessions extraordinary, an addition of nine or ten thousand troops, and all had been found not to do in two counties one half of the military force of Ireland had been busily occupied. The hopes held out of quelling the disturbances by this act never had been, nor ever would be, realized. It was not education that was
1186
Mr. Goulburn
said, he was sure the House would concur with him in thinking that it was quite unnecessary, either for the hon. baronet, or the hon. member who followed him, to offer any apology for delivering their sentiments upon this subject. Connected, as they were, with that part of the empire to which it particularly related, and bound, as they were, as members of parliament, to watch lover the interests of every part of the community, it would have been rather a dereliction of duty to have forborne an expression of their sentiments. Still less would it be necessary for the hon. baronet who moved the amendment to express doubts as to his own competence for such a discussion; for, without presuming to offer any thing like flattery to that hon. baronet he was bound to say, that nothing had fallen from him that was not deserving of the serious attention of the House. The hon. baronet had, at the commencement of his speech, somewhat inconsistently stated, that the motion which he had now made, by way of amendment (the effect of which, if carried, would be, to prevent the second reading of the insurrection bill) was not intended to obstruct the passing of the bill, but was rather for the purpose of affording an opportunity of
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
Colonel Davies
supported the proposition for a committee. If it sat but for a week, nay, a single day, it would be of service, since it would show the people that parliament took some interest in the state of Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had taken the same course as his predecessors had done. He regretted the necessity which existed for proposing such coercive measures, and promised an inquiry at some future day. The same thing had been done by every chief secretary for the last twenty years. Still, nothing of a conciliatory nature was attempted. He held in his hand an address from the grand jury of Cork. Their cry was "force! force! force!" but not a word did they say about conciliation. Ireland was reduced to a most deplorable state through mis-government. He was convinced, that if the government of this country made the English peasantry suffer one half the misery which was inflicted on the people of Ireland, they would soon be converted from friends into bitter foes. The law was much more impartially administered in this country. In Ireland, the law was often made the engine by which the rich man oppressed and bore down the poor one. With respect to Catholic Emancipation, he thought it should be conceded. That question had, sometimes, been brought on in a shape that did not please him, and that was undoubtedly contrary to the feelings of a large portion of the people of England. But, if it were shown, that it was intended merely to restore the Catholics to their civil rights, without extending their political influence, he was sure the people of England had too great a regard for justice, to oppose such a proposition. While the present system continued, and this country remained at peace with the rest of Europe, there would be constant disturbances and rebellion in Ireland. And if, in furtherance of their despotic projects, the Holy Alliance thought proper to declare war against Great Britain, the first point of attack would be Ireland. Every effort ought, therefore, to be made, to conciliate the population of that country.
Mr. J. Smith
would not make any apology for addressing the House on this occasion,
1194
l.
1195
Mr. Robertson
considered, that much of the misery and discontent which was felt by the great body of the people of Ireland arose from the immense difference, in point of numbers, which existed between them and that portion of the population which was favoured by the state. If was not consistent with human nature, that six millions of people should sit down quietly under disqualifications, while 600,000 of their fellow-countrymen were admitted to the enjoyment of rights and privileges to which they conceived themselves to be equally entitled. They had reduced, the Catholics to a state of slavery worse than the Helots of ancient times; and then they affected to wonder at their discontent. They had oppressed them, and, spread dissention through every family in the kingdom, and yet they asked, why were not the people of Ireland peaceable and contented? Besides, in what way had they relaxed the odious penal code? Never but in periods of distress; when the enemy were on their coasts; when the French and Spanish navy rode triumphant in the Channel—an ominous occurrence which might recur in the present state of the world—and when the government were reluctantly compelled to arm that people in the defence of the kingdom whom they had previously degraded and oppressed. It was fear, not policy, which influenced the conduct of the government. For Mr. Fitagerald had shortly before in vain tried to introduce a bill into the before in vain tried to introduce a bill into the Irish parliament to enable Catholics to hold 61 years leasea pr real property, which an unfeeling government had rejected, although in the moment of danger which followed, they extended to them leases of 999 years. How were the people of any nation to be graceful for such misgovernment, or for concessions so wrung from the land of power? Again and again he
1196
1197
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he cordially concurred in every thing which had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had spoken last, and from his hon. friend who moved the amendment. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had truly described the sad tale of proscription, exclusion, and suffering, which the page of Irish history recorded. Concessions had been made, it was true; but always with a bad grace. It was only when the government were struck with terror and dismay, that they had relaxed the severe restrictions imposed upon the Catholics. Much as he deplored the condition of Ireland—ready as he was, though with pain and anguish, to extend the protection now sought for, to the resident gentry, surrounded as they were with conflagration and outrage—yet still, if the motion for a committee were pressed to a division, it should carry his vote, from his extreme anxiety to promote, in every possible manner, an inquiry into the distracted state of his unhappy country. The ministers said, it was too late in the session for inquiry. Did these ministers, who said so; receive, as every body else did, daily accounts of the dreadful situation of Ireland; and, if they did, were they justified in denying immediate inquiry. The condition of Ireland must be probed to the bottom. Things could not go on as they were, unless they were determined to precipitate the ruin of Ireland, and bring perdition upon the empire.
Mr. Bankes
said, that every gentleman who had spoken during this debate had, however they differed upon other matters, concurred in the necessity of some measure like the present; except the hon. member for Grampound, who, like a northern metaphysician, had reasoned upon the question in a manner which would apply to any other subject, just as well as this. The disease of Ireland was an insurrection of those who had no property against those who had; and a deep-laid conspiracy of the majority of the religious
1198
Mr. R. Martin
wished to know why his hon. friend had not submitted his motion at the commencement of the session, rather than at the present moment. He was of opinion, that the identifying of the motion for a committee with the Insurrection act, he meant as to time, would have an extremely mischievous effect. The rebels would suppose that every member who supported his hon. friend's motion, approved of their illegal proceedings. He believed in his conscience, that the government distributed offices in Ireland equally between Catholics and Protestants. With respect to Catholic Emancipation, he would say, that if it were agreed to by parliament, it would not induce one rebel to lay down his arms. He believed, that, if the hon. member for Grampound were sent to the rebels of Munster to promise them Catholic Emancipation as an inducement to lay down their arms, captain Rock would order his head to be cut off.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that his only motive for consenting to continue the Insurrection act was, that the repealing it might discourage the well-affected in Ireland. At the same time, he thought that the House was bound to inquire into the causes of the discontents which prevailed in that country. He regretted that his hon. friend had not brought forward his motion at an earlier period of the session; because it then would not have been liable to those objections with respect to time, which were now urged against it. He conceived that the disturbances in Ireland originated in the state of degradation in which the people were placed by the bad system of government which existed in that country. He did not think that any benefit would arise from a relaxation of the severity of the laws. On the contrary, he believed that tranqullity could only be obtained by a rigorous but just administration of the laws.
Mr. Dennis Browne
said, he would vote
1199
Sir J. Newport
thought the disturbances which at present agitated Ireland, were wholly owing to the system of government to which Ireland was subjected. That government had, for twenty-three years, gone on passing Insurrection act, after Insurrection act, instead of resorting to any measure of permanent relief. No measure of that kind could be obtained from them, either when the country was disturbed, or when it was not. It seemed as if there really was no period in which the case of Ireland could bear to be probed to the bottom. If the country was tranquil, then the reply was, "why will you disturb the country now?" If there happened, unfortunately, to be disturbances, then the answer was, that "the country was in such a state that nothing would do but an Insurrection act." He begged to repeat to the House, the words which Mr. Pitt had made use of, in April 1800, when speaking of the proposed Union. "We must," said he, "look to this as the only measure we can adopt which can calm the dissentions, allay the animosities, and dissipate the jealousies which have unfortunately existed; as a measure whose object is, to communicate to the sister kingdom the skill, the capital, and the industry, which have raised this country to such a pitch of opulence; to give her a full participation of the commerce and of the constitution of England."
*
*
1200
*
*
*
1201
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as no member had questioned the propriety of passing the Insurrection act, it was not necessary for him to defend that measure. It had been said, that the government were deceiving themselves, when they supposed that that act would operate as a cure for the discontent and misery of Ireland. A cure—good God! who could be so infatuated as to suppose that that measure was intended, as a cure? It was only meant as a temporary measure to meet a pressing emergency. With respect to the proposition of the hon. baronet, calling for a committee, he would only put it to the House, whether they could, at that period of the session, on the 24th day of June, enter into an inquiry such as the hon. baronet called for? An inquiry into the question of finance would of itself take up three months. Then there was the question of education, and an inquiry into the administration of the laws. He submitted to the House, that it would be perfectly idle, at that period of the session, to go into such an inquiry. He thought that ministers had been, rather hardly dealt with by hon. gentlemen in the course of the present discussion. During the last session, the great complaints of Ireland, as urged in that House, were excessive
1202
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that the government had already been pledged to an inquiry into the state of Ireland, a resolution to that effect having passed in that House six weeks ago. With respect to the measures that had been proposed by ministers during the present session, he looked upon them as calculated merely to throw dust in the eyes of the public. Never was there a case which more strongly called for inquiry. Six millions of people were denied the rights of the constitution; while one million ate up all the patronage, the honours and power of the country. In such a state of things, it was impossible that permanent tranquillity could be restored. An allusion had been made to the church establishment. It was said, that it was too late in the session to commence an inquiry into the state of Ireland, but why had not that inquiry been entered upon more early? He hoped it would not be long delayed; and under that, impression, be would, how ever reluctantly, give his vote in favour of the bill.
Mr. Denman
entered his protest against the right hon. secretary's insinuation, that no one doubted the wisdom of passing the Insurrection act on the present occasion. Whenever, and as often as a proposal for renewing it, for however short a period, should be made in parliament, be would lift his voice against it, even if he stood alone.
Sir H. Parnell,
after all that had been
1203
The House then divided: For the second reading 88; For the Amendment 39.
List of the Minority.
Barret, S. M.
Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Milbank, M.
Bernal, It.
Monck, J. B.
Bright, H.
Newport, sir J.
Buxton, T. F.
Nugent, lord.
Cavendish, 1d.G.A.H.
Palmer, C. F.
Davies, T.
Pares, T.
Denman, T.
Rice, T. S.
Ellis, hon. G. J. W.
Rumbold, C. E.
Evans, W.
Robertson, A.
Farrand, R.
Smith, J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Smith, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Tennyson, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Whitbread, S. C.
Honywood, W. P.
Williams, sir R.
Hume, J.
Williams, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Williams, J.
Knight, K.
Wood, M.
Kennedy, T. F.
TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr
Parnell, sir H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Grattan, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 25, 1823.
INEQUALITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW—PETITION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Broughman
said, that he held in his hand a petition signed by 2,000 Roman Catholics of Ireland, which complained of the general oppression in which that class of his majesty's subjects to which they belonged were holden, not only by the inequality of the laws as far as regarded them, but also by the unequal administration of the laws as they at present existed. That complaint, though it was stated with no less accuracy than force of language, contained nothing in it that was, in the slightest degree, disrespectful towards the House. As he intended to ground a proceeding upon this petition, it was unnecessary for him to state any thing further regarding its contents, than that the foundation of them was, firstly, the inequality, and, secondly, the unequal administration of the laws, as respected Roman Catholics. The petition was signed by many of the most respectable Catholic inhabitants of Dublin, and would have been signed by as many thousands as it now had hundreds, had not the petitioners thought it neces-
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
On moving, that the petition be printed, Mr. Brougham gave notice, that he would to-morrow move, that it be referred to the grand committee for Courts of Justice.
HISTORICAL PAINTING—PETITION OF
Mr. Brougham
said, that he had a petition to present, which he had received with the most unfeigned sorrow, and which he had no doubt would excite the same feeling in the breasts of other hon. members when he detailed the particulars of it to the House. The petition was from Mr. B. R. Haydon, historical painter, who, from the great talent which he had exhibited in his profession, was entitled to expect a competency from it, but who was now, unhappily in the King's-bench prison, overwhelmed by ruin, and without hope of redress, owing to his having refused to take portraits, and to his having confined himself exclusively to one branch of the art, historical painting, in which, from the state of the market, it was not possible that more than one or two persons should succeed. The situation of the petitioner was so melancholy, that he believed his only means of amending it would be, by taking the benefit of the insolvent debtor's act. The petitioner stated, that after having devoted nineteen years of his life to the study of the arts, and after having collected various casts, sketches, and drawings, which were the objects of his daily study and nightly veneration, the whole of his collection had been swept away at once, by an execution that had been issued against his property. The petitioner did not apply to the House for relief in his own case, though he was reduced to such a state as to be obliged to begin life again, after undergoing the loss of his former collections; but he did apply to the House to protect other artists from similar disasters, by affording greater encouragement to historical painting. Mr. Haydon founded most of the observations in his petition upon the report of a very able and learned committee of that House, which had sat in 1817 upon the Elgin marbles, and which, after stating the advantages that were likely to be derived from that stupendous collection, submitted "to the attentive consideration of the House, how
1210
l.
Sir C. Long
allowed that there was not at present sufficient encouragement given to' that branch of art, to which the petitioner had devoted himself; but, at the same time, he did not see how such encouragement could be afforded by legislative enactment. He had been requested by the petitioner to present this petition; but as he did not like to raise hopes which he knew must end in disappointment, he had endeavoured to extract from the petitioner the means by which encouragement was to be afforded. Whether the petitioner had been disappointed by meeting with this treatment on his part, he could not tell; but the result had been, that the petition had been ultimately placed in the hands of the learned gentleman opposite. He was certainly
1211
Mr. Brougham
, in explanation, stated, that when the purchase of the Elgin marbles was under the consideration of the House, two distinct questions were involved in it; first, the right of lord Elgin to take them; and next, the money-value of them. Regarding the first, he was not much inclined to be squeamish. He certainly thought that lord Elgin had conferred great benefit upon the arts in taking them from Greece; since, if they had been left there, they would have been ground to powder by the Turks for the purposes of building. Regarding the second, he would remind the House, that there had been a great difference of opinion as to the pecuniary value of them, and that the opposition which he had given to the vote for the purchase of them, was derived from the financial distress which at that time pressed upon the country. The value of those marbles to the arts he had never disputed: indeed, he thought that some of them, mutilated as they were, were greatly superior to the Apollo Belvedere and the Venus de Medici, both of which he had had an opportunity of seeing at Paris.
Mr. Croker
was not without hopes that this petition might do good, seeing that it related to a case of distress which touched the heart, at the same time that it affected the mind. He was not, however, clear upon the principle, that historical painting ought to he forced upon the public. Among painters, historical painting was considered that kind of painting which was least historical. True historical painting was portrait painting; and, those who had seen the splendid collection of portraits in the gallery of the British Institution would be convinced that those portraits were really historical pictures. If there were any artist so attached to historical painting, as to say that he would not condescend to paint portraits, that artist ought to be reminded, that
1212
Ordered to lie on the table.
LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Hume
rose to submit to the House, the motion of which he had given so long a notice, namely, to consider the manner in which Ireland was at present governed, and whether a change might not be made with great advantage. His object was, to abolish the office of lord-lieutenant in that country; but, as an impression existed in some quarters that his motion was made with hostile feelings to the marquis Wellesley, he begged to be clearly understood that he did not intend in the smallest degree to reflect on the, conduct of that noble lord. He (Mr. H.) had long had a favourable opinion of the noble marquis, and should regret if any thing that now fell from him could in the smallest degree have the appearance of censure, although he must admit, that he had been much disappointed in the results of the marquis's administration, yet he was well aware that the situation in which the lord lieutenant was placed, was an arduous and difficult one, and it would be unfair to draw too harsh conclusions against him whilst unacquainted with alt the difficulties he had to contend with There were obstacles which had been raised by the misrule of ages; and it was not to be expected that he could at once, overcome them, particularly with a government in England so constituted that it was difficult to ascertain what measures they would support, or what they would oppose. The king had, in the appointment of the present lord lieutenant, been actuated, it was understood, by the best intentions; desirous, by the example he had himself set whilst in Ireland, to put an end to that party spirit which had so long disturbed the peace of that country; to terminate that system of exclusion both civil and religious which unfortunately was the chief source of those evils under which Ireland suffered: to place Protestants and Catholics on the same footing in the administration of the laws, and in the participation of all the
1213
1214
l.
l.
1215
1216
1217
£.
The
ordinary revenue
4,662,933
From which deduct the expenses of collecting, &c
883,140
£
Leaving a nett sum of
3,779,793
The balance of outstanding bills less in 1823 than 1822 was
22,801
Making the total nett revenue in the year 1822
3,802,594
The
expenditure
207,000
For miscellanous charges on the consolidated fund
248,253
Payment out of the revenue in its progress to the Exchequer for miscellaneous expenses
273,013
Army services
1,393,772
Ordnance services
88,613
Miscellaneous services
571,724
Advances out of the consolidated fund for public works
383,734
Deduct repayment for public works
161,392
222,342
3,004,717
1218
treasury could perform the duties better if neither of these offices existed.
Although he (Mr. H.) pressed the removal of the colonial establishment in Ireland, chiefly from its in efficiency for any purpose of good government, yet the large expense should not be lost sight of. If there were any advantages arising from the vice-regal government, that could balance its enormous expense, he would waive his motion; but, he could discover no good, only pure unalloyed evil from the system.
At a time when the country called for economy in every department, it behoved the House to look at the large expenditure of Ireland. He (Mr. H.) was confident, that sufficient attention had not been given to that branch; and the way, in which the accounts of expenditure were kept, very much tended to keep it from the public eye. Instead of an increase of peace, prosperity, and power, to the empire by the Union, we had distraction, beggary, and a continued drain upon our finances. The people of Great Britain were taxed to pay upwards of three millions sterling annually, to support a system of misrule in Ireland. If there were no other reasons for trying the change he proposed in the government of that country, so large an annual burthen pressing at the present moment on us, ought to enforce attention to his motion.
To prevent any mistake in so important a subject, he had moved for an account of the revenue and expenditure for Ireland, in the year ending the 5th Jan. last, and the parliamentary paper No. 301 of this session, dated the 28th of April, was the return now in the hands of every member. By that account
1219
Leaving a surplus to pay the interest of the public debt of only
797,877
Where as the demands and charge of management of the debt, in Ireland, exclusive of the sinking fund was
1,115,908
The dividends and charge of the Irish debt of 83,944,904
l.
2,780,791
Making the total charge of the Irish debt borne by Great Britain
3,896,699
From which deduct the surplus of revenue over the current expenditure
797,877
And leaving the nett payment for Ireland of (Sterling)
3,098,822
exclusive, of part expense of various establishments for carrying on the business of Ireland, incorporated with those of Great Britain.
If then, that country was, by its continual insurrections and disturbances, a source of weakness and distraction to us, and that we had upwards of three millions sterling to pay to support the system of misrule that produced these, he (Mr. H.) had no hesitation in saying, that we ought to try any change, and if not benefitted by it, it would be much better if the two countries were separated.
Ireland with seven millions of population never could be valuable to Great Britain, whilst, governed as a colony and by coercion. He wished to make Ireland really an integral part of the empire, and to give her the same privileges and advantages enjoyed by the people of Great Britain, viz. an impartial administration of justice, and an equal participation of civil rights—then, and then only, could she be a source of wealth and power. Under a viceroy, never!
It had been said, by Mr. Sheridan, "If the people, of Ireland are active and industrious in every country but their own, it must be the effect of their government." Of this he (Mr. H.) had no doubt. He particularly requested the attention of the right hon. secretary (Mr. Canning) to what was formerly said by him in support of the Union. "When once (said Mr. Canning) the Union should be effected, the necessity of keeping up a large army would be removed," Had that result taken place? Had not the contrary taken place? Was there not a very great increase of the army in Ireland since the Union, and it was the duty of that right hon. gentleman and his colleagues to explain the reason. The military force was really more numerous in Ireland than in Great Britain; and such was the state
1220
l.
l.
l.,
l.
If there had been a surplus revenue In Ireland, the people of that country might very reasonably have remonstrated against depriving them of the splendor, and expenditure of the lord lieutenant's court: But, as the case stood, the people of England had a right to complain, that such useless and expensive establishments were maintained at their expense. It was therefore the duty of this House, if there were no other grounds, by the abolition of the vice-regal government, to afford relief to our finances [Hear!]. The list of the useless officers attached to the present system, actually filled three or four folio pages of the book he held in his hand. The present was not a time to support such useless expense. The expense of the civil residences and works in Dublin, consequent on the viceroy's government, were also enormous, as appeared by the 7th report of the select committee of 1810, the committee of which the hon. member for Corfe Castle was chairman. The charge for civil buildings in the four years ending the 31st Dec. 1809, was no less than 217,442
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
1221
He (Mr. H.) had been asked in what manner the duties, now performed by the lord lieutenant and the chief secretary, could be performed, if their offices were abolished. He had made himself acquainted with the, whole details of these offices, and should show to the House in the most satisfactory manner, that every thing could be done better in London than in Dublin, with one or two exceptions, which might also, with a little trouble, be managed with perfect security to the public interests.
The duty of the lord lieutenant, from the time of the duke of Ormond, in 1711, to the Union, had, in the absence of the lord lieutenant, often been performed by lords justices as well as when the lord lieutenant was present; the chief secretary was the executive officer to both, and acted generally by parliamentary enactments, and not by their orders. Since the Union, almost all the patronage had been taken away from the lord lieutenant, and he had little else to do than sign warrants for the execution of the orders from England; He presides at councils as a matter of form chiefly; but these could be held equally well in London. Every warrant he signs might be as well signed in London, as they almost all are conformable to acts of parliament, which leave him little or no discretion. The public and private correspondence would cease, if he was withdrawn, and it would go to the secretary of state for the home department, with whom in reality all the responsibility of the acts of the Irish government rested. The proceedings of the council-office, was a record of all measures acted upon by government; but chiefly when proclamations issue. Lord Clifton, the clerk of the council, had a sinecure: and a deputy and two clerks keep all the books. The principal entries were, the records of church livings, of exchanges and preferments, which could be as well, or better kept in London. Indeed, so trifling were the duties of this office, that the whole of the records since 1810, were contained in one book.
The office of the chief secretary appears to a superficial observer, to be absolutely necessary, in Ireland, but a closer examination will show, that almost every
1222
An under-secretary and ten clerks conduct the whole business of that office at present. Its detail was arranged into 12 branches or departments, and, except of criminal police, the way appeared clear how to conduct them all, if the viceroy and secretary were both removed.
The first department of Correspondence existed only between the authorities in England, and the executive in Ireland, and would then go direct to the several offices there.
The second departments of Customs and Excise, were already removed to the English boards.
The third, or Country Letter department would also cease and go to London.
The fourth and fifth departments for Civil Affairs, and Civil Petitions, were mere records, as all the orders of importance came from London, and matters of routine alone, were done by the chief secretary.
The sixth branch for Ecclesiastical Affairs, might all issue equally well from London, where the principal orders originated at present.
The seventh, or Treasury department was already, in reality entirely removed, and the chief secretary only acts, in money matters, ministerially.
The eighth, or Minute-Book department, is only to keep the chief secretary informed of what passes in his absence from Dublin.
The ninth, or Stamp department has been recommended by the commissioners of inquiry to be placed under the London board.
The tenth and eleventh departments for Police and Criminal Cases, were the only duties which required serious consideration, but there appeared no objections to place them on a footing with the same departments in Scotland.
The twelfth branch, for entering the King's Letters, would be useless as the originals were kept in London.
So that, generally speaking, all orders issued in London from the Home Office, or on the authority of acts of parliament,
1223
The difficulty of communication between this country and Ireland might, formerly, have been a reason for continuing the vice-regal government, but that reason can no longer be urged, as the time of communication between London and Dublin was shorter than between London and Edinburgh. The Mails from London reach Holyhead in 32½ hours, and the passage across the channel by the Steamboats are regular—so that 4 days and 5 nights only are requisite to obtain an answer to any letters to or from Dublin and London; whilst 5 days and 6 nights are required to obtain an answer between London and Edinburgh. And he would add, that, by the exertions of his hon. friend near him (sir H. Parnell) Dublin would be brought still nearer London, as soon as the works at the Menai-straits were finished.
An objection to the abolition of the lord lieutenant had been made, he understood, by the inhabitants of Dublin, who considered the splendour and expenditure of his court essential to the prosperity of that metropolis. It might be partially so, but he believed, that Dublin would not suffer by the removal, to any considerable degree, so as to warrant any fears on the subject. It had been predicted at the Union, that the removal of the Irish parliament would ruin the city of Dublin, and that grass would soon grow in its streets. But Dublin was a commercial capital, and whilst it also contained the courts of law, the college, a large military garrison, and was the centre of communication between England and the whole of Ireland, the city must improve. It had, in fact, very much increased since the time of the Union, as the returns on the table of the House, widen he had moved for, to prove the fact clearly showed. In 1798, there were 16,401 inhabited houses, and 182,370 inhabitants. In 1821, there were 19,864 houses, and 223,223 inhabitants—showing an increase since the Union, of 3,463 houses, and 40,853 inhabitants.
In its trade and shipping considerable increase had also taken place. In the port of Dublin the number of ships had increased from 2,575 to 3,029; and the number of tons from 266,729 to 329,569, showing an increase on the average of
1224
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
In every point of view, therefore, he saw but trifling obstacles in comparison to the great advantages to be expected from the measure he proposed; and he, therefore, hoped the House would assist him to get rid of the lord-lieutenantcy altogether, and to have the government of Ireland carried on in the same way as in Great Britain, by appointing lord-lieutenants and sheriff's to each county, who should be responsible for its peace, and carry into execution the orders of the executive government in England. There could be no objection place at their disposal the military force in each district, under the orders of a commanding officer in Dublin, in the same manner as is now done in Scotland under a commanding officer in Edinburgh. He had been asked, where fit and proper persons could be found in Ireland for these offices; but to say that resident noblemen and gentlemen could not be found in each county, capable and willing to take on them that important charge, would be a censure on the noblemen and gentry of Ireland which he should never admit until a fair trials was made and found to fail. Let but that high and important office be made one of honour and responsibility, and the noblemen and gentlemen of Ireland would be found ready to accept the trust and execute it faithfully and efficiency. What now passes with the governors, of counties and the sheriffs in Ireland could in no way warrant any comparative conclusion of what would be the result under the new system. At present every office
1225
No man was rash enough to deny that the condition of Ireland required a change. That the lord lieutenant, so far from improving, in any way, her state, could not live in peace, and carry on the government in quietness, unless he put himself into the hands of the Orange faction, recent events had fully demonstrated. Whilst Ireland presses so heavily on England, at an annual expense of three or four millions sterling, why maintain, at a heavy expense, an officer whose presence was worse than useless—was the source of mischief to the country [hear]. For himself he (Mr. Hume) declared, that he should never think the Union complete, or the recorded pledges of King, Lords, and Commons, fulfilled, so long as a lord lieutenant remained in the government of Ireland. In fact, Ireland was, under such a system, a colony, with all its vices, and without the checks and control against bad government, which existed in Jamaica and other colonies having legislative assemblies and councils. It was contrary to the experience of all ages that good government could exist, or the people be happy, under such a system, and he entreated the House to lend themselves to the change.
At an earlier period of the session, he would have moved for a select committee to inquire into the expediency of the alteration proposed; but there was not now time for such proceedings, and he thought the best course would be, the appointment of a commission by the Crown, to make the necessary inquiry. The commission now inquiring into the collection and
1226
Mr. Ricardo
seconded the motion.
Mr. Goulburn
began by assuring the hon. member, that the wish of preserving the office which he had then the honour to hold, was not the sole, nor even the principal motive for opposing the motion before the House. The hon. member might conceive that office wholly unnecessary; he might think that the duties annexed to it were such as could be dispensed with altogether, or transferred to some other department without risk or injury, But, whatever his opinions might be, it would not prevent him (Mr. G.) from considering the present motion as derogatory to the character of the country, and fatal to the interests of Ireland. The hon. member had, after all, mainly rested his motion on the saving which would be effected by abolishing the Irish establishment. But, there were countervailing considerations to be urged, which would wholly overbear any argument of that sort. It had often been his lot to contend with the hon. gentleman; but never before had he had the good fortune to contend with him, where the motion of economy had been urged to such an absurd and extravagant length. The hon. member had argued, that, because Ireland was a charge of about three million a-year on England, therefore Ireland ought to be made a separate kingdom, with a monarch of her own. He overlooked entirely the benefits which had resulted to the two countries from their connexion, and for the paltry, trumpery consideration of the annual charge of Ireland on this country, he proposed that there should be an eternal separation between them. He could not argue a proposition
1227
1228
1229
1230
Sir H. Parnell
said, he had recommended to the House, some sessions ago, to adopt the plan now proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, and all he had seen and heard since, served to confirm him in the opinion he had then expressed of the expediency of the measure. He considered it to be utterly impossible to administer the English, constitution by a deputy executive by a deputy executive government. The moment the king ceased to be at the head of government, the constitution of that government ceased to be the English constitution. A viceroy must be more or less a partisan, let his disposition be ever so strong to avoid lending his countenance to one party or to another. He never can, in Ireland, avoid having one or other of the great parties into which the country is divided, opposed to him; and there was no prospect of the existing animosities subsiding
1231
1232
Mr. D. Browne
opposed the motion, and felt convinced that the very mention of it in Dublin would raise a sort of rebellion.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as he had filled one of the offices which the hon. gentleman proposed to abolish, and now filled that upon which it was proposed to
1233
1234
1235
Mr. Abercromby
thought, that as the proposition before the House was, whether an inquiry should be made into the best mode of governing Ireland, and as there was quite enough of suspicion about the present government to justify such an inquiry, the subject deserved, at least, a fair and impartial consideration by parliament. He thought his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had been unfairly dealt will). He had mentioned the subject of expense, but only as a minor part of the case, and not that point upon which it was mainly to rely. It should not be said, that this question was brought forward upon grounds of economy, and not upon the broad grounds of wisdom and policy. He was willing to admit that, upon abstract principles, Ireland was entitled to a local government; but, the question to be decided was, whether the experience of late years, and the change-of circumstances, had not now rendered the alteration which was proposed expedient. He would admit, too, that it was fit the person intrusted with the government of Ireland should be possessed of local information; but this argument was not conclusive. The advantage of having the minister for Ireland identified with the cabinet of England, and being ready to answer in his place in parliament any question that might arise, was obvious, and would afford a better chance of security to the people of Ireland, by the scrutiny which the subject would then undergo. How the preposition was to be carried into execution, would be a matter of detail which must be afterwards considered. He had hoped to have heard from the right hon. gentleman, who, in his double capacity of minister for England and for Ireland, was well qualified to afford information upon this topic, some better reasons than these which he had advanced against the resolution; but, with the exception of this single objection respecting the administration of justice in criminal cases, his doubts had been confirmed, and even that might, he thought, be
1236
Sir J. Newport
said, he thought nothing could be more injurious to the interests of Ireland, or more irritating to the feelings of the people, than the proposal before the House. For his part, if he were in the situation of the lord lieutenant, and a committee were appointed to inquire into the necessity of the existence of his office, he should not feel warranted in holding it one hour longer. But he spoke only from his feelings; and different people had different feelings. When gentlemen talked of the danger to which Ireland was exposed, and reasoned from that in favour of the resolution, he would refer them to a period of danger during a very wise administration—that of queen Elizabeth; and remind them how different a policy was then adopted. When revolt and rebellion disturbed Ireland, that queen did not remove the lord deputy, but sent Lords President to the disturbed provinces, to aid in restoring them to tranquillity; she caused the seat of government to approximate as nearly as possible to the disorders, and where mischief was, thither she sent the remedy. He had spent a long life, and during a large portion of that life had assisted in the discussions of parliament; in the course of nature, he should probably soon take his departure, but he was glad to have that opportunity of stating his firm conviction, the result of his experience, that there could be no measure by which the feelings of the people of Ireland would be more likely to be exasperated than by the removal of the seat of government. They would look upon it as the last scene of their degradation. They would think that the expectations which had been held out to them at the Union were all destroyed. The evils of non-residence would be increased; the nobility, many of whom he could name if it
1237
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that the opinion which he had formed upon this subject before the debate had commenced was fortified beyond all measure, by what he had since heard. Although the testimony was conflicting upon the subject, the conclusion from general principles was so obvious, that he thought it could not be mistaken. Let the House suppose that a few years had passed since this measure of removing the government from Ireland had been adopted. The Secretary of State would, of necessity, be ignorant of all those local peculiarities which, under the present system, were so accurately detailed. He could not conceive any thing more extraordinary than that the House should consent to strike away all those advantages which were derived from the presence of ministers who had served an apprenticeship to the Irish government. But, the motion before the House afforded in itself the best proof of the value of local information: for it was proposed to send a commission to Ireland to collect that local information before the House should decide. It was not ventured even to lay the foundation for that absent form of government which was to be recommended, until such information should be obtained. If this, then, were to go on, commissions must of necessity be appointed as often as it was necessary to procure information; and, instead of collecting it without shock or confusion, the House must send commissions, each with power equal to that of a lord lieutenant, to collect and bring home particulars, which they were certain must be procured during a perturbed state of the public mind. That information was best gathered and laid by for future use during the ordinary current of events; and not by fits and snatches, as often as separate events required separate inquiries. But, the chief objection to the measure was, that its effect would inevitably be, that, if the executive government were removed, the practical power would be thrown into the hands of parties. Two generations of English ministries however short, would not have passed, before the person holding the office of Secretary of State would find himself obliged to
1238
l.
Mr. Dawson
contended that the proposition was one of the most impolitic and injurious that could possibly be broached.
Mr. R. Martin
, as he had a large-share in bringing about the Union, Wished to observe, that at that time it was positively understood, that a permanent lord lieutenant should be always residing in Ireland. Adverting to the thin attendance of members, he expressed his surprise, that after the pompous advertisement which the hon. member for Aberdeen had posted up of his intention to make the present motion he should have so poor a benefit. He would rather vote at once to supersede the lord lieutenant than vote for the commission. It appeared to him to be very little short of a revolutionary proposition.
Mr. Hutchinson
regretted that he could not concur in the motion of his hon. friend. He was convinced that great mischief would be occasioned if, at this moment, there appeared any disposition on the part of parliament to remove the marquis Wellesley from the government of Ireland; and, if the proposition now before the
1239
Sir George Hill
said, that officially connected with Ireland as he had the honour to be, it might be expected that he should express an opinion on the present important proposition; the House would therefore, perhaps, indulge him with their attention for a very few minutes. He did not intend to enter into any abstract reasoning on the necessity of having a lord lieutenant of Ireland, nor to attempt to prove that under all circumstances and at all times, that country should have a lord lieutenancy established there: but he wished to express his conviction that situated as that country was at present, an
1240
Mr. Hume
shortly replied. He said, that in submitting this proposition to the House he had no idea of reflecting on the government of the marquis Wellesley: and if gentlemen pleased, he was, willing to add to his motion, that it was no; meant in any degree to refer to that noble person. The chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Secretary for the home
1241
l.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the gallery was nearly cleared for a division, when Mr. Hume expressed his intention not to divide, observing, that probably a similar motion would, ere long, emanate from the other side of the House. The motion was then negatived without a division.
EDUCATION OF THE POOR IN IRELAND,
Sir J. Newport
rose to submit the motion, of which he had given notice, relative to the accounts of diocesan and parish schools in Ireland, and the reports of the commissioners of education there, with the view of more detailed inquiry at the commencement of the ensuing session, into the means of imparting most efficaciously to the whole body of the: people, without religious distinction, its essential benefits, and rendering the funds available, which were destined for that great national object. His object, he observed, was to pledge parliament that they would, at an early period next year, enter into a full investigation of this interesting question, in order that they might deliberately consider what had been done for the general education of the people of Ireland. Parliament ought to exercise its inquisitorial power, and to see that funds which were left for the education of the people, without regard to difference of religion were applied, through the proper channels, to that most important purpose. He had, at the commencement of the session, moved for various papers, which threw great light on this subject. However gentlemen knight differ on other points, he believed they all agreed on this—that general education was the most certain mode by which the situation of Ireland could be ameli-
1242
1243
l.
1244
Mr. Goulburn
thought it was an inexpedient thing in general, and particularly in the present case, for parliament to enter into pledges in one session, as to what it would do in another. He objected also to this species of parliamentary interference with the management of the parochial establishments. As little could he concur in the proposition of educating Roman Catholic and Protestant children on one and the same system, without making them, sensible, as suggested by the right hon. baronet, of the distinctions between their respective creeds. But, while he was opposed to-the motion, he was friendly to inquiry next session.
Mr. S. Rice
contended, that inquiry was clearly called for, and expressed his satisfaction at the promise of the right hon. gentleman, to give every information on these topics in his power.
Sir J. Newport
said, he willingly withdrew his resolution; his object, which was to ascertain the disposition of the right hon. gentleman upon the subject, being completely obtained.
The motion was withdrawn.
LARCENIES (BENEFIT OF CLERCY) BILL.]
On the third reading of this bill, Sir J. Mackintosh rose to propose an amendment. He observed, that he had
1245
s.
l.
s.,
The Attorney General
opposed the amendment. The object of the bill before the House was merely to carry into effect what had been proposed by his hon. and learned friend himself; namely, to repeal the act of William, but to leave that of Anne untouched. He could see no reason why privately stealing in a shop, which formed a material parcel of a dwelling-house, should not be considered as great a crime as stealing in any other part of the House.
Mr. J. Williams
was of opinion, that the intention of the act of 1821 would be defeated, unless his learned friend's amendment were carried.
The Solicitor General
opposed the amendment, and Mr. F. Buxton and Mr. G. Lamb supported it.
1246
Mr. Peel
defended the bill, and contended, that the measures before the House formed the most extensive experiment of mitigation of punishment that had ever been made in this country.
The House divided: For the Amendment 19. Against it 35. The bill was then passed.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Newport, sir John
Bankes, Henry
Rice, S.
Evans, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Smith, W.
Knight, R.
Thompson, Mr. sheriff
Lamb, hon. G.
Wilberforce, W.
Leader, W.
Wilson, T.
Lennard, B.
Martin, R.
TELLERS.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Buxton, F.
Monck, J. B.
Williams, J.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 26, 1823.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.]
The Earl of Liverpool
, in rising to move the order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the committee on the Appellate Jurisdiction, said, it was pot his intention to proceed further than to bring in a bill which had been prepared, founded on the report of the committee, which might be read the first time, be printed, and then stand over for further consideration. In 1813, their lordships had under their consideration the best mode of facilitating the administration of justice in that House, and they had then resolved to sit three days in the week daring the session, for the purpose of hearing appeals. It was satisfactory to their lordships, that whatever might be the difficulties, either in that House or in the courts, the House had nothing to reproach itself with; for it had most steadily adhered to the standing order then made. But, on looking to the returns on the table, it appeared that the House had not been able (if he might use the expression) to overtake the business, and the grievance was as great now as it was in 1813. The noble earl here referred to the report of the committee for the present state of the appeals, from which it appeared, that the appeals from England were annually 5; from Ireland 8 or 9; and from Scotland 40. In, addition to this numerical extent from Scotland, the time which the Scotch appeals occupied was much greater than those from any
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he could not remain silent after the extraordinary proposition which he had just heard from the noble earl opposite. It was not necessary for him to go at that moment into an inquiry into the causes of this vast accumulation of business before their lordships. He admitted that whatever was the cause, the accumulation was a great evil; but when he looked to the extraordinary remedy proposed, he would ask, whether the evil would be half so inconvenient as this extraordinary remedy—a remedy which consisted in the establishment of a tribunal, such as had never before been heard of in their lordships' house. He admitted that the great number of appeals was an inconvenience; but it was an inconvenience which could not be avoided. It was incidental to their lordships' situation, as the highest court of judicature.—The noble lord then contended against the appointment of a Speaker in their lordships' house, who was not a peer. It was stated that part of the new plan for the hearing of Scotch appeals was, that three peers should sit in turn, presided by the now speaker. Now, to this he had the strongest objection. It would, he maintained, be derogating from their lordships' dignity and attended with inconvenience to the suitors. Three peers were to sit me day, and be succeeded by three others on the next. He would suppose an appeal commenced on one day; a part of it would be heard by the three peers who sat on that day; the next day three
1252
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that as a member of the committee, whose report was before their lordships, and at whose recommendation this plan had been submitted, he could not sit silent after what
1253
pro tempore,
The bill was read a first time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 26, 1823.
PETITION OF GEORGE ROWAN—COMPLAINT AGAINST A MEMBER.]
Mr. Brougham
presented a petition, which had been sent to him from Ireland by an individual of the name of George Rowan, of whom he had no knowledge, nor of the facts which he stated in his petition. He had a painful duty to perform in presenting this petition, inasmuch as it reflected upon the conduct and character of a member of the House. He should therefore do nothing more than move, that this petition be brought up.
1254
l.
On the motion, that the petition be laid on the table,
Colonel Crosbie
addressed the House in a low tone of voice. He said, it was true that Mr. Twiss, who was his son-in-law, had obtained, through his interest, the appointment of collector of the Excise, but that it was false that he had received for it any sum of money whatever. He likewise denied, in the most positive and unqualified manner, that he had ever received a farthing for the situation to which he had got his nephew appointed. He could only say, that the charges which the petitioner had brought against him were false and unfounded, and that he would adopt every means in his power to compel him to make redress for bringing them so publicly forward.
Mr. Croker
said, that, to a certain degree, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down Mr. Twiss, with whom he had become acquainted whilst going the circuit in Ireland, had recently called upon him, and had applied for his good offices in recovering the situation from which he had been removed. He had told Mr. Twise that he would make the requisite inquiries in Ireland, and, if the answer was satisfactory, would employ what interest he had in his behalf. He had made those inquiries. The result of them had been satisfactory; and the consequence was that Mr. Twiss re-appointed to his situation. Mr. Twiss brought him no recommendation from colonel Crosbie no nor indeed, from any other person, He thought it right to add, that he had the slightest communication with colonel Crosbie on this subject.
1255
Mr. Wynn
asked, whether it was right that a petition should be laid on the table, which charged a member of the House with an offence for which he was indictable in a court of law. If such a petition were suffered to lie on the table, the House must, for its own credit, as well as for that of the hon. member accused, enter into an investigation of the charges it contained. As the ordinary tribunals of the country were competent to entertain the accusations of the petitioner, he thought that there was no occasion for the House to take them up. He therefore suggested to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw the petition.
Mr. Brovgham
said, that after the distinct, unequivocal, and unreserved manner, in which the charge had been denied by the hon. member opposite, he was bound by every principle of justice and humanity to believe that the allegations in the petition could not be sustained, and he could have no hesitation in withdrawing the petition, as it would be open to the petitioner, if lie still persisted in the charge, to renew his petition in the next session. In the mean time, an opportunity would be afforded the petitioner of considering the serious responsibility he incurred, if he brought a false charge against a member of that House, and the punishment which would, in that case, await him for a breach of the privileges of parliament.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW IN
Mr. Brougham
, having moved, that the petition which he yesterday presented from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, complaining of the Inequality in the Administration of the Law, be entered as read, said, that he had never risen to address the House under feelings of greater anxiety. When he recollected the vast talent, on both sides of the House, which had been employed at various periods on topics connected with the subject of the petition, and the multitude of persons in Ireland earnestly looking at the result of this discussion—when he considered even the strength of the case committed to his charge; and, more than all the present state of the sister kingdom, it might well be supposed that he felt somewhat overawed at the task he had undertaken. The petitioners them selves had rendered the duty incalculably more difficult for, whereas, when the Catholic question was discussed, the affairs
1256
desideratum
1257
1258
prima facie
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
l.
1271
1272
1273
1274
Cedant urma togœ
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
Mr. Goulburn
observed, that on a subject so deeply involving the best interests of Ireland, the House could not be surprised at his feeling some anxiety to address them. The learned gentleman had stated, that in bringing forward this motion, he had discharged his duty, and relieved his conscience. He (Mr. G.) stood there to discharge his; to state the grounds upon which he considered it incumbent upon the House to resist the motion, and refuse acceding to the prayer of the petition. He was conscious that he laboured under great difficulties in replying to the hon. and learned gentleman. In the first place, he had not the same claim to the attention of the House. In the next, the question was brought forward at a period of the session, when those individuals who were most competent to give information, because most conversant with the administration of justice in Ireland (he meant the Irish members), were, for the most part, necessarily absent; and he was therefore deprived, by their absence, of the valuable testimony which he was confident they would, if present, have afforded to the purity of that administration. Under these circumstances, he had to throw himself upon the indulgence of the House, while he endeavoured to reply to the hon. and learned gentleman; to oppose to his eloquent statement, facts and the result of experience.
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
Sir H. Parnell
said, he rose to state some facts relating to sheriffs in Ireland which had come within his own knowledge. But, before he alluded to that, he wished to say, that he thought his hon. and learned friend had been misrepresented by the right hon. gentleman. The evidence upon which his hon. and learned friend relied, was not that of an isolated individual before a committee, but had been confirmed by others. He (sir H. P.) had been upon the committee on the Usury laws, and it was there stated by a very respectable Irish attorney, and a secretary of a principal Insurance office, that the difficulty of having the process of the law carried into execution in Ireland, was the principal reason why English capital was not carried over to that country. The people of this country has no objection to the Irish law courts, but they had many objections to the mode in which the law was executed. Lord Redesdale, whose authority on this subject was invaluable, had said, that in Ireland lord Coke's maxim, "that the execution was the ending of the suit," was reversed; for in that country it seemed
1294
Colonel Barry
rose to oppose the motion, and said, if no better arguments could be urged in its favour, than those to be drawn from the instances mentioned by the hon. baronet, the House would have little hesitation in deciding upon it. The Catholic Association, from which this petition originated, was one which ought not to exist in any well-constituted state. It was suffered to sit in the imme-
1295
1296
1297
1298
Mr. Hutchinson
agreed perfectly with the right hon. gentleman in his concluding sentiment, namely, that things could not
1299
1300
1301
Mr. Daly
could not assent to the construction of this petition as limited to the corporation of Dublin. On the contrary he saw that it cast a general imputation upon the judges, the magistracy, the grand and petty juries, throughout Ireland. A charge so broad was an attack upon the Protestants of the country, totally unfounded in every respect. Much as he contended for the justice and policy of the Catholic claims, yet he could not sacrifice to mean popularity his sense of the gross injustice of the charge conveyed in this petition. Not; a single fact was stated in this petition, and every insinuation it conveyed was unfounded. He could say, as' the representative of a large catholic county, that he never sat upon a jury-box finding a Catholic in the jury-box; and he had never, in a single instance, heard from any member of that religion a complaint of a mal-administration of justice; he had never heard from one of them even a whisper of corruption. He owed this statement to the character of his protestant fellow-countrymen; and he owed also to the Catholics to deny their general participation in the statements of this petition. Not a single Catholic nobleman, honourable member of a noble family, or baronet, had signed it. There was, according to his recollection of them, no signature of any of the great Catholic landed proprietors; nor even of any of the great Catholic landed proprietors; nor even of any of the great Catholic merchants. Such a petition did not speak the sense of the Catholics of Ireland, nor did it cer-
1302
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, that though he had strong feelings in favour of the Catholics, yet he could not lend himself to the calumnies stated in the petition—calumnies against the magistracy and against the people. He had never heard it imputed to the judges, to the grand juries, or the petit juries, that they acted partially in the administration of justice. He regretted that such statements as appeared in the petition should ever have been made. He did not mean to speak of the petitioners with disrespect they were entitled to great latitude of language in pressing their complaints, because they had suffered great disappointment in the destruction of their first hopes. But still he considered the language of the present petition as calculated to impede the success of their great cause. The petition was a libel on the judges of the land, on the magistracy and on the gentry of Ireland.
Mr. Abercromby
remarked, that the hon. gentlemen opposite had, in the course of this debate, severely arraigned the conduct of the Catholics; but, did they recollect the adversaries who had driven these Catholics to complain? Did they remember the recent meeting of avowed Orange delegates in the county court-house of Armagh, with the authority of the sheriff of Tyrone, and sanctioned by the presence of the sheriff of Armagh? Did they recollect the general proclamation put forth by that body on behalf of the Orange lodges of Ireland? This he put forth, not as an answer to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, but as a statement of the case. Here were two great parties whose passions convinced the land—the Orangemen on one side, and the Catholic delegates on the other. The real question was, whether, in such a state of things, it was in human nature that justice could be calmly and equally administered. It was no imputation upon the people of Ireland to say, that the Government were bound to look with a close and vigilant eye to the administration of justice in a country exhibiting these frightful symptoms of civil dissentions. It was said, that the petition contained no facts. He lamented that the parties had been so ill advised as to omit facts, but, were there none in the statement of his learned friend, only one of which had been con-
1303
Mr. Goulburn.
—He is not a magistrate for any county in Ireland [Hear!].
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the fact was immaterial; but why not answer the case of major Sirr, against whom, in 1802, a verdict had been found for an assault and wrongful imprisonment? The case of sir H. Lees was a mere matter of opinion, whether he ought or ought not to be a magistrate; but not so, as to major Sirr; his utter disqualification was established, and yet, for years, he had been permitted to retain a situation of great influence and responsibility.—With respect to the magistracy generally, one observation had been made by the right hon. secretary, which had struck him forcibly: it was his statement, when accounting for the recent removals from the list of the magistracy, that many were found to make a private profit of the administration of justice. It was singular, that on a late occasion, when an hon. friend (Mr. S. Rice) had said that there were magistrates in Ireland who sold justice, it was indignantly denied by gentlemen opposite, amid cheers as loud as he had heard that night; and yet now came the admission, that the fact then denied was indisputably correct. With respect to any reflections which had been cast upon the Irish magistracy, he would acknowledge, that he thought the Government, for what they had effected towards their reformation, entitled to the greatest credit. Since the year 1807, when he had first the honour of a seat in that House, not a session had occurred in which some hon. member had not submitted a motion to parliament, touching the necessity that existed for such a reform. The application, however, had been invariably rejected until 1822, when the attempt had been at last made: but clear it was, that mean-while, the evil for which the remedy had been so long denied, had been suffered to remain unalleviated. Then, as to the case of the sub-sheriffs, what had been said by the hon. member for Galway (Mr. Daly) on that subject, fully confirmed the statement first made by the other hon. gentleman. The right hon. colonel had said, that if a particular case of grievance was made out, he would be willing that a remedy should be expended to it. But this was not the proper way in which to meet such a peti-
1304
1305
Mr. R. Martin
said, he was very sure, that if the hon. and learned gentleman had had an opportunity of previously communicating with these petitioners, or if they had sent him a brief, or a case only, without a brief, his advice to them would have been, not to transmit to parliament a petition couched in such inflammatory language. He would have said, in a petition to parliament, you should avoid all flourish, all metaphor, all reasoning [a laugh.]. By reasoning, he meant all argument, for a petition should
1306
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he would confine himself strictly, in what he had to say to the consideration of the matter immediately before the House. When he stated to the House, that out of eighty four days which had been this session devoted to the despatch of public business, no less than forty-nine had been appropriated to the discussion of Irish subjects, it would easily be imagined how disposed he felt to confine himself within the limits he proposed. The question, then, was shortly this—whether the House should have recourse to the very unusual proceeding of referring this petition to a committee, the grand committee for courts of justice—a proceeding that had not been resorted to by parliament for the space of 120 years past? And then, it was adopted upon express allegations of corruption in one of the judges. Now, he wished to to know whether, in the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, or in the petition itself, any ground for such a proceeding as this had been laid? He had heard it called the petition of the Roman Catholics; but, opposed as he had been to that large and important body of his majesty's subjects, on the question of Emancipation as it was called, he rose to rescue them from the charge of having prepared or transmitted so inflammatory a petition: or of having been privy to, or in any way connected with it, couched as it was in such unbecoming, indeed he had almost said such ferocious, language. It could never be imagined that, the Roman Catholics of Ireland could be parties to representations of this kind—"that the corporation of
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
Mr. Brougham
rose to reply, amid loud cries of "question." Silence being restored, he said, that unless he troubled the House with a few words by way of reply to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, he should place himself and the question committed to his care in a very unfair posture. It would be observed, that when he addressed the House in the early part of the evening, it was to a different audience from that which the right hon. gentleman had addressed, which made a reply the more necessary. For instance, would not any one imagine, from the manner in which the right hon. gentleman had laboured the point, that he (Mr. B.) had made statements from the pamphlet of Mr. Scully But he had made no allusion to it whatever, and had even carefully avoided taking any statement from it, though fully aware of the value and importance of them. He had, however, to give his personal thanks to the hon. member for Galway (Mr. R. Martin), for the exceedingly jocose notice he had been pleased to take of his address. He had never heard a more successful piece of mimickry, if he might be allowed to call it so, "on these or any other boards;" and he could not help congratulating the right hon. secretary, who was generally called the manager of that House, that so eminent a performer had closed his theatrical career this season with so excellent a performance [a laugh]. In answering his statements respecting lord Manners, the right hon. secretary had gone merely against his (Mr. B.'s) credit as a stater of facts. He bad stated the number of decrees reversed to be in proportion to the whole number of appeals as 50 to 100. The right hon. secretary had stated them as 11 to 22, which was exactly the same proportion, being one half of the whole number brought under the review of the superior tribunal. If be seriously inferred from this that, on an application to the court
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
Mr. Hutchinson
, in explanation, repeated, that if the petitioners asserted, that justice was not fairly administered to them by the judges of the land because they were Catholics, they stated what was false; that if they stated that grand and petty juries in the South and West of Ireland did not administer justice fairly to them because they were Catholics, they stated what was false; for the greater part of the juries of that part of the country were themselves Catholics. This was what he had said, and he was surprised at the very gross misrepresentation of his sentiments which had been given by the hon. and learned gentleman.
Mr. Brougham
said, that his hon. friend had used very strong language. He was sure his hon. friend did not mean to quarrel with him; but if he did, he could assure him that he would not quarrel with his hon. friend. He objected to the terms used by his hon. friend, principally because they happened to have no foundation.
The House divided: Ayes 59; Noes 139.
List of the Minority.
Barnard, vise.
Evans, W.
Barren, S. M.
Farrand, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Benyon, B.
Grattan, J,
Broughton, sir W. E. R.
Griffith, J. W.
Brougham, H.
Hamilton, lord A.
Buxton, T. F.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Calcraft, J. sen.
Honywood, W. P.
Calcraft, J. H.
Hume, J.
Campbell, hon. G. P.
Hurst, R.
Garter, John
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Cavendish, ld. G.A.H.
Kennedy, T. F.
Cavendish, lord H.F.C.
Leycester, R.
Chaloner, R.
Leader, W.
Colburne, N. W. R.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Davies, T.
Marjoribanks. S.
Denison, W. J.
Martin, J.
Denman, T.
Milbank, M.
Ebrington, visc.
Moore, P.
1318
Newport, sir J.
Smith, hon. R.
Nugent, lord
Tierney, G.
Palmer, C.
Western, C. C.
Pares, T.
Williams, J.
Parnell, sir H.
Williams, sir R.
Powlett, hon. J. F.
Wood, M.
Poyntz, W. S.
TELLERS.
Ricardo, D.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Duncannon, visc.
Robarts, A. W.
PAIRED OFF.
Robarts, G. J.
Anson, hon.
Robinson, sir G.
Monck, J. B.
Rowley, sir W.
Russell, lord J.
Rumbold, C.
Russell, lord G. W.
Scarlett, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Smith, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 27, 1823.
KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING VISCOUNT
The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from His Majesty:
"GEORGE R.—His Majesty, taking notice of an Act of Parliament, which has made provision for extending to the Viscount St. Vincent an Annuity granted to the late Earl of St. Vincent and the Heirs Male of his body, and being desirous that a Pension granted to the said Earl by the Parliament of Ireland should be extended, in like manner, to the Viscount St. Vincent, recommends this object to the consideration of the House."
Ordered to be considered on Monday.
PETITION OF G. ROWAN.—COMPLAINT
Mr. Brougham
said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had last night presented a petition from a Mr. George Rowan, which contained a serious charge against an hon. member of that House. He had stated upon that occasion, that he had no knowledge either of the party who signed the petition, or of the charges which that petition contained. He had, therefore, upon the suggestion of the president of the Board of Control, after hearing the positive denial given to the accusation by the party whom it implicated, consented to withdraw the petition. But he was now bound to stat, that the petitioner having referred him for information to an hon. member of the House, he had made the required reference, and the result of it had been, to make; that charges in question assume a much graver interest than he had originally attached to them. He felt that he should as a public servant, desert his duty
1319
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 30, 1823.
MARRIAGES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.]
On the committal of the Marriages at St. Petersburgh bill,
Lord Holland
said, that the present bill had his entire concurrence. He only regretted that, it did not extend to all marriages contracted by British subjects, and solemnized in the chapels of our ministers abroad; for, although no lawyer, he had no doubt of the validity of such marriages himself yet many respectable persons did entertain doubts on the subject; and, though lawyers when ap-
1320
The Marquis of Lansdown
concurred in opinion with his noble friend as to the necessity of some declaratory law on the subject.
Lord Colchester
was also desirous that another session should not pass without some measure being brought in for setting the question at rest.
The Earl of Liverpool
entirely agreed with what had fallen from the preceding speakers. At the time the present bill was brought in, he had said, that the only objection which could be made against it was, that being confined in its operation to marriages solemnized at St. Petersburgh, it might give rise to doubts of the validity of other foreign marriages. He believed it was a completely recognised principle of our laws, that marriages made in foreign countries, according to the laws of those countries, were valid; but the present bill had no reference to that case. There were two ways in which marriages might be regularly solemnized by British subjects abroad. They might either be made according to the laws of the respective countries, or the parties might be married in the House of the minister. So long as the factory at St. Petersburgh existed, marriages solemnized by the chaplain there were conceived to be of the same effect as if they had been solemnized in the house of the ambassador; but it having happened that the factory at St. Petersburgh had been put an end to, the question had arisen, whether marriages made there, not according to the laws of Russia, were valid in this country. It was with a view to that particular difficulty that the present bill was brought in. He should have no objection to a general measure, if it were thought necessary.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, there was no doubt as to the law regarding marriages made in foreign countries according to the laws of those countries; but the doubt
1321
The Lord Chancellor
said, that during the fifty years he had been in the profession, he never heard of any doubts till the late bills were brought in, whether marriages performed in the chapels of our ambassadors were valid. There was no doubt that they were good marriages; and he was persuaded that no contrary opinion would ever be sanctioned by judicial authority.
The bill went through the committee.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Liverpool
Earl Grosvenor
objected to the compulsory clause for enforcing the attendance of peers, and thought it would be worth while to see first, whether a voluntary attendance could not be procured. If this resolution were adopted, it would lead to a singular anomaly; part of a cause might be heard by three peers, another part by three other peers, and the conclusion by three others, who had heard perhaps little or nothing of the case, and the deputy Speaker could only give his opinion. At present, the House had the advantage of the opinion of the noble and learned lord on the wool-sack; which, notwithstanding that habitual doubt and hesitation which he had himself good-humouredly acknowledged to belong to him, certainly, swayed the opinion of many noble lords. They had also the advantage of the noble and learned earl's vote, which they could not have from the deputy Speaker.
Lord Manvers
hoped the House would pause before they adopted this resolution; for if agreed to without modification, the House must sit all the summer.
Lord Erskine
thought, that if the bill which had been read the second time that evening passed into a law, their lordships would, in a short time, be under no difficulty at all on the subject of appeals; because he was sure, that if they appointed proper commissioners (of which he had
1322
The Lord Chancellor
said, he did not see because his noble and learned friend was above seventy years of age, that he should, therefore, have such an utter obliviousness of what was going on, that he should not assist in the business of appeals in the House of Lords. He thought that in the case of any future Chancellor retiring, the minister should make his attendance a condition of his pension. A noble earl (Grovenor), in the plenitude of his knowledge, might perhaps have no doubts on any point of English, Irish, or Scotch law; but, when the noble earl
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
Earl Grosvenor
said, he had never intended to impute to the learned lord, want of acquaintance with the law of the land. His great and unrivalled knowledge of it was so universally acknowledged, that it would be absurd in any man to deny it. With regard to the doubts and hesitations of the learned lord, which upon a former occasion the learned lord had admitted with the utmost good humour, he must observe, that he had never doubted that they arose from the learned lord's conscientious anxiety to do equal justice to all parties. If, however, they led to greater delays in a court which was already proverbial for its dilatory proceedings, he could not help considering that to be an unfortunate circumstance, not only for the suitors in it, but for the country at large.
The Earl of Aberdeen
, after complimenting the lord chancellor upon his profound knowledge of the law of England and his unwearied patience in administering it, proceeded to vindicate the law of Scotland from the reflections which the learned lord had cast upon it. It was not a rude and barbarous system of law, but a system founded on the wisdom of the most civilized nation of antiquity—a system received by most of the nations of Europe, and one which required quite as much research, talent, arid ingenuity, a that perfection of human reason, the law of England. The number of appeals from Scotland had increased very much of late years; and a circumstance had oc-
1329
Lord Melville
contended, that the recommendation of their lordships' committee was riot for an alteration or remodelling the constitution of the House, hat which they recommended was quite consistent with the practice of their lordships. The same objection might be made to the appointment of a lord-keeper to preside in the House, or to the temporary presidency of a deputy Speaker in the
1330
Lord Holland
said, he did not object to the first part of the recommendation of the committee, but should strongly protest against the resolutions. He did so on two grounds; first, because he understood that by them the noble earl imputed to the constitution of the House a defect which he did not admit; and secondly, that they threw out imputations on the negligence of noble lords, which they did not deserve. Let their lordships look at the manner in which this proposal came recommended to them. The learned lord on the woolsack had said, he did not think this the best plan which could be devised—"but," added the learned lord, "let any noble lord point out a better." This was certainly rather a strange recommendation. A committee of their lordships had been appointed to devise some remedy for the alleged inconvenience, and then, after producing one, admitted not to be the best, they called on their lordships to devise a better. What would any of their lordships think, if, having given his cook orders to provide a dinner, and a bad dish were laid on his table, he was to be asked by the cook whether he himself could provide a better? But this was exactly their lordships' case. The cooks to whom they delegated the power of preparing the dish before them, did not recommend it; but asked their lordships "if they could dress a better." Such as it was, he strongly objected to it. He would not allow that a commoner should preside there, to dictate and administer the law in their lordships' name. But he was told that, according to the constitution of their lordships' House, a commoner might now be placed in the
1331
ne plus altra
1332
The debate was then adjourned till to morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 30, 1823.
PRIVATE MADHOUSES.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from Mr. John Mitford, praying for an inquiry into the state of Private Mad-houses. The petitioner stated, that he had himself been confined in one of these institutions, and that he had lately published a book describing the abuses which existed in them. To obtain materials for this book he had visited a variety of private lunatic asylums: but at those of Mr. Warburton, he had been refused the means of information which he wanted.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had himself communicated with one or two persons, who had been confined in private mad-houses; and, from all he had heard, he thought the subject worthy the attention of parliament. The system of private madhouses was peculiarly calculated to open the door to most iniquitous offences, and unfortunately, the most difficult of proof. In his opinion the true course would be to put them down altogether; or to increase the public establishments at least to such a degree as should tend to diminish their number. The trade was a highly lucrative one. Individuals kept, in many cases, several establishments. Mr. Warburton was the proprietor of two or three different houses.
1333
Mr. Brougham
said, that private madhouses were establishments almost necessarily open to abuse; and where abuses did exist, it was most important that they be hunted to detection. At the same time justice was due to a number of highly respectable medical men, who were proprietors of houses of this description, and among others, to Mr. Warburton, with whom he was professionally acquainted. In the course of his legal practice, he had frequently seen Mr. Warburton examined in courts of justice; and his character stood equally high, both for medical skill and for humanity. Now it appeared that Mr. Mitford had himself been confined in a mad-house as a patient; and it should be recollected that a man might sufficiently recover from an attack of insanity to he discharged from confinement and yet not be in a state to appreciate, dispassionately, the very treatment which perhaps had been conducive to his cure. It frequently happened, that actions were brought against the keepers of lunatic asylums by people who had recovered under their care. One word as to Mr. Mitford. He had spoken of himself as the author of a book on the subject of mad-houses; and certainly he was the author of as scandalous a publication as ever bad issued from the press. The work in question was filled with the most slanderous anecdotes, and with details too disgusting to be repeated; and the names of persons of high respectability, and even of young ladies of rank, who had been visited with that dreadful malady, the privation of reason, were treated in a manner deserving the severest reprehension.
Mr. Peel
saw no ground in the present case for establishing an inquiry. To suppress private mad-houses, would be to create an evil greater than any which such a course could remove. Confinement in a public institution, under any circumstances, would always appear to many a very severe infliction; and the attempt to abolish private mad-houses would inevitably lead to the confinement of lunatics in private houses—an arrangement under which every facility to abuse would 'be increased. Upon the petition before the House, he would Only say thus much—that a variety of statements had been presented to him, in his time, by persons, sane to all appearance, complaining of abuses practised in mad-houses; he had examined into these statements over and over again, and he had, in almost
1334
Mr. Bennet
confirmed the statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite, as to the very slight degree of reliance due to the accounts of persons who had been insane; but he thought, notwithstanding, that further regulations in private, madhouses were necessary. Upon the point however, altogether, he confessed he entertained little hope; for, so long as certain persons in another place systematically opposed every, thing tending to a reform in the law, there could he little expectation of any advantageous change, until Providence should: be pleased to remove them from their situations. With respect to the petition, he had seen Mr. Mitford, and thought that he certainly appeared in his senses at present; he made some assertions which he (Mr. B.) knew to be untrue. He trusted that Mr. Warburton would prosecute the publisher of Mr. Mitford's book.
Mr. Wynn
observed, that this subject was well worthy the attention of parliament. It had formerly been much considered; and three bills had, at different periods, been sent up from that House to the Lords, relative to the inspection of houses of this description, which, he regretted to say, had not been passed. He should be extremely sorry if any proposition were brought forward, similar to that spoken of by the hon. member for Westminster; because he believed that, though abuses might exist in some of these establishments, they were, on the whole, well conducted. There was little chance of patients being restored to their senses unless a certain course of treatment were adopted; and with that view, it was better that they should be taken care of in houses exclusively appropriated to the reception of persons labouring under this malady, than that they should be placed in private lodgings, and intrusted to the keeping of individuals who were not con versant with the disease. Persons ignorant of the treatment which should be extended to insane patients, frequently gave them medicines and bled them, for the mere purpose of reducing their strength.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTCH JURIES BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy having moved the third reading of this bill,
Lord Binning
opposed the motion. The
1335
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the noble lord, in opposing this bill, had not stated his real objection, which could only be guessed at. The noble lord was adverse to the appointment of juries by ballot, because it would be a matter of blind chance. Now, it was for that very reason that he (Mr. A.) approved of it. To him it appeared to be, as it would depend entirely on chance, the fairest mode that could be proposed for nominating a jury. He could not argue this point, since the noble lord had advanced no reason for his opposition. All he said was, "I don't like this proposition, and I won't agree to it." The noble lord admitted that a change was necessary. If that were the case, then the question was, how it could be effected. The present measure had been considered in the committee as the best that could be devised; and he should like to know why the noble lord had not urged his objections on that committee. No objection
1336
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the present bill could not passion such argument as that of the learned gentleman's, which had nothing to do with the measure, but was in fact an
argumentum ad hominem,
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that by the admission of almost every one in the House who had spoken, the principle of judicial selection had been condemned. If any novelty were to be introduced, it must be founded either upon selection or upon a fortuitous mode of appointment; The right hon. gentleman himself did not approve of selection by the judges; and his hon. and learned friend near him had adopted that which he considered the most unexceptionable mode, that of ballot. The objections of the right hon. gentleman, as they went merely to possible difficulties, were of a nature so general that no measure could be invented to which such objections might not be opposed. Having, however, admitted the impropriety of judicial selection, and suffered the opportunities escape him of discussing the bill on the second reading, or of improving it in the committee, the right hon. gentleman, in proposing to
1337
Mr. Canning
could not allow that his right hon. friend was bound to approve of this bill, because he disapproved of judicial selection; especially as he had opposed the second reading of it, and the committee upon it. For his own part, he disliked the present mode of selection by the judges; not because any thing improper had been, or could be alleged against it practically, but because he considered that mode unsightly, and unseemly in theory. But he by no means wished on that account to be considered an advocate for the ballot, to which he felt strong objections. He did not consider himself sufficiently acquainted with the details of the bill, to warrant him, considering the important measure it comprised, in giving his support to it. He thought the subject could not be safely determined upon until next session, when, if he found the objections removed, he would give his concurrence to some modification of the system which now existed.
The House divided: Ayes 60. Noes 55. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
SCOTCH COMMISSARIES COURTS BILL.]
The Lord Advocate
, in moving that the order of the day be read for the third reading of this bill, took the opportunity of entering into an explanation of the object and provisions of the bill. He observed, that it was by no means intended to abolish by the bill the forty-three Commissary Courts, but to transfer the business of them to the sheriffs depute. This would be generally advantageous; as it would have the effect of allowing the cases of litigants to be tried nearer home.
Lord A. Hamilton
complained of the manner in which the learned lord had conducted business in the present session, which was such, that bills arrived at their third reading, without any chance of an opportunity to any hon. member to deliver his sentiments upon them. The necessity under which the learned lord had just felt himself, of explaining the object of the present bill, on moving the order of the day for its third reading, was a striking illustration of the fact. With regard to the present bill, the learned
1338
l.
1339
sederunt,
sederunt
1340
Mr. K. Douglas
hoped the House would not be induced, by what had fallen from the noble lord, to reject the present bill. Some of the noble lord's objections, however, were not unworthy of attention. As to the measure itself, it was of great importance to the people of Scotland. The districts, under the jurisdiction of the commissaries, were so extensive, that the revenue was, in consequence, defrauded to a large amount, and the, administration of justice generally obstructed. The persons, too, who held the situation of commissaries were not bred to the law, but were mostly country gentlemen; whereas, the sheriffs appointed to discharge their duty by the present bill, possessed legal knowledge, and were thus qualified for the office. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to mention the other evils which the measure was intended to remedy, and concluded by giving it his support.
1341
Mr. Kennedy
objected to several clauses of the bill. One of these transferred the duties of the commissaries to the sheriffs, who were enabled to depute their power to their substitutes, who again were to do the duty without granting them any additional remuneration. He could not allow that opportunity to pass, without observing that sheriff substitutes of Scotland were a very respectable body of men, but very ill paid; and he hoped that their situation would soon be considered in the proper quarter, and that a provision would be made for them, more suitable to their station and the various important duties which they had to perform.
The Lord Advocate
concurred in what had been said by the hon. member, with respect to the respectability of the sheriff substitutes, and was anxious that a suitable addition should be made to their incomes; but the hon. gentleman must be aware that it rested with the treasury to give that compensation.
The House divided:—Ayes 56. Noes 21. The bill was then passed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ELECTIVE FRANCHISE BILL.]
Lord Nugent
Mr. Bankes
regretted the necessity he was under of opposing this bill, because he felt that its object was, to confer political power, and not a mere qualification for office. He could not see the distinction between the franchise of electing and that of being elected. If parliament chose to extend to the Catholics the one, they ought also to grant them the other, and at once concede the privilege of representation. The hon. gentleman then cited the authorities of dean Swift and Burke, to prove that it was absurd to suppose, that one political concession could be made by such a government as ours to Roman Catholics, without all other concessions in church and state following as matters of course. He understood it to be a favourite proposition with some hon. gentlemen, that the numbers of those professing, and not the truth of the doctrine, ought to determine what the religion of a state should be. According to that proposition, therefore, the religion of the state in Ireland ought to be Roman Ca-
1342
Mr. Hudson Gurney
thought the speech of the hon. member for Corfe Castle had little relevancy to the bill before the House. His argument went to the danger of granting to the Catholics an increase of political power. Now, the number of Catholics which by this bill would be admitted to vote was so very inconsiderable, that the influence of Catholics over elections could hardly perceptibly increased by its passing Mr. G. said that he had once been in a borough where one. Catholic had been prevented from voting, but where the in-
1343
Mr. W. Peel
supported the bill, but protested that he would not go one iota beyond its provisions, in the way of concession.
Mr. J. Smith
said, he well knew that the hon. member for Corfe Castle was generally opposed to all concession, under any circumstances, to Roman Catholics. Now, if he (Mr. S.) were called upon to point out any one body of men, whose political and moral conduct had been for ages most irreproachable, he should turn to the English Roman Catholics. He was extremely averse to inflicting any penalty-upon men for their religious opinions: and he could easily instance the folly of such a policy. He had the pleasure of knowing a great many individuals among the society of Friends, called Quakers: a body of men more excellent, more upright, and of greater correctness in all their dealings, could not be named. This character was generally admitted to them; and yet he wondered how they had existed so long in this country, seeing
1344
Mr. Secretary Peel
, although opposed to the general measure of Catholic Emancipation, was ready to support the bill before the House. Nothing which had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe Castle had convinced him, that there was any danger in the measure; or that he should compromise, by voting for it, any principle which he had heretofore professed. He could not see by what process, upon granting the elective franchise to the Catholics, he was at all bound to grant them the further right of sitting in parliament. In fact, the two. privileges, as it seemed to him, had no connexion at all with each other. The hon. Members for Corfe Castle said—" This measure gives us in England a class of men who may make members of parliament, but who cannot become members of parliament themselves." Why, what was there new in this From the different rights to attaching to different kind of property, there
1345
vice versâ,
veto
General Gascoyne
entertained the highest opinion, personally, of the English Catholics; but looked upon the measure before the House as part only of a new system. He could not help regretting the support given to it by the right hon. Secretary, and thought that the opponents of Catholic Emancipation generally would differ from him decidedly in opinion.
Dr. Lushington
supported the bill, and warmly expressed his feelings in favour of the Catholic generally.
Lord Binning
was happy to join in an act of rather tardy justice. He wished that the Catholics of Scotland had been included in the measure. As the exclu-
1346
Mr. Gooch
said, he knew many Catholics who were loyal and respectable men; but he must oppose the removal of the restrictions placed on them.
Mr. Smyth
said, that he had come down to the House, intending to vote against the bill, but had been converted by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, and should support it.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that the suggestion of the noble lord (Binning) sufficiently proved that the concessions to the Catholics were not to stop at the present measure. He heartily wished that the right hon. Secretary might not live to regret his assent to it.
Mr. W. Smith
saw no possible danger to be apprehended from the bill; and hoped to see the time when its own feeling of justice would carry the House to ulterior measures.
Mr. Butterworth
declared, that he could not consent to the measure then before the House. If parliament granted the boon now called for, it would be the first step towards making still greater concessions to the Catholics. They would not rest satisfied here, but would demand still greater privileges. To prove the truth of his assertion, he need only refer to the fact, that when the elective franchise was extended to the Catholics of Ireland, they soon began to claim more extensive privileges. He could not agree, that those rights contemplated by the bill should be granted to them, because he considered the principles of the Catholics not to have undergone any change. The fears which were formerly entertained of the Catholics were as well founded now as they ever were. The same intolerant spirit still prevailed amongst that sect. So much were the intrigues of particular orders among them dreaded, that the Jesuits had been suppressed in every part of Europe. In the late settlement of the kingdom of the Netherlands, the monarch wished to extend the privileges of the Protestants; but the Catholic bishops
1347
Mr. Hume
rose to protest, in the strongest manner, against the species of argument made use of by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. Such observations were unfit for any man to make; but as the hon. gentleman was himself a sectarian, and enjoyed all the benefits of toleration, he was doubly criminal in harbouring sentiments so intolerant. The hon. gentleman had expressed his dread of the Jesuits; but he would tell the House, that there was a class of Protestant Jesuits who were much more to be feared. The church establishment had much greater reason to apprehend danger from the sect to which the hon. gentleman belonged than from the Catholics. There was not a point that could be favourable to their interest, or by which they thought they could undermine the established church (notwithstanding all their declarations of devotion to it), that they did not, most assiduously, endeavour to gain. He looked upon the Methodists to be the Jesuits, above all others, from whom the church of England had most to apprehend. It was quite clear to him, from the observations made by the hon. gentleman, that it was impossible that he could have a particle of tolerant spirit in his breast. The whole of his speech breathed nothing but persecution. He again asserted, that the government ought to look after the Metholists, instead of the Catholics. For the last fifty years they had shown themselves most anxious in making proselytes, and most assiduous in their hostility to religious liberty; and he must say, that he believed no Roman Catholic had ever expressed Such intolerant opinions as the hon. gentleman had uttered that night.
Mr. Butterworth
said, there was no necessity for him to defend himself against the attack of the hon. member. The sect to which he belonged was highly complimented by the censure of a gentleman who had defended the principles of Carlile in that House.
Mr. Hume
said, if the hon. member attended to facts, it would be much better. He had never defended Mr. Curlile's principles. The statement was not true [Hear].
The Chairman said, that the hon. mem-
1348
Mr. Hume.
—If the hon. gentleman stands up and asserts that which is not true, I have a right to contradict him. I declare that the hon. member has made an assertion with regard to my conduct which is not true.
The committee divided: For the motion 89. Against it 80. The bill was then reported.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 1, 1823.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.]
The adjourned debate on the Resolutions respecting the Appellate Jurisdiction being resumed,
Lord Colchester
said:—My lords; having been placed in the chair of the committee, whose report is now under your consideration, I wish to offer some observations upon the important subject to which it relates. The subject itself, as your lordships have seen, divides itself necessarily into two parts; first, the prospective measures which it may be fit to adopt, for preventing the future growth of appeals; and secondly, the measures of immediate arrangement which are indispensably necessary for disposing of the appeals now depending before us.
1349
1350
pro tempore,
*
*
1351
1352
1353
Lord Redesdale
said, that the accumulation of appeal business was not attributable to any delay which took place, but to the increasing population and wealth of the empire, and the consequent increase of litigation. The due superintendance of justice in that House had been of great importance in preserving the due superintendance of it in the courts below. He was convinced that it was the bad amalgamation of the Scotch feudal law with the forms of the Roman civil law, that had led to so many appeals from Scotland. That unnatural amalgamation had given rise to a protracted form of action, and to a mass of papers that had been well described on a former evening, by his learned friend on the woolsack. Indeed, the lord president of the Court of Session had stated, that he was completely embarrassed by the accumulation of papers which came before him; and had complained that, after hearing cases during the day, he had to read during the evening a mass of documents amounting, in the year to 27,000 closely-written pages. The committee had thought it right to issue a commission, to inquire whether any beneficial change could not be effected in the law of Scotland. He did not believe that the lieges of Scotland were so hostile to the trial by jury, as a noble lord had represented them to be. He was, however, of opinion, that the trial by jury ought to be administered by the Court of Session, and not by a separate court as it was at present. There would have been no arrear of appeals, if only the due proportion had come from Scotland; and therefore, if any method could be devised to prevent Scotch appeals from being brought before their lordships on points of fact, instead of points of law, no arrear would in future take place; The abstracting of the lord chancellor, for three days in the week, from the court of Chancery, must prove highly injurious to the suitors in that court; and it was a debt of justice which the people of Scotland owed to the people of England and Ireland, not to let the accumulation of their business prove a burthen to the suitors in the English and Irish courts of justice. If any of their lordships could find out a better plan than that which was under their consideration, he would willingly embrace it; but
1354
The Lord Chancellor
said, that to a man in the vigour of youth and health, an attendance of five days in the week to the hearing of appeals would be a severe duty; but he believed that no one who knew the business, would undertake that duty, along with the heavy business of the other court.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the more they heard the opinions of the learned lords, the more difficulties presented themselves. It was said, that, from the impossibility of attending for five days a week to appeal cases, concurrently with attention to other important business, there must be a Deputy Speaker. Now, he would ask, were the Speaker and the deputy to hear cases at the same time, or alternately? If at the same time, then they might have two parties bearing causes, and giving, perhaps, different opinions on the same points, and each as the opinions of the House of Peers. But, the most important point was, was the Deputy Speaker to be a peer? If they were to have a commoner presiding over three peers who might hear one part of a case, and then over three others who might hear the next, and then again over three more, who might have to decide upon what they had only partially heard, great inconvenience would arise to their lordships, great dissatisfaction to the parties, and the character of the House of Peers, as a court of judicature, would be lost.—The noble lord went on to contend, that the compulsory clause would have the effect, not of increasing, but of diminishing, the number of days for hearing appeals. On the first day of the session, the names of all the peers were to be put into a glass, and the days of their attendance were to be fixed, according to the rotation in which they were drawn. Now, it was possible that the names of peers living at the most distant pans of the empire might be drawn for the first attendance. Then, time would be required to send a notice to that effect. So that three weeks would be lost, before the business of appeals could be commenced. Besides, it should be recollected, that many peers might rather prefer paying the fine, than submit to the greater inconvenience of coming at an early period so great a distance. Then,
1355
The Earl of Rosslyn
argued in favour of the right of appeal to their lordships by the people of Scotland, and from thence the necessity of some measure by which the arrears of appeals might be disposed of. As to the objection against the presidency of a commoner, he maintained that it was without foundation, and cited several instances in which commoners had presided in their lordships' House for years. It was not, therefore, contrary to the constitution of their lordships' House, and their frequent practice, that commoners should be in the chair. But, even with the proposed alterations, he did not think their lordships could make any great additional progress in the despatch of the appeals before them. Still, something should be done; and he expected that a great deal might be done by some good alterations in the courts below. With respect to the compulsory clause, and the objection that three peers might have to hear a part of a case upon which three others who had not heard the whole might have to decide, he would observe, that there was nothing to prevent the peers who should hear the first part from remaining till the case was concluded. The objection, therefore, on this head, was without foundation.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that whatever might be done for the future regulation of appeals, it would be necessary to devise some plan to get rid of the arrears. The plan of giving five days a week to the hearing of appeals instead of three, would have that object. He had no objection to let the resolution stand thus:—The compulsory attendance to be temporary, and only until the arrears were reduced to 40 or 50, or any number to be agreed upon. Then, the question would be—if they were to have five days attendance, could the lord chancellor attend consistently with his other important duties? He thought not. Indeed, this was not denied on any side. Then, if the lord chancellor could not at-
1356
Lord Ellenborough
proposed, that only the names of the peers present on the first day should be put into the glasses to be drawn for attendance in rotation; by which means the delay which might arise from peers living at a distant part of the country would be avoided.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that after the first three resolutions were decided upon, he would postpone the consideration of the others to a future day, by which time would be given for further consideration.
The Earl of Carnarvon
repeated the objections which he had made on a former; night, against the establishment of a tribunal, where a part of the case only might be heard by those who might have to decide upon the whole.
Lord Holland
said, he would not oppose the resolution on the ground that the House had not the power to make the regulation. He admitted it was consistent with the constitution of their lordships' House; but he doubted the policy of it. He did not think it would be equally efficient, as if peers were left to their own inclinations. The lords forced to attend might appear in their, places, and answer to their names, and then leave the House, or, if they remained, they might refuse to vote, or to give permission to the Deputy Speaker to give his opinion, and thus the whole object would be defeated. He
1357
Their lordships divided: Contents 27 Not-Contents 11.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 1, 1823.
BRITISH MUSEUM.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up. On the resolution, "that 40,000
l.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the hon. member for Corfe Castle had objected to his hint about placing the royal library at Whitehall, that the banquetting-room was unsuitable for such a purpose, from its construction as to windows, and from the impossibility of making reading-rooms near it. Now, the banquetting-room at Whitehall was 115 feet long by 60 broad, and 55 feet high. It was the largest room in England except Westminster-hall, and would contain the whole of the collection in question. He had his information upon this point from a gentleman whose means of knowledge were perfect; and the words in which that information was conveyed were these—"The hon. member for Corfe Castle is as much mistaken as to the banquetting-room at Whitehall, as he was in supposing that marble could be burnt without the aid of a kiln." In fact, it was a little surprising how the hon. member had fallen into that mistake; because there was scarcely an ancient marble now remaining in the world, which had not been dug from some house or situation which had been consumed by fire. For himself, he still thought Whitehall incomparably the better place for the library; and was averse to spending money upon such a piece of patchwork as the British Museum.
Mr. Croker,
on rising to move an amendment, expressed his general assent to what had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster. He thought the British Museum a very ill-contrived; inconvenient, insecure building, and wished very much
1358
l.
Sir C. Long
thought the hon. member's amendment quite unnecessary. The trustees of the British Museum would never have thought of building with the public money, without taking the opinion of the Treasury. The right hon. gentleman proceeded td defend the building and arrangements of the British Museum, and declared that the entertainment which the House had derived from the address of the hon. member for Bodmin on a former evening, they owed to the fertility of his invention, rather than to the accuracy of his statements. Room was certainly wanted; for sir George Beaumont had offered his collection to the Museum, and it had been declined, for want of a place to put it in. The gallery of which the hon. gentleman had so bitterly complained, had
1359
Sir J. Yorke
observed upon the great sums which had been laid out on the Elgin marbles, and the inconvenience of their present situation. He recommended that Somerset-house should be completed, the unfinished state of which was a disgrace to the capital and the country; and that a gallery should be added, in which these marbles might be deposited, together with what other works of art the money which the House should choose to vote would purchase. At all events, he trusted that no more money would be granted until a regular plan should have been submitted to the House, of the intended alterations.
Mr. A. Ellis
very much objected to sending the late king's library to the Museum, because he thought that two great libraries were not more than the metropolis required. He defended the committee of the Museum, from the reflections cast upon them by the secretary of the Admiralty, whose amendment he should oppose. He praised the noble and patriotic gift of sir G. Beaumont. The collection of Mr. Angerstein would be sold in the course of next year, and if not looked after, would very probably go out of the country. His intention was to move for a grant in the next session, to be applied, under commissioners, to the purchase of this and other collections, for the formation of a national gallery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
justified the committee of the British Museum. He happened to be one of them, and was denied that credit for taste by his hon. friend, as a member of the committee which had been abundantly bestowed upon him as a lord of the Treasury. He did not conceive that it was a matter of course, that, because the lords of the Treasury were responsible for the raising and laying out of money, they were the most capable persons in matters of mere taste. For his
1360
"Lie heavy on him, earth, for he
"Laid many a heavy load on thee."
Mr. Baring
supported the amendment. He considered the mixture of antiquity, books, natural history, and marbles in the Museum, to be a most jumbling and incongruous arrangement. The works of art should be in a gallery by themselves. There were collections now purchasable, which could never again be come at by the public. Vast quantities of valuable works had been thrown into the hands of individuals by the French Revolution, which must in the nature of things return again to the great cabinets and collections. And really, for a country of such inordinate wealth and power as this to be without a gallery of art, was a national reproach. He highly approved of the spirit with which this subject was now taken up, and of most of the projected arrangements; especially that of purchasing the rich collection of the late Mr. Angerstein.
1361
MR.G.ROWAN—CAMPLAINT AGAINST A
Mr. Brougham
rose again to present the petition of George Rowan, complaining of his having been dismissed from his office of collector of excise, and accusing colonel Crosbie (a member of the House) of having received money from several persons for procuring situations for them; having inquired into Mr. Rowan's character, and having found that he was a man of veracity and good reputation, and one whose statement,
prima facie,
Mr. Wynn
opposed the bringing up of this petition. It contained charges against an hon. member of that House, which, if true, would expose him to a criminal prosecution, and the constitution had provided a proper tribunal for the investigating, such accusations. If the House should proceed upon the petition now before it, they could only do so by examining, witnesses as to the truth of the allegations, and afterwards directing the attorney-general to prosecute. This they could not do without expressing an opinion upon the subject; and he called upon the House to consider, with how great a prejudice they would afterwards send a person, to his trial by a jury. Another ground of objection was, that his hon. and learned friend had not stated that this charge had been brought before the; notice of the public functionaries, whose duty it would be to prosecute. On the part of the government, he could state, that there existed no disposition to screen
1362
Mr. Brougham
hoped that he should be allowed to offer a few words. He was fully aware of the difficulty which had been pointed out; namely, that of turning the course of criminal justice, into that House; and as a general principle, he could not but assent to his right hon. friend's observations. But there was another and not a less important difficulty—that the House should avoid the imputation of being too slow in receiving charges against its own members. Here was a distinct charge of the abuse of patronage by a ministerial member of a county. In the case of lord Melville, he had been censured by the House for an indictable offence, and the House had afterwards directed his prosecution by the attorney-general, although that mode of proceeding was afterwards abandoned for that, of impeachment. His right hon. friend would say, that this was in his office of public treasurer; but there was another case—that of Thomas Ridge, a member of the House in 1710, who was a brewer, and a contractor with the Victualling-board; but not, therefore, a public functionary. He contracted to furnish 8,000 tuns of beer, and delivered only 3,000, having received payment for the whole. The House examined into the charges, expelled the member, and followed up that proceeding by an order to the attorney-general to prosecute. So that he was sent upon his trial, not only with the vote of the House about his neck, but under the additional weight of their sentence of expulsion. Of so little importance did he (Mr. B.) consider this, that he thought a man could not go into court with a better chance in his favour, than a prosecution by the attorney-general, in pursuance of a vote of the House. He thought, notwithstanding the difficulty which he admitted, the House could not refuse to receive the petition. When a day should be fixed for its discussion, the attorney-general might be directed to prosecute, and thus the difficulty would be got rid of.
Mr. Wynn
said, that the House, being the guardians of the public purse, could
1363
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
said, he rose with great pain to speak of the conduct of an hon. gentleman who was his own colleague. He was compelled to do so, in consequence of an allusion which had been made to him in the speech of his learned friend on Friday last, and which had been made public. He had been applied to by his learned friend as to the character of the petitioner: and, feeling that he had no right to refuse the information required, he had communicated it in the terms which his learned friend had read to the House. He had added, however, that as there had been election jealousies between his friend and those of colonel Crosbie, he wished to avoid any interference in the business, and particularly requested that his name might not be mentioned. Whether this did or did not preclude his learned friend from mentioning his name, the House would decide; but he must now state that it was his intention he should not do so. Not that he wished to conceal his having given the petitioner a character, but he wished not to lend any corroboration to the charges which had been made. In this spirit he had written the letter which had been quoted. He was satisfied that his explanation would be sufficient to gentlemen who heard him, on whatever side of the House they sat; because he knew that personal feelings, in matters so delicate as that of which he was speaking, were held by them paramount to all political inclinations. It had been hinted to him, that it might elsewhere be believed that the petition had originated with him. To those who knew him, it was enough to say that such an imputation must be, of its nature, false. If he had thought it necessary to make any charge, he should not have disgraced himself by adopting indirect means. So far from encouraging the charge, he had abstained from all correspondence with the petitioner, whom he ad not seen for some years; and he had not replied to his letter, because although he knew that, in the county in which they both resided, any correspondence would be construed into an encouragement; and he had written confidentially to a friend of his, desiring he would have it understood that he was no party to the affair. He concluded by saying, that
1364
Mr. Brougham
was sure that what Iris right hon. friend had just said, would establish the futility and groundlessness of the suspicions which he had felt himself under the painful necessity of repelling. He could confirm every statement which his right hon. friend had made. He regretted, however, that he had not known that his right hon. friend wished the whole of his letter to have been suppressed, or he would not have read the extract from it. As to reading the whole of it, his right hon. friend would see that he could not have done that, without distinctly disclosing who was the writer. As to the petition, he was merely actuated by a sense of duty in presenting it for he had never been more plagued about any thing in the whole of his parliamentary experience. The House was, however, bound to protect its purity. It was bound to guard against the abuse of the influence which the members of it might have with his majesty's government. He did not think, therefore, that the House would do its duty, unless it received the petition. What it should do with it when it had it, was another question.
Colonel Crosbie
embraced that opportunity of saying, that the impression on his mind originally was, that the hon. and learned gentleman had received the information he possessed from his colleague. He now, however, felt satisfied that such was not the case.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, that there was a phrase in the petition, relative to the dismissal of the petitioner, which he would be glad to explain, in order to prevent any misapprehension to which it might otherwise be liable. It was stated that, whatever were the merits of the trial, the means employed against the petitioner were base and treacherous. This did not apply in any manner to his (Mr. F's) colleague, nor to the parties concerned, and least of all to the government. It referred to a former petition presented by the petitioner, when he was dismissed from office in 1817, in which he complained, that his dismissal took place in consequence of a conspiracy among persons in his own employment, at the head of whom was a clerk he had dismissed for pecula-
1365
Mr. Peel
said, that although he did not recollect the particular facts of the case, he was certain the object of government in dismissing the petitioner was not to provide for any other individual.
On the motion that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Wynn
observed, that he could not perceive the propriety of allowing the petition to he on the table, unless it was intended to follow it up by some further measure. He, however, did not see what measure could now be adopted, and therefore thought it useless to place the petition before the public.
List of the Minority.
Brougham, H.
Money, W. T.
Bennet. hon. G.
Palmer, C. F.
Calcraft, J.
Price, R.
Forbes, C.
Parnell, sir H.
Farrand, R.
Rice, T. S.
Grattan, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Gurney, H.
Smith, Robt.
Gaskell, B.
Smith, Wm.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Hume, J.
Western, C. C.
Leycester, R.
Wood, alderman.
Lamb, hon.G.
TELLERS.
Leader, I.
Buxton, T. F.
Martin, J.
Nugent, lord.
Monck, J. B.
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS—PETITION OF
Mr. Hume
rose for the purpose of presenting a petition which he considered of great importance. But before he did so, he begged to correct an error which had got abroad respecting what he had said last night. He had been made to say in one publication, that he disapproved of dissenters altogether; when, in fact, he had only expressed his disapprobation of that sect to which an hon. member belonged. His acquaintance lying very much among dissenters, many of whom he knew to be most intelligent and virtuous men, he should have belied his own experience if he had said so. He was of opinion, that general censures were always wrong; and, as his feelings had been excited on the occasion to which he alluded; by the in-
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
Mr. Butterworth
asked, by how many ministers of the Church of England it was signed, and of what class of dissenters the other petitioners consisted.
Mr. Hume
replied, that it was signed by dissenters of all classes.
Mr. W. Smith
could not see the pertinency of the hon. member's question. The petition was, however, signed, he could assure him, by persons whose religious opinions were as perfectly opposed to each other as possible.
1371
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Hume
then rose for the purpose of making the motion of which he had given notice. His object was, to obtain the admission of that principle, which he had always thought to be part of the law of this country, namely, that every individual was entitled to freedom of discussion on all subjects. At Edinburgh, where he was brought up, it was held, that any man might entertain and express his opinions, unless they became a nuisance to society, when, perhaps, they might be brought under the operation of the common law. Since the year 1817, however, a disposition had been manifested to prosecute persons for the publication of did as well as new works, the object of which was, to impugn the authenticity of the Christian faith. He was aware that since the period to which he had referred the number of such publications had increased; but he thought, also, that the progress which had been made in knowledge, and the extension of education to all classes of persons, had brought with it a remedy for this evil. Looking at the advantages which resulted from the freedom of discussion, and the part which able men were always ready to take in behalf of true religion, he thought it would be doing equal injustice to that religion and to the community, to adopt any other means of arriving at the truth than by fair discussion. He had always been led to believe, that the greatest blessing which Englishmen enjoyed was the complete freedom with which they were permitted to express their religious opinions, and to follow whatever sect or persuasion their own opinions coincided with. Recollecting, too, that we enjoyed the blessings of a religion which had been established by means of discussion, and by differing from those which had preceded it, he thought the House would act unjustly, and with bad policy, if it should now turn round upon those who differed from us, as we differed from those who had preceded us, and exercise a rigour which, in our own case, we had been the first to deprecate. Such a course, he was convinced, was more likely to generate doubts and ignorance than to give any stability to the religion. It was quite evident, that persons who wished to investigate religious subjects must meet with a great variety of opinions. Some of these might confirm their belief; while others might give rise to doubts. Now,
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
ratio ultima,
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
Mr. Wilberforce
proceeded to address the House, hut in a tone so low, as to be for a considerable time inaudible in the gallery. We at length understood the hon. member to defend the Constitutional Society and the Society for the Suppression of Vice in the course they had taken, and to maintain, that both those bodies were not only fully justified, but much to be applauded, for having exerted themselves for the suppression of offences, which, in every sense, was
contra bonos mores.
1385
1386
Mr. Ricardo
said, he had heard with pleasure a great part of the speech of his hon. friend who had just sat down, and the remainder certainly with no inconsiderable concern. The greater part of that speech had been in support, of the opinion which he (Mr. Ricardo) held^ in common with his hon. friend who had introduced the motion; namely, that no man had a right to dictate his opinions, upon abstract opinions to another, upon, peril of punishment for a refusal to adopt them; and his hon. friend had further admitted, that so long as the controversy upon such topics was conducted with decency, it ought not to be prevented by force of law. Now, he lamented that when his hon. friend had thought proper to quote the sentiments of Dr. Paley, he had not given them more at length, for he would, in the writings of that eminent individual, find a more large and liberal spirit of toleration, than he was disposed to admit practically in other parts of his speech.
Mr. Wilberforce.
—Dr. Paley distinctly excepts to the treatment of such subjects with levity und ribaldry.
Mr. Ricardo.
—That, certainly, was Dr. Paley's only exception; and lie, as well as the other chief ornaments of the church, for instance, Dr Tillotson and Dr. Porteus, had asserted, in the largest sense, the right of unfettered opinion. If the validity of such opinions were admitted, who could approve of the operation of the Jaw of this country in such matters? Who could sustain those impolitic and unjust prosecutions? What was the prosecution of Carlile for republishing the "age of
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, it had been intimated by the hon. member for Montrose, that the greatest enemies to religion were those, who sought to uphold her by the measures, which it was the object of this motion to abolish. If that be the case, Sir, continued the hon. and learned gentleman, I, and those who think as I do, have indeed most miserably deceived ourselves. But the hon. gentleman's argument, though I think it erroneous in regard to religion, is applicable enough to that liberty of the press, whereof he is the strenuous advocate. For if any artful man, who should be as much an enemy to the liberty of the press as the hon. member for Montrose is, I doubt not, its friend, were contriving to obtain the reimposition of that licenser's veto, by which, with the intermission only of two or three years in the reign of Charles 2nd, the press continued to be fettered until some time after the accession of king William,—I can imagine no mode by which he would be so likely to forward that alarming design, and stifle the objections to an antecedent censorship, as by exempting irreligion and blasphemy, when once published, from the animadversion of an English jury, and securing to their authors the impunity which is now proposed [Hear, hear]. For what has been always the argument against the imposition of any previous censorship? Why, that though there are certain opinions, whose public circulation would endanger the peace and well-being of the people, yet that evil is likely but seldom to occur from the unfettered discretion of individuals, so long as they continue responsible to the law, for the excess, or abuse, of that discretion. In other words, we agree, in this particular case, considering the greatness of the good that arises from a free press, to do what, in general, would be somewhat indiscreet, to exchange a preventive for a merely penal control. But what is the doctrine now? It is not, as it once was, that the state, instead of taking the responsibility of licensing the press upon itself, should leave all publishers under a responsibility of their own; but that all responsibility shall be remitted altogether. I apprehend, Sir, that if harsh restraints are apt to lead to popular excesses, popular excesses are apt in their
1392
impious
tending to the subversion of the Christian Religion:
1393
1394
Can ever med'cine him to that sweet sleep
He owed but yesternight.
1395
public opinion,
vulgar error
1396
ad invidiam.
1397
some
1398
Mr. W. Smith
said, that this was a very grave subject, and except when, as on the present occasion, it was mixed up with certain questions of law, he deprecated its discussion in that House; and, even under such circumstances, it ought not to be frequently agitated. He could not help thinking that these subjects were always better conveyed through the medium of the press than by a debate in that House, where the discussion was necessarily limited, and angry and violent feelings were likely to obtrude. He could assure the House, that no man felt more disgust than he did at the publications for which Carlile had been prosecuted; but, at the same time, he thought that liberty of conscience without the liberty of divulging one's opinions, was a poor and imperfect privilege. The only question raised that night was simply this—whether all manner of treating religious subjects should be allowed in controversy. He had long thought upon this subject; and the result of his reflections was, the conviction that it would be better to leave such matters to the general opinion of society. He then urged the impossibility of establishing a safe test of opinion for the penal guidance of society. What in England they thought moral and just, might not be equally so considered in India. The Brahmin who, from motives of religion, sanctioned the burning of Hindoo widows, might, if left to his decision, consign to the same flames the Englishman who complained against so cruel and irreligious a practice.
Mr. T. Wilson
trusted, that the House would show, by its vote of that night, that its opinion was not in unison with those which had been expressed by the hon. member who spoke last. He thought that the minds of the people had been poisoned by the blasphemous publications which had been spread abroad. The
1399
Mr. Money
opposed the motion. Since parliament and different societies had done all in their power to disseminate the blessings of education, care ought to be taken that those blessings should not be abused. His principal object in rising was to do justice to an individual who had said alluded to during the debate—he meant; Mr. Owen. An hon. member had said that Mr. Owen disbelieved in a future state. He had communicated with Mr. Owen, arid he had great reason to believe that the hon. member had mistaken the opinions of Mr. Owen. He begged the hon. member to state in what part of Mr. Owen's works he found that opinion promulgated.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that the last act he would commit would be to misrepresent the opinions of any individuals. He had gathered Mr. Owen's opinions from the Works which he had published. After reading the speeches which Mr. Owen had delivered in Ireland and other places, he had come to the conclusion, that Mr. Owen did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was one of the doctrines of Mr. Owen that a man could not form his own character, but that it was formed by the circumstances which surrounded him—that when a man committed an act which the world called vice, it ought to be considered his misfortune merely, and that therefore no man could he a proper object for punishment. This doctrine was interwoven in his system; and he who held it could not impute to the Omnipotent Being a desire to punish those who, in this view, could not be considered responsible for their actions.
Mr. Secretary Peel
complained, that an hon. member had assumed, that the House was prepared to go a very considerable way in accordance with the views of the hon. member for Aberdeen. He, for one, was not prepared to advance one step along With the hon. member. He objected to his motion altogether. He disliked the form in which the hon. member had brought the question before the House. The practice of proposing resolutions declaratory of the opinion of the House had, he was sorry See, become very prevalent of last. If the hon. member considered the law which subjected individuals to punishment improper or unnecessary why did he not move for its repeal? In the resolution which the member
1400
Mr. Hume
said, he would not press the House to a division.
The motion was then negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, July 2, 1823.
NEW SOUTH WALES JURISDICTION
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he rose to present a petition from Mr. Eagar, a merchant and inhabitant of the settlement of New South Wales against two provisions in the bill then in its passage through the House, for the better government of that colony. The first provision against which the petitioner prayed was that which deprived an English subject of his right; to the trial by a by the substitution of a court martial composed of a prescribed number of army and navy officers, selected by the govern or and by a strange perversion of language designated a jury in the present bill. The se-
1401
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he could not consent to such an application.
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that after the intimation which he had received from the under secretary for the colonies, it became necessary to advert to the effect of these provisions on a numerous body of British subjects, whose interests were undefended in that House, and whose present claims and future prospects were seriously affected by them. The colony of New South Wales had ceased to be a mere receptacle for convicts. It had latterly grown into considerable importance, and was rich in all the capacities which promised eventually a high destination. Its inhabitants were composed of a greater number of European origin, than was to be found in the whole of our Asiatic settlements. Independently of the 20,000 convicts whose situation was not affected by the bill, there were the free settlers and the freedmen. The first class amounted to 4,000, the second to 7,000. There, was, besides, that numerous class, the progeny of convicts, born in the colony—persons whose innocence was unquestioned, and whose claims to the protection of British law were not vitiated by any misconduct of their parents. It was no argument to say, that heretofore these rights were overlooked in the administration of the colony; The parliament were now taking the first step in legislating for its interests, and it therefore was the more incumbent on that House not to entwine around such a principle the shoots of tyranny and arbitrary power. On what
1402
1403
Mr. Wilmot Horton
could have wished that the hon. gentleman had reserved his observations for the regular stage of discussing the bill, instead of incidentally arguing the merits of the question upon presenting a petition. The hon. gentleman must excuse him if he declined to follow so inconvenient a precedent, or to discuss with him now the propriety of practically applying the theory of the British constitution, and the institution of trial by to a state of colonial society so essentially different from that of the parent country. As to the bill, he considered it necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the report of the parliamentary commission, and did not see that there was any ground for hearing the petitioner by his counsel.
Mr. Bright
said, that the petition, complaining as it did of the non-introduction of the trial by jury into a British colony was most worthy of the consideration of that House. He regarded the trial by jury as quite necessary for the freedom and civilization of the colony. The real question in this case was, whether the colony was to remain to them a useful auxiliary, or become a source of inquietude and danger. The principle of the colonial government ought to be to amalgamate all the classes of society in the colony; and what better mode of doing so could be devised, than securing for them that invaluable privilege which brought the rich end the poor into an honourable contact.
Mr. Marryat
thought it important that time should be allowed for ascertaining whether this bill was as perfect as it ought to be. As to the benefit of the introduction of the trial by jury, he looked on it as doubtful, in the present state of the colony. He was of opinion that several
1404
Mr. Forbes
was of opinion, that some clauses in the bill were objectionable. He defended the administration of governor Macquarrie, and objected to the report of commissioner Bigg, on which the bill was founded, and on which no confidence could be placed. He thought the instructions to that commissioner ought to be laid on the table for the purpose of ascertaining how far he had complied with or exceeded his instructions. On the whole, he thought more time ought to be allowed for the consideration of the bill.
Mr. R. Colborne
vindicated the conduct and character of commissioner Bigg, than whom, he said, a more honourable man did not exist. He could assure the House he had not been appointed to that situation by earl Bathurst on account of personal acquaintance, but because he had filled with credit an official situation in the island of Trinidad.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sir J. Mackintosh
, in rising to move that the petitioner be heard by his counsel, called the attention of the House to the important fact, that if the bill passed with the clauses which it at present contained, 8000 freemen were liable to be transported without trial, at the mere will of the governor. If the House should, after this statement, refuse to hear the counsel of persons who had so deep an interest in the measure, let the fault lie with them. For his own part, he would enter a practical protest against such a proceeding, and would call for a division, even though he should stand alone.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, it was in tended, in the Committee, to introduce a clause by which the operation of the bill would be so limited, that instead of extending to 8,000 individuals, it would scarcely extend to as many hundreds. In fact, it would operate only on those who had just completed the term of their transportation.
Mr. Hume
observed, that according to the hon. gentleman's own shewing, the bill would deny to any person who had completed his term of punishment, and who ought therefore to return to the rights of an Englishman, the enjoyment of those rights.
1405
Mr. Marryat
remarked, that the question for the House to determine was, whether they would see with their own eyes or with the eyes of the executive government? He had great confidence in the disposition of the colonial department to abstain from any act of injustice, but he could see no reason for objecting to hear counsel. If the argument in support of the petition should prove invalid, it would have no effect on the House; if, on the contrary, it should prove valid, it ought to induce them to pause before they acquiesced in the measure.
The House divided: For the motion 47. Against it, 60.
CAPTURE OF THE SHIP REQUIN IN
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move that the papers presented to the House, on the 19th of June last, relative to the capture of the ship Requin, in the river Garonne, in March, 1814, by Mr. Ogilvie, a commissary with the British army in the peninsula, be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. The hon. member said, that he proposed, with the permission of the House, to lay before it a brief statement of the claims of Mr. Ogilvie, by whom the vessel had actually been taken. In the year 1814, in consequence of the succession of brilliant victories achieved by the British in the peninsula, the army under lord Beresford, who was then second in command, became masters of Bourdeaux. Mr. Ogilvie was directed by lord Beresford in the execution of his duty as a commissioned officer, to proceed in a boat, accompanied by one of his clerks, and take possession of the vessels in the Garonne. That gentleman accordingly proceeded to execute this commission and had discharged it; when the clerk suggested to him, that some vessels might possibly be stationed lower down the river. Upon which, Mr. Ogilvie, having engaged ten French royalist sailors, directed them to row down the river. This they accordingly did; and when they had proceeded about two miles, they discovered on turning an angle of the river, two vessels lying near the shore, one of which, was evidently a ship of war, and the other a merchantman. The sailors who were in the boat immediately recognised the ship of war to be an American privateer, called the Requin, which had been very successful against the English merchant-vessels. As the Requin had a
1406
1407
1408
Colonel King
wished to state the reason why he, a mere tyro in the House, should come forward to second the motion. The reason was, that he had known Mr. Ogilvie for five-and-twenty years, and had the greatest regard for him, and the greatest respect for his character. During the years 1809, 1810, 1811, and 1812, he had served with him, in the peninsula, and that gentleman had there conducted himself in a manner which drew upon him the highest approbation of all who witnessed it. When the army was placed in circumstances of the greatest difficulty, Mr. Ogilvie by his activity and perseverance, had materially contributed to furnish it with the necessary supplies. In corroboration of these statements, the hon. member read the testimonials of several distinguished officers, among whom were sir W. Stewart, major-general D'Urban, &c. All that he wished was, that some adequate com-
1409
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
begged to assure the hon. member who had introduced the present subject, and the gallant gentleman who supported him, that in opposing the motion, he did not wish in the least to detract from the merits of Mr. Ogilvie, either generally as a commissary, or particularly with respect to the transaction now before the House. But he must say, that the general merits of Mr. Ogilvie, as a commissar, had nothing to do with the question they were then called on to consider. If that were the case, the only point to ascertain would be whether Mr. Ogilvie had received adequate remuneration for the services he performed? But in the present instance, the question was, whe-
1410
coup-de-main:
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l
1411
Mr. Hume
observed, that Mr. Ogilvie had stated several instances in which individuals were allowed the exclusive enjoyment of the booty they obtained. He wished to know from the chancellor of
1412
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not aware of the cases referred to having taken place; but he knew that when booty was obtained by a particular detachment of the army, it was divided among that detachment.
Colonel Davies
thought that nothing could be more injurious to the discipline of an army, than to allow individuals to possess the booty which they might obtain by marauding.
Mr. Buxton
replied. Mr. Ogilvie, he said, had received but 75
l.
s.
The House divided. For the motion 19; Against it 40.
BUDGET.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the 14,700,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he felt on every account the propriety of compressing the observations which he had to make on the present occasion into as narrow a compass as possible. He knew how much the House had been fatigued within the last two weeks, and I he might himself say that, individually, he had experienced the full effects of that fatigue. He should, therefore, proceed without further preface to lay his statement before the committee. As, at
1413
l.
l.
l.
1414
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1415
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
1416
From the 5th of January to 28th June, 1823
4,026,661
In Bills and Cash
79,191
Receipt from June 28 to July 4,(16,000
l
80,000
159,191
4,185,652
Half year ending July 5, 1822
4,045,987
Estimated increase to July 5, 1823
139,865
This was independent of the amount of tonnage duties, which produced last year a sum of 66,000
l.,
1417
Payments to the 5th of July, 1822
12,125,136
Actual payments from the 5th of Jan. to the 1st of July, 1823
10,571,081
Estimated payments from the 1st to the 5th of July,
658,000
11,221,081
Deficiency on the half year
896,655
Actual loss on the half year upon articles on which the duties have been reduced.
Hides
135,688
Malt, including 270,000
l
450,637
Salt
465,550
1,051,875
Actual increase
155,820
In addition to which the repayment on account of malt duty previously accounted for amounted to 270,030
l
l
425,820
The result as to the revenue derivable from Stamps, the Post-office, and the Assessed Taxes, appeared to be equally satisfactory. While the revenue was thus improving, the ministers had also been able to effect a gradual reduction of the debt, and this reduction had been progressive from the 5th of January, 1823, on which day, the unredeemed debt amounted to 796,530,144
l.
£
By Sinking Fund
England
1,834,535
Ireland
172,382
Transferred for Life Annuities
334,883
Transferred for, Land-tax, estimated
24,000
Transferred for, unclaimed 10 years
14,432
1418
Purchased with Unclaimed Dividends
19,100
English Debt, decreased by capital transferred to the debt in Ireland
797,138
3,196,470
Deduct Irish Debt increased by capital transferred from England
797,138
Total redeemed
£2,399,332
The amount of debt remaining unredeemed was 794,130,812
l.
£
January 8, 1823
340,000
April 8
340,000
To be paid July 5
340,000
1,020,000
Thus it appeared, that there had been a clear reduction of debt to the amount of upwards of 3,000,000
l.
l.;
l.
l.
1419
£
Husbandry horses
480,000
Malt
1,400,000
Salt
1,295,000
Hides
300,000
Assessed taxes
2,300,000
Assessed Ireland, about
100,000
Tonnage duty
160,000
Windows—Ireland
180,000
Spirits—Ireland
380,000
Spirits—Scotland
340,400
£6,935,400
Reductions had also been effected upon minor items of taxation, which, though unimportant in amount, were of great benefit to the parties by whom those taxes had been paid. He alluded to all the reductions to be found in the bill in progress relative to Customs. One of the most important parts of the bill was that which provided for the reduction of the duty on stone carried coastwise. He might also advert, to another circumstance which would diminish the amount of taxation—he meant the repeal of the Union duties in Ireland. It could not be denied that the repeal of those duties would be prejudicial to the interests of some persons, but it would enable the people of Ireland to obtain some articles of British produce 10 per cent below the price which they at present paid for them. If the smaller items of reduction to which he had thus briefly alluded were added to the sum which he had before stated, it would make a total of about seven millions and a half. He wished to say a few words with respect to Ireland. No one could look at the manner in which parliament had conducted itself with respect to the taxation of Ireland, without being convinced, that whatever differences of opinion might exist with respect to the moral and political Causes which operated in that country to produce misfortunes which it was painful to dwell upon, in a fiscal point of view, at least, it had given a most liberal attention to the wants of that unhappy country. Among other measures connected with the finances, he might advert to some bills which had passed through the House Without comment—a proof that their principle was approved—for uniting the boards of Customs and Excise, and assimilating their practice in both countries. The effect of those bills would be no less advantageous to merchants, than to the public in general.
1420
He did not know that he had now any thing further to state to the committee. He did not feel justified in saying any thing with respect to the future: but he might be allowed to say, that he considered the revenue in a flourishing condition. He thought, too, that no man could doubt that the finances of the country were in a state of progressive improvement. Under these circumstances, he could not but anticipate that government might be enabled to extend the principle of reduction of taxation still further than it had been already carried. Government would do all that could be done to reduce taxation, provided it was not over-pressed. He was not ashamed to avow that in his opinion theories which every body allowed to be unobjectionable, might, when they were attempted to be carried into, practice too rapidly, with respect to such an enormous concern as the revenue of this country, be productive of the greatest mischief. If government were allowed to proceed in a moderate course, he had very little doubt that it would find in consequence of the acts of reduction which had taken place, the means of extending relief from taxation still further. He felt it to be his duty not to say any thing more specific on the subject. He was aware that many honourable members had, during the present session, directed the attention of government to several taxes of great importance, which they desired to obtain the repeal of. Some of the taxes which had thus, been alluded to were of very great importance, connected as they were with the necessity of preventing smuggling. He felt that he should be doing wrong if he were at that moment to express any opinion with respect to the repeal of those taxes. He would, therefore, content himself with the declaration of the general principle on which government was desirous of proceeding. He was glad to have, received from the House the most liberal support of the views which he and the rest of his majesty's ministers had entertained; and he trusted that the House had no reason to think that their support had been improperly bestowed. He had taken pains to ascertain the feelings of the country, with respect to the course of policy which ministers, had pursued; and he had found that the people generally were completely satisfied with it, and as long as that was the case he should also be satisfied.
Mr. Maberly
congratulated the House
1421
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
merely wished to say, that the loan alluded to was in a course of negotiation which he hoped would prove successful. At present he could say nothing as to the terms of the negotiation, nor as to the probable result, but should confine himself to the statement, that every disposition existed on the part of both the governments to come to an amicable adjustment of the debt.
Mr. Hume
said, that he was somewhat
1422
l.
l.
l.
l.
The resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.
Mr. Spring Rice
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that whether the proposition he was about to support was or was not agreeable to the House, he alone was responsible for it. He had had no interview with any member on the subject. He had no connexion whatever with the Chief Baron of Ireland, nor with any of the friends of that learned indivi-
1423
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he did not see how they could avoid proceeding on this occasion. The hon. member had alluded to the inconvenience which must result, if this charge were left pending over the chief baron. Now, in some shape or other, charges more or less modified must be understood as having been preferred against him; and if he were to point out the most favourable and the least culpatory shape in which they could be placed on the Journals, it was by pursuing the course proposed by the hon. member for Limerick. How did the matter stand? The charges came founded on the reports of the commissioners. If the House rested where they now were, the interval between the time of accusation and of trial would not be the less long; and the inconvenience to which the chief baron would be subjected must be aggravated rather than lessened, because he would not have the advantage of knowing exactly on what points, growing out of those reports, he was hereafter to defend himself. On the other hand, if the charge went on, and resolutions of fact were agreed to in the committee (resolutions stating that such and such charges were made in the reports, but neither negativing nor affirming them), that proceeding would not affect the character of the chief baron, and would afford him more ample means for his defence.
1424
Mr. S. Rice
defended the course which he had taken in this proceeding. It had been said that they, could not fairly go on unless the chief baron was heard; but the question was, whether he had not been heard? Allusion had been made by the hon. member for Cork, to two reports of the commissioners, and two reports of the committees of that House, but he had totally forgotten to mention two letters written by the chief baron himself, relative to the conduct which had been complained of.
Mr. Wetherell
opposed the going into the committee, as an act that would be useless to the public, and unjust towards the individual accused. The learned gentleman then alluded to the case of the earl of Macclesfield, against whom articles of impeachment were carried up to the Lords. In this case, owing to the form of the hon. gentleman's proposition, such a course could not be adopted. He thought it a great injustice to the learned judge that it should be proposed to leave his character, for the space of eight or nine months, under such an imputation as the entry of these resolutions would cast upon it. On the grounds he bad stated, he was compelled to differ from his right hon. friend as to the steps which the House ought now to take; and, anxious as he was to secure the pure and impartial administration of justice; and desirous as he felt, that every offender in the way that the lord chief baron was said to have offended in, should be severely punished, he could not consent to that House clothing itself with a criminal jurisdiction, even in such a case, if that was to interfere with the criminal jurisdiction, exercised by the courts of law of this country.
Mr. Wynn
would consent to the House going into a committee, not for the exercise of a criminal jurisdiction, but in order that it might act as a grand inquest in the matter. Certain charges, however, had been made against the learned individual in question; and he (Mr. W.) would have preferred that those charges should have been exhibited at their bar, and that the House might then have either decided such charges to be proved or have at once repudiated them. He concurred with those who considered that the learned chief baron had, in fact, been heard once already, by the course he had adopted of writing letters containing a defence of his conduct, and especially by
1425
Mr. Bankes
said, he had not been apprised of the nature of the resolutions.
Mr. S. Rice
observed, that he had always stated, that the preliminary resolutions were resolutions of fact; the final one was one of inference. He would read that and the one by which it was immediately preceded;—"That it is because it has been stated in the reports of the commissioners appointed by this House, and confirmed by a subsequent report, made after a special reference to them by his majesty's government, that the emoluments of the chief baron of Ireland have been increased by the invention of new, and the extension of ancient, fees, on the sole authority of the chief baron himself." A subsequent vote of the House in committee, had confirmed the substance of this resolution. The inferential resolution, which might or might not be agreed to, was to this effect—"That the power of creating and extending fees thus reported by the commissioners of inquiry to have been exercised—if proved to have been exerted in their increase by the lord chief baron, in the manner stated in the reports of these commissioners, at his sole discretion, and he being himself interested therein, is inconsistent with the laws and constitution of this realm."
Mr. Bankes
said, it was quite clear to him that it was impossible to enter on such a matter at that late period of the session. The hon. gentleman then remarked on the peculiar hardship of the chief baron's, case, pending the prosecution of the proposed inquiry. This learned individual was invested with a high judicial office, which there was no power, even in the Crown itself, to prevent him from discharging the duties of, in the interval that must elapse before the investigation could be brought to a close. Was it fit, then, to leave one of the judges of the land under this cloud of suspicion and imputation from the end of one session to the commencement of another? The hon. gentleman then proceeded to show the inexpediency and injustice of entering those resolutions on their Journals at present, though the matter might be taken up at the earliest period of the next session.
1426
The Solicitor General
observed, that one of the grounds adduced for the propriety of entering these resolutions on their Journals was, some extraordinary delay which was supposed to have taken place in the furnishing the House with the report on the matters under inquiry. The hon. and learned gentleman then shortly stated the proceedings of the commissioners of inquiry, from the date of the 9th report down to their final report. He was very averse to entering into this committee at all; not only in consideration of the late period of the session, but looking also to the character of the several reports made by the commissioners. From those reports, it was clear that no charge was, in fact, established against the chief baron. And if so, was it for a committee of that House to record one against him, arising out of the subject matter of those reports? It had been stated in the House and in the resolutions themselves, that the chief baron, in increasing these fees, had acted contrary to the laws of the realm. This was quite incorrect. When lord Erskine was made chancellor, he, by his own fiat, immediately raised the fees of the subordinate officers of his court. Now, though it might be said, that this case of subordinate officers was not the same thing as increasing the judge's salary by a judge himself, the proposed resolution was still most, erroneous. Gentlemen were bound to look at the language of the commissioners' fifth report. They said "that they would not give an opinion whether judges in Ireland could legally increase their own fees and the foes of their own courts;" but they added that, "such a practice had prevailed in Ireland for a hundred years past, during which period such an increase had taken place in the Court of King's Bench and Common Pleas Courts. Was it not cruel, then, to impute to the chief baron corrupt or improper motives; and, if it was only an error of judgment, would it not be still more cruel to record any such resolutions on their Journals? On these grounds he still opposed the going into the committee." If
1427
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the question was, whether they should now stand still, or go back? He thought they had no option but to go into the committee. The House now proposed to give the chief baron an opportunity of knowing what the charges were against him, to which he would have to answer. He would have the benefit of the interval between this and next session for the preparation of his defence, and all the advantage would be with the chief baron, in short. He did feel, however, that this was a case of the most extreme difficulty, insomuch that, if he could with any fairness or justice to the chief baron, he would have said tonight, "I will proceed no further." But, after what had taken place, he was bound in justice, to the chief baron, to see him through the affair. Should the case be, unfortunately, proved, he (Mr. A.) thought the next proceeding ought to be by address, rather than by impeachment.
Mr. Hume
, looking to the 5th report, seeing that precedents for what the chief baron had done were to be found within the last century, and adverting to the smallness of the increase which had taken place in those fees, really thought it impossible to impute to the chief baron any corrupt motives of mere personal emolument. In this feeling, he had himself prepared a resolution to that effect, which resolution, the hon. and learned member for, Peterborough had expressed his approbation of, and which, or something equivalent thereto, he (Mr. H.) did conceive that the House was in strict justice called upon to concur in.
Mr. Goulburn
supported the motion for going into the committee.
The House divided: Ayes 50. Noes 19. The House then went into the committee.
Mr. S. Rice
submitted his first resolution. It was declaratory of the fact, that from the reports of the commissioners of courts of justice in Ireland, and from the report of a committee of the House, it appeared, that the chief baron had received fees in certain departments of his court, to which he was not legally entitled.
1428
The Solicitor General
s.
d.
Mr. S. Rice
had no objection to this amendment, if the learned solicitor would agree to add to it the words which immediately followed them in the report from which they were taken.
The Solicitor General
objected to the addition.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 3, 1823.
GENERAL INDEX TO JOURNALS INGROSSING BILLS.
Mr. Bankes
Mr. Hume
1429
Mr. Bankes
said, there was no affinity between the amendment and the original motion.
Mr. Wynn
said, that the old letter in which the bills were now written out, was more likely to be legible 200 years hence, than the Italian hand in general use at present. The ordinary writing-hand was subject to much variation; the old letter used in the bills would be subject to no variation at all.
Mr. Ricardo
thought the time would hardly come when the common Italian hand now in use would be unintelligible. The change suggested would save considerable expense, and greatly expedite the dispatch of business.
Mr. Hume
said, that if his amendment was opposed, he would withdraw it. The subject, however, seemed to him of so much consequence, that he should give notice of a distinct motion upon it for tomorrow.
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
The order of the day being read, the House resolved itself into a committee on the Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady. After several resolutions of fact had been agreed to,
Mr. Spring Rice
proceeded to move a resolution, that the chief baron had changed the practice with reference to certain fees, by removing the payment of them from the time at which the decrees were pronounced, to the commencement of the suit; the consequence of which had been, that fees on 478 causes had been paid, in 134 of which causes, decrees had not been pronounced.
Mr. S. Rice
then said, that the resolutions now agreed to were resolutions of fact; but as the others were resolutions of inference, and as the right of a judge to increase his own emoluments at his own discretion had been denied, by entertaining the present question at all, he now only wished to have the resolutions already agreed to, inserted on the Journals; and
1430
Mr. Hume
wished to know what course his hon. friend meant to pursue. It would be improper to leave these resolutions as a dead letter upon the Journals. At the same time, he thought this neither a case for an address, for a removal, or for an impeachment. What, then, were they to do? For his own part, although he was not prepared to justify the course taken by the chief baron, yet he was equally unprepared to proceed to any course of ulterior severity. If the chief judge of the Irish Common Pleas (who was upon this question of fees equally culpable) was not to be called to account for his conduct in such matters, with what justice could they proceed in a severe manner against chief baron O'Grady? He concluded by proposing a resolution declaratory of the course already taken by the House, and declining to proceed further, as the case now stood.
Mr. Hutchinson
strongly objected to the course pursued towards the chief baron. They ought not to imply criminality, where they had declined to adopt the only course which could put the subject upon a fair hearing, namely, enabling the individual accused to be heard fully in his defence.
Mr. Wetherell
concurred entirely in the impropriety of adopting a course which implied criminality, where no previous inculpation had been sufficiently established. If a man were attacked in a criminal court, the party prosecuting must proceed with the accusation. Why should parliament adopt a different course? Why should they agree to a series of resolutions which neither pledged the House, nor any individual member of it, to proceed one step further? The resolutions implied criminality; and he could not suffer them to be placed on the Journals, unless a distinct pledge was given that they would, without delay, be followed up. He could not consent to leave the business in the way which was now proposed. It placed the character and conduct of the chief baron in an equivocal light, even with reference to that House; but, out of it, amongst those who had no opportunity of considering the case, these resolutions must be viewed as criminating the chief baron.
Mr. Secretary Canning
was of opinion that those who opposed the present
1431
Captain O'Grady
expressed his anxiety to have a vote on the subject then before parliament, convinced as he was, that that vote would be in perfect accordance with his own feelings. He did not blame those by whom this investigation had been instituted; but he had to complain that this was the third year during which the charge had been preferred; and he begged of gentlemen to look about them, and to ask of their own hearts, whether such a House as was now assembled was a fit one in which to decide this question? He should be sorry that the resolutions should be passed in so thin a House as that. Let the question be brought forward in a full House, and let the conduct of the chief baron be fairly investigated. He was convinced that if due consideration were given to the subject, by such a House as he had alluded to, every shadow of imputation would be removed from his character. It was most unfit that, year
1432
Mr. Lockhart
was of opinion, that when the House took up matters of this kind, they ought to proceed to their immediate determination. They were not upholding their character for justice, by entertaining the same charges year after year.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, if the resolutions were reported, that it would be necessary for the House to express some opinion upon them.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that he had not anxiously pressed on this inquiry; on the contrary, he bad, on more than one occasion, stated that he was ready to postpone it, if a wish to that effect were but breathed by gentlemen concerned in the question. No such wish had been expressed; and therefore he had found himself imperatively pressed to the performance of that duty, which public motives alone had induced him to undertake.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, July 4, 1823.
BEER BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Ellenborough
rose to move the omission of a clause which appeared to him both absurd and unjust; absurd, because it would not attain the end proposed; and unjust, as tending to depreciate the value of capital already invested in the Beer Trade. This new beer was intended as a boon to the public; but, according to the present price of table-beer, the consumers would, in the new beer, have an improvement of one-sixth in quality, for which they were to pay an increase in price of one-third. So that, instead of being advantageous, the public would be paying, at the dearest possible rate for a beer little superior to that which was at present brewed But the clause he particularly objected to, was that which prevented the brewer from brewing the new beer on the same premises which he
1433
Lord Bexley
said, that the object of the bill was, to produce a more palatable and wholesome beverage for general use than could be found at present; and experience had proved, that such an object could not be accomplished unless the present brewers were prohibited from manufacturing it on the same premises in which they conducted their other business. It would also lead to numberless frauds, so that the clause was absolutely indispensable. He hoped that the effect of the present bill would be, to lay the foundation of a better arrangement for the collection of the beer duties, and for determining accurately the proportions, and ascertaining the strength of the liquor.
Lord Dacre
admitted that the object of the bill was good; but expressed his apprehension that by excluding the old brewers, they would defeat their own intention. He thought it would be better to suspend any further proceeding until the next session, when they would have time to inquire more fully into the matter.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that if the brewers of the new beer were allowed to brew it on the same premises as the old, it would lead to endless frauds on the Excise. Indeed, he had been told by an eminent brewer, that the temptation would be so great, that flesh and blood could not withstand it. If permission were given to brew the new beer in the same manufactory with strong beer and ale, the public would never get a good article. The only chance of securing a good and palatable beverage was by insisting that it should be made in separate premises. If they left out this clause, they would throw the beer trade into the hands of the old speculators, who were in general large capitalists.
Lord Ellenborough
conceived this clause to press very hard upon the brewers; and the only consolation he could give them, if it Were carried, was this—that the beer
1434
The bill was then passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, July 4, 1823.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Calcraft
said that finding if he pressed the insertion of the compulsory clause, it might retard the bill, and being desirous to see it in operation, he should forego the intention he had formed of introducing that clause. As he was sure that, in the next session, the bill must be considerably altered, he should postpone until that period, his proposal for adding those provisions which were necessary to complete the measure.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, that having been one of the first to bring the subject of Irish tithes before the Housed he could not resist the opportunity which was afforded him of expressing his exultation at the success of the measure. He thought the country was much indebted to his majesty's ministers, and he hoped that no alterations would be made elsewhere which could have the effect of defeating its wise provisions.
Sir J. Bridges'
objected to the bill in toto. For, what was it? Neither more nor less than an invasion and subversion of the rights of the ecclesiastical establishment, in violent opposition to the opinions of the clergy, who had not been heard. It had been said, that the hierarchy alone were in opposition to the bill; but such was not the case, for the whole diocese of Armagh was, with scarcely an exception, against the measure.
The bill was read a third time.
RECIPROCITY OF DUTIES BILL.]
Mr. C. Grant
moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Robertson
entreated the House to pause before they sanctioned a measure which went to the repeal of the system of navigation laws, Under which this country had been raised to the highest state of commercial and naval pre-eminence. He cited Adam Smith in support of his opinion: and expressed his regret that his arguments should be opposed, with any chance of success, by a new political economists, whose principles he considered decidedly erroneous the landed
1435
Mr. Alderman Thompson
seconded the amendment. If, however, the present subject should be again brought before parliament, and an opportunity given to the ship-owners to state their options on the measure, he would support such inquiry.
Mr. Wallace
said, that the world now pretty well understood that the interests of navigation and commerce were identified, and inseparable. The most whole some policy seemed to be not to benefit one of those great interests as the hon.
1436
1437
1438
Mr. Rumbold
said, that, undoubtedly, the statements of the right hon. gentleman were entitled to consideration; but they Were met by counter-statements on the part of the ship-owners, and he trusted that, in a measure of such importance, the House would pause, in order that the truth might be ascertained. The shipping interest did not require protection; but they protested against an entire alteration of that system which had so long prevailed, and to which our greatness had been so much attributed. In every department, whether of building, fitting, wages, or provisions of seamen, the expense doubled or trebled that of the foreigner. When such was the statement of the ship-owners, it was not too much that the period intervening between this and the next session should be given to the consideration of the measure.
Mr. T. Wilson
opposed the bill, and complained, that the ship-owners had not been allowed an opportunity of stating their case. If that had been done, and refutation had been given to their opinions, he would have supported the bill.
Mr. Hume
supported the bill. The measure could not, he said, place the shipping interest in a worse situation than it was at present, while it promised great advantages to them and to the country generally.
Mr. Bright
was anxious that time should be given, to inquire into the merits of a question of such vital importance, and would, therefore, prefer referring it to a committee.
Mr. Ricardo,
in supporting the bill, said, it was the bounden duty of ministers to place the British, as nearly as possible, upon a footing with the foreign ship-builder.
Mr. Marryat
opposed the bill, and contended that the Navigation laws were the only sure protection of the maritime interests of this county.
Mr. Huskisson
contended, that the period had now arrived, when it would be impossible for Great Britain to continue any longer the system of restrictive duties, without inducing retaliation on the part of foreign countries; the effect of which would be most disastrous to our commercial interests. Something had been said respecting the necessity of re-
1439
l.
Mr. Stuart Worthy
thought that the principles which now began to work in regard to commercial regulations, must ere long be applied to those of agriculture. So many impolitic restrictions called protections being removed from the trade and shipping, it would be impossible to retain, for any considerable time, the protection given to agricultural produce. At any rate, the present enormous rate of the protecting duty on grain could not be long continued, but must be brought nearer to the standard of the European markets.
The House divided: For the motion 75. For the amendment 15. The bill was then passed.
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Thompson, alderman
Dawkins, H.
Wells, J.
Ellison, C.
Wilson, T.
Gordon, hon. W.
Wortley, S.
Innes, I.
Wood, alderman
Mundy, F.
TELLERS.
Manning, W.
Robertson, A.
Rumbold, C. E.
Bright, H.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 7, 1823.
IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.]
The Earl of Liverpool
having moved the order of the day for the committal of this bill,
The Earl of Darnley
wished to know if the noble earl meant to give no explanation of the grounds on which this measure was re-enacted.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had, on a former discussion on the state of Ire-
1440
The Earl of Limerick
said, that connected as he was with Ireland, he must say, that their lordships owed it to that country to pass the present measure; for he could state it, on his own knowledge, that it would be impossible to remain there for a single fortnight, if this or some similar measure were not passed into a law.
The Duke of Leinster
objected strongly to the passing of this bill without previous inquiry, to ascertain the nature and extent of the disturbances in Ireland.
The Earl of Darnley
asked, whether, year after year, this sort of Irish annual mutiny bill was to be passed without any adequate information being laid before parliament? He pledged himself, early in the next session, to bring forward a proposition for a thorough investigation of the causes of the evils by which Ireland was afflicted. On the occasion of the King's visit last year, the most flattering promises of amelioration were held out: but two years of the government of lord Wellesley had elapsed, and the result was, the disappointment of every hope. Under the present system, Ireland could not be much longer governed. A change ought to be made by a redress of grievances, instead of measures of coercion. Under present circumstances, he was not prepared to oppose the further progress of the bill; but he protested against the passing of it as a mere matter of course.
Lord Calthorpe
deeply deplored the necessity of again adopting a measure of this kind. He feared that it was necessary, but it ought to be limited to the necessity. What were deemed in England valuable, civil institutions and privi-
1441
The House then divided: Contents 36 —Not-contents 5. The House then went into a committee on the bill.
Lord Ellenborough
deprecated the system of annually suspending the constitution in Ireland, instead of adopting measures calculated to conciliate the people of that country. He was satisfied that the present bill was more calculated to produce, than to allay irritation; and that until a totally different system was adopted, tranquillity would never be restored to Ireland. The present bill would be a mere nullity, for there was no adequate force to carry it into effect.
The Duke of Wellington
was satisfied, that there was a sufficient force in Ireland to carry the provisions of the bill into effect. The great advantage of the bill was, that it obliged persons to remain in their houses during the night, at which time the outrages in Ireland were usually committed. The military would be ready to aid the magistracy; but it was not necessary to throw upon the military the responsibility and the odium of carrying the bill into effect.
Earl Fitzwilliam
said, he had never given a vote with greater satisfaction than that which he had just given against the commitment of this bill.
1442
The bill went through the committee. On the report being brought up,
Lord Holland
complained, that a measure, which took away from Ireland all the benefit of equal laws and of the constitution, should be brought forward in a shape in which it was impossible to make a single amendment.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the measure had unfortunately been passed in that shape for many years, and that the nature and construction of the bill were well known both to those whose duty it was to carry it into effect, and to those who were subject to its provisions.
The report was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 7, 1823.
CONDUCT OF BARON M'CLELLAND—PETITION OF JOHN QUIN.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he held in his hand a petition from a person of the name of John Quin, a surgeon, of Belfast, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, as it complained of a very great abuse in the administration of justice. He knew nothing personally of the petitioner, or of the facts which his petition related. The member for the county in which the transaction 'was said to have occurred, had, he believed, left this part of the kingdom, and therefore he could not make any inquiry from him with respect to the petitioner or his statement. The language of the petition was, however, perfectly respectful towards the House; and on that ground he felt it to be his duty to present it, without pledging himself in any way whatsoever, and without indulging in any comment that could tend to prejudge the case. If, however, the whole or any particular portion of the petition were founded on fact, it did appear to him to disclose a case which called for the interference of parliament. The petitioner stated, that five years ago he brought an action against a person with whom he happened to have an affray, which action was tried before Mr. Baron M'Clelland and a special jury. A verdict was given against him, and he was taken in execution for the payment of costs. The consequence was, that he was ultimately ruined, and was obliged to take the benefit of the insolvent act; his prospects which before were very fair, having been completely blasted. The charge now made by the petitioner divided itself into two parts. The first was against
1443
distringas
1444
1445
Mr. Secretary Canning
observed, that as the complaint contained in the petition was that of wilful misdirection from the bench, courtesy, he thought, ought to have induced the learned gentleman not to bring forward so grave a charge in a questionable shape. The learned gentleman himself admitted that there appeared to be some mistake in one part of the petition; and certainly with some small inquiry, he might have learned what the real facts of the case were. In his opinion, the best course would be, to withdraw the petition until the learned gentleman could communicate with the parties who were affected by it; and if it were necessary, he might bring it forward hereafter.
Mr. Brougham
said, that this was precisely one of those cases which it would be unfit for him to accompany with any statement. He had refrained from doing so, and the whole responsibility rested with the petitioner. This was precisely the course he had adopted on a former night, when presenting a petition, of the statements in which he personally knew nothing. He was not in such a case bound to make any statement; but, as the petition was respectful towards the House, he thought it right to present it. The present was also just one of those cases in which he thought the petition should
1446
Mr. Goulburn
said, that this was a charge preferred against a judge for wilfully misdirecting a jury; and, before the House received it, they ought to be put in possession of the fact which was contained in the petition itself—that application was made for a new trial before the whole court, and all the judges concurred in thinking there was no ground for granting it. It should also be recollected, that the trial complained of took place five years ago.
Ordered to lie on the table.
PRISONS BILL—FLOGGING.]
On the order of the day for taking into consideration the Lords amendments to this bill,
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, that although the bill had been returned with numerous amendments from the other House, the only one he was disposed to quarrel with was that in which the punishment of flogging had been introduced. The clause inflicting that punishment in the original bill was wisely ejected by that House; but if it were now allowed to become a part of the law, magistrates would resort to nothing but force for the correction of those unfortunate persons confined in gaols, and every parish would have its Dr. Thwackum. For his part, he should never rest till he rescued the people of England from the beastly and barbarous punishment of flogging. Within the last seven years, the number of persons flogged in this country amounted to 6,959. It was but a short time back that two children were flogged in Newgate, and then, with their flesh torn and lacerated, they would have been sent out on the streets to thieve again, if a humane person belonging to the prison had not obtained their admission to a house of refuge. He (Mr. B.) had since visited them, and had drawings made of the state of their backs,
1447
The House divided. For the Amendment 22; against it 36.
List of the Minority.
Attwood, M.
Palmer, J. F.
Bright, H.
Ricardo, D.
Colburn, R.
Rice, T. S.
Coffin, sir I.
Smith, J.
Denman, T.
Tennyson, C.
Griffith, J. W.
Titchfield, marquis
Hamilton, lord A.
Western, C. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilberforce, W.
Hume, J.
Williams, J.
Hutchinson, C. H.
TELLERS.
Jones, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Lushington, Dr.
Monck, C. B.
NEW SOUTH WALES JURISDICTION
On the order of the day for further considering the report of this bill,
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that this was a bill which related to New South Wales, most especially in the light of a British colony; whereas, in its previous measures with respect to this settlement, government had always treated it rather as the destination of certain individuals, who were sentenced on account of particular offences to be transported thither from the mother country. In the commissioner's report that had been lately printed, three places had been particularly designated as proper for the foundation of a new settlement, to be so ordered and governed as to combine the two great and, sometimes, incompatible advantages, of effectuating the objects of the law by the imposition of punishment, and of rendering the services of the individuals so punished useful to themselves and to the state. Of these three places, one in particular, which had already had a partial trial—he meant Norfolk, Island, situated to the north of the colony—was singularly well calculated, from the beauty of its climate, and the fertility of its soil, for the esta-
1448
1449
Mr. Bright
said, that the trial by jury had been always justly considered as one of the proudest marks of freedom. With respect to the colony in question, Mr. Justice Bent had expressly and forcibly recommended that form of trial. It was a great mistake to suppose that the population of New South Wales was not prepared for that form of trial. The colony of New South Wales was not a colony of convicts. There were to be found there many free settlers who had voluntarily embarked their character and their capital; and who, on every principle of justice and policy, were entitled, as free Englishmen, to all the privileges and rights of the constitution. With respect to convicts, many convicts resided in New South Wales, having satisfied the severe penalties of the law, who were at this moment most industrious and valuable members of society, and who were deserving the rights of British subjects. He thought, therefore, that upon every fair view of the situation of the colony, and upon principles of public policy, the trial by jury ought not to be withheld. He thought that the bill professed to settle a variety of objects, too important to be so disposed of at the termination of a session. The trial by jury, as contemplated, was a farce; the Insolvent Court was a system of monstrous absurdity and injustice; and as for the Court of Requests, and the Court of Foreign Attachments, if any necessity for such tribunals existed, their formation might be deferred for another year. The bill was drawn with such an utter contempt of every principle of British jurisprudence, that he doubted whether all the lawyers in the house would ever be able to get it into shape. As for the council given to the colony, what did it amount to? The members were appointed by the Crown; they
1450
Mr. Bennet
said, he took a different view of the bill from that which had been taken by the hon. member for Bristol. He thought that the colony was not yet fit for such an institution as the trial by jury. The number of persons who could be found in New South Wales fit to sit upon a jury was small indeed. The possession of wealth in that country by no means indicated (of necessity) respectability of character; for many of the most opulent and extensive land-holders had acquired their property, even in the colony, by the most dishonest and disgraceful means. According to the report of Mr. Biggs, out of 4,376 remitted convicts in New South Wales, 369 only were living in any degree of respectability upon their means. Even where there were men of great property, they had often acquired it by acts of the grossest swindling. A person who had been transported for an act of robbery on a bank on a large scale had carried with him the property, and was living opulently in the colony. A person who was living with this individual as a servant, had written home, that it was a happy night in which he had committed the robbery for which he was sent there, as he was servant to "Squire Love," who was a gentleman of great opulence and liberality. With such a population, the institution of jury-trial could not turn to good. He remembered that at Turin, he was informed, that though Bonaparte had done a vast deal of good, he had introduced one law, winch had spread terror throughout the country, namely, the examination of witnesses
vivâ voce,
1451
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that the bill bestowed none of the blessings of the British constitution on the inhabitants of New South Wales, with the exception of that simple, summary, cheap, and expeditious system of justice of which they had recently heard so much—the Court of Chancery. The policy which England had adopted towards her colonies had been various at various times. The first and best had been that under which Englishmen carried, wherever they went, the institutions of their native land, and under which colonies, instead of subaltern despotisms, became societies of freemen. All the arguments now used against the extension of trial by jury to New South Wales, might have been applied to the extension of trial by jury to the colony of Virginia at the time of the Revolution. There were many convicts, many slaves, and few persons of considerable property. Yet we saw the beneficial effects of free institutions in Virginia. The next system pursued was, the introduction of absolute power into the colonies, of which ah unhappy example had been given in Canada. Each of these systems was consistent in itself—one in good, the other in evil; but the present experiment wavered between both. He deprecated most strongly the impolicy and injustice of postponing those clauses of the bill, the object of which was to confirm the pardons granted by the governor of the colony, on the ground of the necessity of revising those pardons. The object of those clauses was, to secure the individuals, to whom the pardons were granted, in their persons and possessions, and it was an act of the greatest injustice to postpone the consideration of them to another session.
Mr. Peel
said, that it was impossible that the details of the bill could have been fully considered by ministers, in consequence of the great press of other important business. With respect to the clauses which related to rendering the pardons granted by the governor valid,
1452
Mr. Denman
insisted upon the justice of realizing the hopes held out to all those to whom the governor had granted pardons. He contended against the policy of appointing officers in the army and navy to decide questions, on which property, liberty, and even life might depend. He would give the colonists the advantage of jury-trial as in England. By placing such confidence in the people there, they would be excited to a much greater respect for themselves and the law; than could be looked for while they were deemed unworthy to be intrusted with so valuable a privilege.
List of the Minority.
Attwood, M.
Monck, J. B.
Bright, H.
Maberly, J.
Bailie, J.
Money, W. G.
Bennet, hon. G.
Marjoribanks, S.
Coffin, sir I.
Palmer, C. F.
Denman, T.
Robinson, sir G.
Forbes, C.
Ricardo, D.
Fremantle, W. H.
Rice, T. S.
Gurney, Hudson
Smith, R.
Gilbert, D.
Smith, J.
Heber, R.
Scarlett, J.
Hume, J.
Taylor, M. A.
Hutchinson, C.
Tremayne, J. H.
Hart, G.
Wilberforce, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLER.
Lester, B.
Mackintosh, sir J.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, July 8, 1823.
IRISH TITHES COMMUTATION BILL.]
The Earl of Liverpool
rose to move the second reading of this bill—a measure of the utmost importance in itself, but of peculiar interest when considered in re-
1453
1454
The Marquis of Lansdown
thought, that the principle of the bill should be reciprocity of advantage between the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer; and would suggest, therefore, that as the commissioners had power when they saw good, to add 20 per cent to the receipt of the clergyman, so they should have power, in such other cases as to them seemed fit, to diminish that receipt by 20 per, cent. He objected also to the principle upon, which the average had been formed. To take an average of seven years prior to the year 1821, was to throw, in five years of the high prices which, existed previous to the passing of Mr. Peel's bill; and, to construct a system which was to apply under the resumed cash payments upon an average formed out of prices which had maintained under a paper currency, seemed Unfair and absurd. Another important objection to the bill was, its effect upon the, land of agistment. At present the holder of agistment land paid no tithe whatever; but, under the new regulation of payment by parishes, his privilege would
1455
The Earl of Harrowby
replied to the two principal objections to the noble marquis. The first was, the power given to the commissioners of increasing the tithe a fifth beyond the average. It should be considered, that no clergyman in Ireland had ever received all he had a right to. In most cases, the clergy did not receive half their right; in some cases, scarcely any. It was to provide against these last cases that the discretionary power in question was given to the commissioners. With respect to the holders of agistment lands, he admitted that there might be hardship in some of their cases; but the objects of the bill could not be carried into effect, without their consent in the vestries, in common with that of others. And if, after their tithes were fixed, they should break up their lands for the culture of corn, it would not subject them to any greater payment to the church. But the present was not a question to be tried by mere pounds, shillings, and pence. If the bill were worth any thing, it was worth what gold could never buy. Its effect would be, to remove some of the most galling circumstances in the situation of Ireland. He was not more sanguine than the noble marquis with regard to any rapid effect to be expected from it; for no measure but a compulsory one could have such an effect. It was better, however, to endeavour to obtain the object, although slowly, yet by the voluntary acquiescence of the people, rather than resort to more violent measures; which, however, he was ready to admit must be adopted should all conciliatory proceedings fail. He regarded the measure for commuting tithes in Ireland with the same favour as the noble marquis did; but he could not see any prejudicial consequence from its postponement until the next
1456
The Earl of Carnarvon
was persuaded that no relief could be derived by Ireland from any measure that did not go much further, than the bill before the House. They must either get rid of tithes, or they would get rid of Ireland, It was natural that, in a country in which there was one religion for the rich and another for the poor, one interest for the priest and another for the congregation, such a tax as tithes, irksome even in this country, would become doubly so. It was a hardship upon the agistment owner, that this was not only a strong, but a partial measure, as it affected his interests, from the commencement of its operation. He approved of the general spirit in which the bill had been framed; but he feared there were many parts of it which would tend to counteract that spirit, and intercept the benefit which might otherwise have been expected to result from it.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he did not feel the slightest objection to the present measure. The compulsory clause had been withdrawn, and it was not necessary, therefore, to consider the expediency of introducing such a clause. He wished to make one observation, on a very erroneous opinion which had prevailed with regard to the nature of tithe. Tithe had been called a tax upon the land; but it could in no respect be considered a tax upon the land, for the tithe-owner was as much the owner of a tenth part of the produce, as the land-owner was of the other nine-tenths.
Lord Clifden
complained of the tithe system in Ireland, as pressing with peculiar hardship upon the impoverished classes of the community. He believed that no benefit would result from the present bill without the introduction of a compulsory clause.
The bill was read a second time,
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 8, 1823.
NEW SOUTH WALES.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
rose to present a Petition from the body of the emancipated colonists of New South Wales, complaining of certain disabilities to which they had been subjected by the courts of law in that territory, and from which, they had hoped to be relieved by the bill before the House, for
1457
l.
lâches,
1458
Ordered to lie on the table.
DISTILLERIES BILL.]
Mr. W. Smith,
understanding that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to add, upon the third reading of this bill, a clause relative to the Scotch distillers, begged to inform him that he had a petition against that clause from the English distillers, who prayed to be heard at the bar by their counsel.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was aware of the regulations and the clause to which the hon. member alluded. The object of the present hill was solely to establish the uniformity of practice in Ireland and Scotland, with respect to the regulations and collection of the duty. It would have been desirable to assimilate, as much as possible, that practice to the English; but although the committee had made some suggestions on the subject, the report had not been received, until it was too late to adopt them. By the present law, a Scotch distiller wishing to avail himself of the advantage of the English market, was obliged to give twelve months' notice; during the whole of which period his still must be idle. Now, he could not admit the justice of this law with respect to the Scotch distiller; but as it was clear that the interest of the English distillers would be materially affected by the clause which he had intended to propose, he did not see how the House could refuse to hear them by counsel if they wished. He saw, however, that this would delay the bill so long, that it might endanger its passing in the present session, and rather than
1459
Lord A. Hamilton,
although he was bound to admire the right hon. gentleman's candour, could not approve of his determination to withdraw the clause.
Mr. R. Douglas
supported the introduction of the clause.
Tne Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in withdrawing the clause referred to, pledged himself that, next session, he would submit tot he House a measure to regulate the intercourse in spirits between the three kingdoms, upon a more equitable and intelligible principle than that now existing.
Mr. Hutchinson,
in delivering his sentiments the bill before the house, took the opportunity of alluding to a petition when had been presented on the part of the Irish brewers, in which they stated, that it had always been the anxious desire of the Irish parliament to encourage the consumption of malt liquor; and entered into a detail, to prove the propriety of encouraging that manufacture, and the injurious consequences of any measure tending to check it. Now, if the right hon. gentleman persisted in the present bill, it was but fair to give the Irish brewers some protection. The bill, as it respected Ireland, introduced two very important alterations; one was, the reduction of the duty; the other, the permission to work small stills. In his opinion, the reduction of the duty was a measure of a very doubtful character; and, as to the permission to make use of small stills, it was, with reference to Ireland, a perfectly revolutionary measure. Heretofore, the principle acted on was, to encourage large stills, and the consequent employment of extensive capital. Now, however, it was proposed to put small stills in competition with the large ones; and the probability would be, that, in proportion as the small stills were brought into action, those of a larger description would be injured, and persons who had vested their fortunes in property of that description would suffer severly. The right hon. gentleman had given nonce, that he would, in the ensuing summery give his most serious attention to the whole of the distillery system, for the purpose of simplifying it; and an hon. member had declared, that the British distillers were anxious for an investigation of the subject. He knew not what was intended to be done; the whole
1460
Colonel Trench
said, the measure now under consideration was not founded on the principle of balancing the interests of Scotland against those of Ireland. For the first time, the whole question had been put on a proper and fair footing by the right hon. gentleman. He was convinced that, if the licensing of small stills was pushed still further, the result would be most beneficial. The army would not be demoralized, as they now were, in consequence of their being continually employed in what was called, "still-hunting."
The bill was then read the third time;
Mr. Herries
stated, that there were several clauses about to be brought which would be added as riders to the bill.
Mr. S. Rise
thought the whole proceeding of the gentlemen opposite was open to much objection. The measure now before the House would lead to collision of interests. It was a bill of detail; and yet there were not three members of that House who had had ah opportunity of knowing whether it was just or unjust. After excuses from gentlemen opposite, for the lateness of the period at which it was brought forward, and complaints from those who were interested in it, on the
1461
Mr. Wallace
said, the opposition which the hon. member threatened to the new clauses was but an indifferent reward for the anxiety which government had manifested to meet the wishes of all parties. The question had been discussed with those who were most affected by the bill, and there was not a clause which was not founded on the suggestion of the parties themselves. To the landed gentlemen of Ireland and of Scotland, government looked for the success of this measure: and if they afforded it support, he believed the bill would accomplish all the objects which those who framed it promised to themselves.
COLLECTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF
Mr. Hume
said, that in what he was about to state, upon introducing some resolutions relative to the collection of the Land-tax, it was not his intention to occupy much of their time; but having devoted much labour and attention to the consideration of the manner in which this, tax had been long collected, he could not allow the session to pass without taking the opportunity of calling the attention of government to its serious importance. Ever since he had been induced to call on parliament to institute an inquiry into the extensive subject of the receiveres-general and their offices, he had felt convinced that the mode in which the land-tax was raised in this country imposed a considerable expense on the public, and a needless loss upon some classes of the community. From what passed on the occasion, to which he had just adverted, he did indulge a hope that the Chancellor
1462
1463
1464
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
1465
l.
l.
l.
1466
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.;
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
1467
"1. That, by various returns presented to this House, during the last and present session of parliament, it appears, that the land-tax of England and Wales, made perpetual by the act of 38 Geo. 3rd, c. 60, was fixed at 1,989,673
l.:
l.,
l.
2. "That from the period of passing the act of 38 Geo. 3rd, c. 60, to the 5th of January, 1822, the sum of 692,613
l.
l.
3. "That these returns show an actual reduction between the amount received in. the years 1821 and 1798, in the annual amount of land-tax, of 755,505
l.,
l.,
l.
4. "That out of the 701,414
l.
l.
1468
l.;
l.
l.:
l.
l.,
l.
Years ending.
Amount redcemed in each year.
Amount exonerated in each year.
Total redcemed and exfonerated.
Leaving the amount un redcemed and receivable in each year.
Amount which has been accounted for. (vide no. 240)
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Dec.1813
6,793
146
6,944
1,321,822
1,272,257
1814
9,459
1,124
10,583
1,311,239
1,261,020
1815
4,835
122
4,957
1,306,282
1,166,164
1816
3,452
ֵ
3,452
1,302,830
1,203,510
1817
3,014
221
3,235
1,299,595
1,210,217
1818
3,900
379
4,279
1,295,116
1,240,535
1819
2,633
167
2,800
1,292,516
1,229,536
1820
2,008
ֵ
2,098
1,290,418
1,163,383
1821
2,155
4
2,159
1,288,259
1,234,168
Total
33,334
2,163
40,507
11,708,277
10,580,589
Amount accounted for
10,980,589
£80,955 per ann. average.
Difference of defalcation
728,688
5. "That, in addition to the defalcation exhibited in the preceding resolutions, it appears, that the expenses incurred under the before-mentioned acts, for the redemption and exoneration of the land-tax, have amounted to the enormous sum of 388,945
l.
l.
l.
l.
6. "That, in addition to the expenses; incurred, as stated in the preceding resolution, there further appears, at page 204 of, the finance accounts, for the year ending the 5th of January, 1811, the following item: viz. 'To the commissioners, for the redemption of land-tax, &c. by ecclesiastical and corporate bodies,' a charge of 12,000
l.;
1469
7. "That, by a return made to parliament this session, it appears that there has been paid into the receipt of the Exchequer by the receivers-general of land-tax, on account of interest on instalment considerations, and other payments deferred, since the passing of the act of the 38th of Geo. 3rd. c. 60, to the 5th of January, 1823, the sum of 211,547
l.;
l.
8. "That whilst in the nine years from the 5th of January, 1813, to the 5th of January, 1822, the total amount of tax redeemed and exonerated has been only 40,507
l.
l.
l.
9. "That although the amount exonerated under the direction of the com missioners for the redemption and exoneration of church and corporation lands in the year 1820, was only 3
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.,
On the first resolution being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that having been favoured with a sight of the resolutions, he did not expect that their discussion could have called for such observations as those in which the hon. member had indulged, with respect to the disbursements made by the commissioners of land-tax out of the public money. If there were any such as he had mentioned, no doubt it was wrong; but the hon. member must be aware that those commissioners were appointed by act of parliament, and were hot under the control of the Treasury. It could not, therefore, be expected that government could be prepared to answer upon those points, Leaving them, them, he would come to the resolutions; and he trusted, that in a few words he should show that they ought
1470
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1471
Mr. Maberly,
after suggesting to his hon. friend to withdraw the resolutions as they were founded on an erroneous assumption, observed, that if those commissioners were not under the control of the Treasury, it was high time that they should be, or that the House should take the subject into its own hands. He was of opinion, that the best way would be to leave the subject to his majesty's ministers, who were the fittest to examine into it; but, if something was not done in it early in the next session, he hoped his hon. friend would bring it again before the notice of the House.
Mr. Hume
said, that as his object had been for the present answered, by calling the attention of ministers to the subject, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his resolutions.
The resolutions were accordingly with drawn.
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
Mr. Brogden
reported the resolutions of the Committee of the whole House on the conduct of the Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer. The said Resolutions are as fallows:
1. "That, in consequence of an address from the House of Commons, his late majesty was graciously pleased to issue a commission under the great seal for examining the salaries, duties, and emoluments of the several officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, within that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; and that the commissioners so appointed have laid before parliament eleven several reports, founded on the examination of the parties, as well as on evidence taken on oath, the ninth and eleventh of which reports relate to the judicial fees of the court of Exchequer in Ireland; that, on the faith of the reports of the commissioners so appointed the legislature has acted, regulating some offices, abolishing others, and introducing a new system of proceeding in the courts of King's-bench, Common Pleas, and the common-law side of the Exchequer."
2. "That the office of lord chief baron of Ireland is an office of the highest dignity and importance, on the impartial and uncorrupt execution whereof the honour of the Crown and welfare of the realm greatly depend."
3. "That the right hon. Standish O'Grady was appointed lord chief baron of his majesty's court of Exchequer in Ireland in the month of October 1805,
1472
l.
4. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that by art alteration of practice introduced by the present lord chief baron, fees are now received for his lordship's use on bills of costs on the law side of the Exchequer, in cases where the bills of costs are not and never were made out; that a select committee having considered the statement of the commissioners, and the evidence taken on oath before them as aforesaid, together with the reply of the lord chief baron, and having reported thereon to the House, and the said report, together with the reply of the lord chief baron, having been referred by his majesty's government to the said commissioners, the said commissioners, after a further examination of the lord chief baron and of other witnesses on oath, have again reported, that by the alteration of practice introduced by the present chief baron, fees have been received for him on bills of costs in cases where no bills of costs existed; and that it is further stated in the report from the select committee on the eleventh report of the commissioners of inquiry, that the direction of the chief baron, as slated by Mr. Pollock, to whom it was personally given, that the fee of 2
s.
d.
5. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that, in pursuance of an order made by the present lord chief baron, fees have been received as for his lordship's signature to a description of writs, on which, previously to the year 1805, no fees have been charged; that, notwithstanding such charge, these writs still remain without signature, except in
1473
6. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that, pursuant to an order made by the present lord chief baron, certain fees, which had, previously to such order, been accustomed to be received for the said lord chief baron in Irish currency, has been subsequently charged in British currency, whereby the amount of such fees has been augmented 8¼ per centum."
7. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report that an ancient fee is payable to the said lord chief baron on perusing and signing every decree, and a like ancient fee, of the same amount, for every exemplification of a decree (not under the four seals), but that no other fee is payable to the lord chief baron, in respect of any decree, or any copy thereof."
8. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that, pursuant to an order made by the present lord chief baron, the ancient fees so payable on perusing and signing a decree, has been collected on the previous proceeding of setting down the cause for hearing, notwithstanding which, a like fee was again demanded and paid to the lord chief baron on making up the decrees, although one only of such decrees appears to have been exemplified; that a select committee having considered the statement of the said commissioners, the evidence taken on oath before the said commissioners, and the reply of the lord chief baron, and having reported to this House, and these several reports having been referred by his majesty's government to the said commissioners, they have, after further examination of the lord chief baron, and of other witnesses on oath, reported to this House, that the distinction between exemplifications and copies had been understood and maintained in the court of Exchequer, and that previously to the appointment of the present lord chief baron the fee upon signing a decree had been the only fee accruing to the lord chief baron upon the passing of a decree."
9. "That the said reports of the commissioners of inquiry, so founded upon evidence taken on oath, and upon the
1474
On the motion for agreeing to the first resolution,
The Solicitor General
expressed his conviction that no corrupt motive could be attributed to the learned judge. If the resolutions, however, were agreed to, and placed on their Journals, they would imply, a censure on him, unless followed up with some such resolution as the one which he had prepared, without concert with any body, and which he would now move: viz. "That it does not appear to this House that there are sufficient grounds to ascribe the alteration stated to have been, made by the chief baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, in the fees of his court, to any improper motive on the part of that judge."
Mr. Canning
would not express any opinion on the resolution proposed by his hon. and learned friend. He would rather wish the hon. member for Limerick would propose a resolution.
Mr. S. Rice
declared that he should have been willing to have followed up the resolutions of fact, by a resolution expressive of the opinion of the House; but from that course he had been deterred by what he understood to be the opinion of a great number of gentlemen.
Mr. Hume
said, that the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman certainly was not consonant to the understanding which had been come to on the subject.
Dr. Lushington
said, he was completely taken by surprise by the hon. and learned gentleman coming down at that hour, and moving a resolution, which was in fact decisive of the whole question.
Mr. Scarlett
said, he was strongly inclined to concur in the substance of his hon. and learned friend's resolution. He certainly did not believe that the conduct: of the learned judge in question was imputable to corrupt motives. He suggested, however, that it might be expedient to word a resolution to the following effect:—"that it appears by the fifth report of the commissioners, that for the last 100 years a discretionary power has been
1475
Mr. Daly
was of opinion, that the hon. member for Limerick could not justly complain of being taken by surprise.
Mr. W. Courtenay
never understood-that the delay in passing a resolution of opinion, grounded on resolutions of fact, was to be the delay of a session. It might, however, be expedient to adjourn the discussion.
Mr. S. Rice
said, it had been distinctly understood, that the object of confining his resolutions to mere matters of fact, was to give the chief baron fair parliamentary notice of what was going on, that he might be prepared to explain, and defend his conduct. Now, however, it was suddenly proposed to agree to an exculpatory resolution.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the question on which he was called upon to decide was not, whether the chief baron was guilty or innocent, but whether he should be put on his trial or not. He was for not putting him on his trial.
Colonel Barry
wished the hon. and learned member for Peterborough would adopt the precise words of the report of the commissioners.
Mr. Scarlett
consented to do so, and observed, that the early part of his resolution would then be to the following effect, "That it is stated in the fifth report of the commissioners, that it is not their province to discuss 'how far, or within, what limits, the judges of the superior courts of law, are authorized to establish new or increased fees for their own services;' 'but that it will be, seen, from the table subjoined (to their report), that a discretion of this nature has, in fact, been exercised to a considerable extent at some period or periods within the last one hundred years; and that, during the time of the present chief justice of the Common Pleas, such an exercise of judicial authority appears to have occurred in three instances.
Captain O'Grady
said, he should be perfectly satisfied with the resolu-
1476
The nine resolutions of the committee were agreed to, and the debate on the resolution proposed by Mr. Scarlett was adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, July 9, 1823.
ENGLISH CATHOLICS ELECTIVE FRANCHISE BILL.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that there were two bills before the House for the relief of the Catholics of England, by placing them nearly on the same footing as the Catholics of Ireland. It was for the purpose of moving for the second reading of the first of those bills, namely, "a bill to repeal so much of the statute of William 3rd, as related to the administration of the oath of supremacy to persons voting at elections of members of parliament," that he now addressed their lordships. The greatest difficulty he experienced was in anticipating on what possible ground this measure could be opposed. It was necessary that their opponents should establish, either that Mr. Pitt and the Protestant government and parliament of 1793 were in error, when they admitted the Irish Roman Catholics to the enjoyment of the elective franchise, and to the eventual enjoyment of certain civil offices, or that circumstances attached to the Catholics of England which did not attach to the Catholics of Ireland, and which rendered the former incapable and unfit to enjoy those constitutional privileges which had been with propriety and safety communicated to the latter.—In reply to the latter objection, if it were made, he would ask whether, on the most deliberate view that could be taken of the condition and history of the Catholics of England, and of their uniform good conduct and peaceable demeanour, any thing appeared which could justify parliament in withholding the invaluable privilege of being represented in parliament, so necessary to the security of the British subject, and without which the British constitution could scarcely be called a blessing? He really
1477
1478
Lord Redesdale
opposed the motion. To give the elective franchise was, he said, to give political power. The consequence of granting the Irish Catholics the elective franchise had been the creation of two interests at every election, Protestant and Catholic, in violent hostility to each other. He could never consent to any measure which had a tendency to overturn that Protestant establishment which every loyal subject was bound to maintain. Nothing should induce him to risk the sacrifice of a single point which he thought went to the conservation of that establishment. Let their lordships look at the preamble of the statute of William, which it was sought by this bill to repeal. The necessity of that statute, as a security to the Protestant establishment, was there unequivocally declared. In his opinion, the necessity was as great in the present, day as in the time of king William. As to the oath of supremacy, he denied that, by any existing law, it was distinctly enacted that that oath should be remitted to the Catholics of Ireland. The noble lord concluded by moving, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
The Earl of Westmorland
said, it was with great satisfaction that he saw the claims of the Roman Catholics of England brought before parliament, divested of all considerations connected with Irish politics and Irish party. The excellent conduct of that body, during so long a period, entitled them to every concession which could be extended to them, consistently with the safety of the constitution. There was no argument which could be urged in favour of granting those privileges which had already been conceded to the Catholics of Ireland, which did not apply with double force to
1479
The Bishop of Norwich
said, that the general question involved in the bills now before the House had been so frequently discussed, that it would require little short of inspiration to suggest any new arguments in support of the propriety of concession, or even to give a new colouring to the arguments which had been already employed. Much as this question had been discussed, the result had not been such as might have been reasonably hoped for, from the liberal and enlightened spirit of the age; from the progress of intelligence in every part of the united kingdom; and from the more extensive diffusion of the mild and tolerant principles of Christianity, by means of various religious institutions, and especially the bible societies. It could not but be highly gratifying to every generous mind, to observe that those prejudices which once existed with regard to the unwise and unjust restrictions on our Catholic brethren bad been thrown off in every quarter, except in that quarter alone where they ought least to exist—because this was not a religious but a political question, and as such came rather within the province of statesmen than of divines. He should not, indeed, have presumed to trespass upon their lordships attention, if he had not felt himself called upon to embrace the present opportunity—the last, probably, which at his age he could expect to have—of protesting most strengly, in his own name,
1480
1481
1482
The Bishop of St David's
said:—My lords, on the subject of the bills now before the House, it is my misfortune to differ so widely from my right reverend brother who spoke last; and I am so far from thinking it illiberal and uncharitable
1483
1484
1485
The Lord Chancellor
said, he could never be induced to give his consent to these concessions, unless he were satisfied that they could be granted consistently with the interests of the public. He had long had the happiness of knowing the right reverend lord opposite (bishop of Norwich), and no man could entertain a higher respect for him than he did; but he could not understand how that right rev. lord could reconcile with his duty, the sentiments which he had uttered that night. He was so far from agreeing with the right rev. lord, that the opposition to the Catholic claims had diminished in this country, that he was satisfied it had greatly increased within a recent period. He would not impute to the parties who had brought in these bills, that they had intentionally introduced them at a period of the session when it was impossible that they could be fully discussed, but certainly, if he had been a friend to those claims, he should have avoided bringing them forward at such a time. Such a proceeding was not consistent with the dignity of the House; and, if it were for that reason alone, he should vote that these bills be read a second time that day three months. If, however, their lordships should think differently, it might be necessary to call their attention to the nature of these bills. They were, in fact, one of the most extraordinary pieces of legislation he had yet seen. If it was meant to absolve Roman Cotholics from taking the oath of supremacy, why was not this stated in the preamble of the bill? If it was meant to weaken the prerogatives of the Crown, which he would never consent to do, by liberating Roman Catholics from taking the oath of supremacy, why was this not recited in the preamble? He would never admit that any man could be said to bear a true and faithful allegiance, who denied the supremacy of the Crown. If these bills were brought forward at a proper period of the next session, he had no objection to their discussion; but he could never give his consent to a measure of so much importance, at a period when it was impossible that it could be fully debated. When it was proposed to repeal the 7th and 8th of William III., it was not considered that other acts of parliament must be repealed, before that repeal could take effect. The right rev. prelate had culled the Revolution an innovation. It was the first time he had ever
1486
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that the bill of which his noble and learned friend chose to complain, had been for two or three months before the other house, of parliament; and the pressure of business there was the only cause that it had not come earlier before their lordships. He would admit with the learned lord (Redesdale), that the act of the Irish parliament in 1793, in not limiting the grant of the elective franchise to the higher order of the Catholics, had been productive of many of the evils under which Ireland at this day laboured. The effect of the general admission of all the small freer holders to that privilege, had been the great subdivision of land into very small portions, so as to give votes; and that had caused much distress and great immorality amongst the lower classes. He did not, however, object to granting this class of persons the elective franchise as Roman Catholics: but he objected to it, because the great portion of them were paupers, and because it gave political influence without property; which was liable, under such circumstances, to great abuse. But, could the same objection be
1487
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he would give his support to the bill for granting the elective franchise to Roman Catholics in England, but he would object to the bill, respecting the eligibility of English Roman Catholics to certain offices,—at least, to its further progress at present, and in the particular shape in which it was introduced. The noble lord went on to contend, that the present was a question which must be viewed on its own grounds. Without going into the merits of what had been already granted to the Catholics, in Ireland, he would say, that we could not now without an imperious necessity, undo what had been done by the Irish parliament in that respect; he would, however, contend, that there was
1488
Lord Melville
said, he would support the first bill, taking it for granted that it would not extend to Scotland. With respect to the second bill, he cordially admitted its principle; but if it went into a committee, he would move a clause to prevent its application to Scotland. His object was to prevent what he considered a breach of the articles of Union.
The Marquis of Lansdown
, in reply, said, he would consent to defer the second
1489
The Earl of Liverpool
wished his objection to the second bill to be distinctly understood. He did not object to its principle, but to its not specifying the particular offices to which the Catholics were to be made eligible.
The House divided: Contents 43. Proxies 30–73. Not-contents 41, Proxies 39–80. Majority against the bill 7.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Lord Clifden
The Earl of Liverpool
, although he believed that ultimately it would be necessary to add a compulsory clause to the bill, was of opinion, that more advantage would result from trying it as a voluntary measure in the first instance.
Lord King
said, that without the introduction of a compulsory clause the bill would be nugatory. That the reverend lords opposite well knew. To get rid of the tithes in Ireland was, in his opinion, the best means of affording Ireland relief. The church of Ireland was a principal cause of
1490
Lord Ellenborough
thought that the bill would be less exceptionable if the compulsory clause were introduced, than it was in its present form; but still he would not vote for it, because the measure was not what the people of Ireland required. They wanted a bill for the commutation of tithes, and not one for the composition.
Lord Holland
felt himself called upon to state the grounds upon which he intended to vote for, or rather the reasons which would induce him not to vote against, the motion for going into a committee. The learned ford on the wool-
1491
salus populi
sine viribus infuns!
1492
The Earl of Liverpool
had no hesitation in saying, that a compulsory measure was necessary; but it was also necessary first to know what was exactly meant by compulsion. To fair and equitable compulsion he had no objection. It had formed a part of the former bill, and had
1493
The House then divided: For the motion 11. Against it 34. The bill then went through the committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, July 9, 1823.
PENITENTIARY AT MILLBANK.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that in consequence of the sickness which prevailed in the Penitentiary, it would be desirable to confer upon the governors of the institution the power of a temporary removal of the sick prisoners to places where their recovery was likely to be facilitated. He hoped that, under the circumstances, the House, even at that late period of the session, would not object to allow him to bring in a bill for conferring a power of removal similar to that which was possessed with respect to persons confined in the Hulks. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill, to authorize the temporary removal of convicts from the General Penitentiary.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
expressed his approbation of the motion, as in all cases of illness change of air was advised. He denied that there was arty ground for the prejudice that the Penitentiary was un-wholesome on account of its vicinity to the river, for it was am historical fact, that in times when the plague prevailed, those
1494
Mr. Hotford
agreed that the situation was by no means unhealthy, and that the sickness was not connected with the local circumstances of the prison.
Mr. Peel
added, that there was no ground, for supposing that the disease lately prevailing in the Penitentiary was owing to its local situation.—Leave given.
BEER BILL.]
Mr. Brougham
rose for the purpose of moving, that the order for the committal of the Retail Beer Bill be discharged indefinitely. He observed particularly upon the strong opposition which this bill had met with from the brewers whom it was intended to aid, and from the landed interest, whose distresses it would most importantly alleviate. Because, however wheat had risen, he had been abandoned by the latter, and left to struggle against all the influence of the former. He hoped that both parties would know their interests better next session. He should always be at their service, and should be ready to moot the subject again, whenever they should support him; but unaided, he should not be disposed to make any exertion on behalf of parties who seemed so blind and indifferent. His measure for Educating the Poor had met with precisely the same fate. The bills were drawn, printed, and even the blanks filled up, and might be introduced again at any time. He had spent days and nights in perfecting the measure; and because it was beneficial generally, but offered no increase of emolument to any one party in particular, he had been compelled to abandon it.
Mr. Western
said, that if the hon. gentleman had persisted, he should have given the bill his support. He complained that, in the taxes repealed this session, there had been an entire forgetfulness of the peculiar distresses of the landed interest. It had been his intention to have moved for a considerable reduction of the malt-duty, but he had been prevented by circumstances; and he now gave notice, that early next year, he would submit a motion for reducing the malt tax to the amount imposed prior to the last war.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that he was assured his hon. and learned friend had not read the returns made to the House, of the number of public houses in England. The number in London was 4,142; in the country, 43,919; making together 48,061.
1495
l
s.;
s.
l.
1496
s.
s.
d.
The order for the commitment of the bill was then discharged.
JURORS QUALIFICATION BILL.]
On the order of the day for further considering the report of the committee on this bill,
Mr. Western
Mr. Peel
said, that he had requested the hon. member to postpone the bill, not because he felt a decided objection to its principle, but because so important a measure required more deliberate consideration. He agreed with the hon. member, that a more frequent deliverance of gaols was, as a principle, a good one, but there were difficulties in the way of the details of such a measure, which he had not been able to overcome. He thought there might be an addition to the number of judges, as he saw no charm in the number of judges, unless its antiquity. He believed sixteen would be a more efficient number than twelve. He allowed that great advantage, had been derived to the public from the appointment of a third assize upon the Home circuit, but he doubted whether an additional assize
1497
Mr. M. A. Taylor
did not approve of a third assize, and felt sure that it would be very objectionable to those who formed the juries in the several circuits. Two assizes were quite sufficient. If the labours of the Bench were more than could be reasonably expected from the judges, they ought to appoint others to relieve them, upon those circuits where the extraordinary business might require it. There was one officer who might be immediately put upon that duty. He meant the Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer. It was true that the worthy gentleman who held that office was advanced in years; but it would be well to take care, when his successor should be appointed, to select a person who might furnish the required assistance.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that when government directed a second assize to be held through the northern circuit, they ought to have taken care to provide the additional expenses to which they had subjected the judges.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, he could take none of that blame upon himself, for he had done all that was in his power for the accommodation of the judges. He had not only done so in his own county, but at the request of lord Sidmouth, he had waited on the bishop of Durham, and asked his lordship if he would have any objection to take in the judges at the Castle in the winter, the same as he had done hitherto on the spring assizes. That right reverend person told him in plain terms, that he would not take them in, and requested him to entreat the lord chancellor to select younger judges for the circuit, alleging the great inconvenience as to the attendance and means of accommodation from the visits of the old judges. He had talked over the subject of these additional expenses with Mr. Justice Park, and had strongly advised an application from the judges themselves upon the subject. Mr. Justice Park had said, that he would have nothings to do with it. The rest of his learned brethren were at liberty to apply if they pleased, but as he possessed property enough for an independence without it, he would continue to bear his own expenses.
Mr. Peel
said, that the only objection he had to make to the statement of the hon. member was, that the accounts of extraordinary expenses of the judges going
1498
Mr. Brougham
, in corroboration of the statement or his hon. friend near him, said that the very reverend prelate in question had been quite as good as his word. The judges were allowed to come, but it was at their peril. His reverend lordship would have nothing to do with the expense of their entertainment. He took them into the castle but that was all. He thought the least that could be done wag to relieve the judges from any additional expense which might be imposed upon them, in consequence of their labours being thus increased.
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE COUNTRY.]
Colonel Palmer
, on rising to make his promised motion, began with stating, that the motive which had urged him to address the House, was a conviction of the danger of the country, arising out of the conduct of the government with respect to Spain, and the language of the late address to his majesty upon the subject. He might naturally be asked, considering the protracted debate upon that question, the reason of his not having stated his opinion at the time; and confessed that his reluctance to obtrude himself upon the attention of the House, joined to the expectation that the same opinion would have been felt and expressed by others more worthy their attention, had prevented him in the early stage of that discussion, but that, he had repeatedly endeavoured to address the House upon the last night of the debate. Having then failed in such endeavour, and the question being equally, if not more important to the country at the present moment, he would take the liberty of stating the different view which he had taken of it, from that of every horn member who had hitherto spoken upon the subjects It appeared to him, that truth and sincerity were as necessary to the honour and interests of a nation at of an individual; and upon this ground he contended, that the late address should have openly expressed the indignation of the House at the conduct of France and the allied powers; because, by not expressing it, the nation was exposed to the charge of not feeling, or not daring to avow it. He also contended, that the address should as openly have stated, that inability of the country to render Spain assistance was the
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
The motion, which was seconded by Mr. Hume, was negatived without a division.
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
On the order of the day, for resuming the adjourned debate on Mr. Scarlett's motion, "That it is stated in the Fifth Report of the Commissioners, that it is not their province to discuss 'how far, or within what limits, the judges of the superior courts of law are authorised to establish new or increased fees for their own services;' 'but that it will be seen, from the table subjoined (to their report), that a discretion of this nature has, in fact, been exercised to a considerable extent at some period or periods within the last one hundred years; and that, during the time of the present chief justice of the Common Pleas, such ad exercise of judicial authority appears to have occurred in three instances'"
Mr. Goulburn
Mr. S. Rice
said, that certainly the mode proposed by his learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) was the most convenient and expeditious way of getting rid of the question altogether; and he would leave, it to those who advised such a course, and who were willing that judges should, exercise the power which was censured by the commissioners in their report, to take the whole responsibility of the proceeding on themselves. He should move, as an amendment to the resolution of his learned friend, to add thereto the following words; "but that it is not stated in
1507
Mr. Scarlett
opposed the amendment, on the ground that it went to add a sting to the resolution, which the circumstances of the case did not justify.
The Solicitor General
argued, that the amendment was not in unison with the facts stated in the report.
Mr. R. Smith
said, he could neither approve, of the original motion nor the amendment. The former contained a fallacious apology for the chief baron; the latter implied a censure. Both the one and the other was a departure from the express understanding of the House, which was that no opinion should be expressed on the case at present. He felt himself incompetent to decide on the question, either one way or the other He could not, on looking at the report, and at the chief baron's defence, declare him to be innocent; but it was impossible S r him to pronounce an opinion on the subject, on almost the last day of the session, and without sufficient information. The case ought to rest until the ensuing session.
Captain O'Grady
defended the conduct of the chief baron, who, he contended, had made out a good case, both with reference to law and usage. He might, undoubtedly, have been mistaken in his view off the subject; but it did not therefore follow, that he was culpable and corrupt. He (captain O'G.) was most anxious, that the decision of the House should be come to in the present session.
Mr. Secretary Peel
could see no benefit that was likely to accrue from postponing the question to another session. If it were, put off for six months, would they, in 1824—when their recollection of the facts would be weakened, and when they would hot be able to command a more numerous attendance of members than at present—be in a better situation for deciding, than they were at present? If this practice of regulating fees were an improper one, it, would be better to bring in a bill for as abolition, than harass and condemn an individual, by keeping a series of criminatory resolutions suspended over his head.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that as it was distinctly understood that the investigation was to be renewed next session, he had taken no part in it. For the same reason,
1508
Lord A. Hamilton
understood that no resolution but of facts was to he, placed on their Journals; and that circumstance had kept many members away, who would otherwise have been present. It was, he admitted, most irksome, that a judge should have charges hanging over him, while he was exercising his judicial functions. But, whose fault was that? The fault of the gentlemen opposite. The delay came entirely from the other side of the House. He would ask those gentlemen who wished to set the question at rest now, whether a decision, adopted at such a period of the session, and in such a House, could carry any weight with it?
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he had all along declared that he was ready to go on with this inquiry, provided the House would come to the plain proposition of acquittal or condemnation. His hon. friend (Mr. S. Rice) had, however, pursued a course which appeared to him to be most unfair to the Irish public and to the chief baron. He had importuned the House, until he had caused to be entered on the Journals a series of what he called resolutions of fact, but which contained matter of crimination. He was of opinion, that the question should be put an end to now; because he did not believe his hon. friend had any intention of bringing it forward next session. If he meant to institute any ulterior proceeding, let him erase those resolutions, which did not advance his purpose one jot. He believed the chief baron to be innocent. If the question were to be considered, it would be found full of difficulty; and in the end he was sure they would have to acquit the chief baron altogether. At all events, if they discovered an error of judgment in his conduct, he was convinced they would acquit him of corrupt motives. He could, not, therefore, consent that those resolutions, which were of a criminatory character, should be suffered to hang over the head of the chief baron.
Mr. Wynn
thought its would be better to pass the two resolutions now before them in the first place; and afterwards to proceed to the third.
Mr. S. Rice
having withdraw his amendment, the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Scarlett
then observed, that, after
1509
Mr. Wynn
felt himself compelled to oppose this resolution. The question here was, whether a person who had taken improper and unwarrantable fees, assuming that that could be proved, ought to be continued in the high situation which he occupied in the judicial administration of the country? Now, when such a question was to be decided, it was surely imperative on the House to institute a strict inquiry. The integrity of a judge, like the chastity of a woman, or the courage of a Soldier, was a matter of that delicate nature, that it ought to be above all suspicion; and this being the case, it made no difference to the importance or the necessity of the inquiry, whether the excess in the fees charged by the chief baron was confined to so many pence or so many pounds. The right hon. gentleman then adverted to the reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and animadverted on the conduct therein imputed to the chief baron; to which charges that judge had not hitherto offered such a defence as ought to preclude the House from adopting some ulterior proceeding.
Mr. Alderman Bridges
was decidedly for immediate investigation. He thought further delay in every respect inexpedient and improper.
Captain O'Grady
said, the fact was, that the chief baron's defence, as contained in his second letter, was founded on matters contained in a report which had not been published when his first letter was written. It would be a little too hard if the House should concur with the learned member for Peterborough in making it matter of imputation against the chief baron, that he had, in the hurry of his first letter, misnamed a document, by terming that a decree which was in fact an exemplification. It was not, therefore, a new defence which was contained in his second letter; but a defence on new matters, as alleged in the report made subsequently to his former letter.
Mr. Hume
expressed his unwillingness,
1510
Mr. Wetherell
was of opinion, that the House should come to some conclusion this session on the subject before them; and, looking to the painful situation in which further delay must leave the character of the chief baron, and seeing no case made out, he would support the resolution proposed by his hon. friend.
Mr. R. Martin
defended the chief baron, and expressed his intention of supporting the resolution.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
, in order to ground the resolution proposed by the learned all the resolution after the word "That," in order to add the words, "the receipt of Fees by Judges in the Courts of Common Law and the Exchequer has been recently abolished by Law."
This amendment was immediately agreed to. After which, Mr. Scarlett's resolution "That this House, under all the circumstances above stated, does not deem it necessary to adopt any farther proceedings in the case of the chief baron O'Grady," being put,
Mr. J. Williams
said, he could by no means support the resolution of his hon. and learned friend.
Mr. Goulburn
contended, that no case of criminality or corruption had been made out against the chief baron, though his conduct might not have been quite so well advised as could have been wished.
Mr. Canning
, after briefly reviewing the proceedings which had been taken upon the reports in the House, admitted that he found it difficult to remove his own responsibility, in having been chiefly instrumental to persuading the hon. member for Limerick to adopt resolutions of fact merely, and not to embody anything in them which was only matter of opinion. He knew nothing of the chief baron. Nothing had ever occurred to induce him to turn his thoughts towards that personage. But his impression of the importance of the charge and the nature of the proof, had been weakened at every step of their progress. He could not concur in any vote tending to censure; nor could the House, he thought, assent to any resolution which could be made the ground of an address to the Crown for his removal, or of an accusation by way of impeachment.
1511
Mr. Hutchinson
concurred in the opinion of the right hon. secretary, that the chief baron could not be inculpated by any thing which had come under the observation of the committee.
Mr. S. Rice
felt satisfied that, however the House might decide, the labours of the committee would not be lost to the public.
The House divided: For Mr. Scarlett's resolution 38. Against it 16. Majority 22.
List of the Minority.
Brougham, H.
Palmer, C. F.
Baillie, col.
Parnell, sir H.
Barry, rt. hon. J. M.
Taylor, M. A.
Canning, rt. hon. G.
Wynn, C. W.
Ferbes, C.
Wigram, W.
Gordon, R.
Williams, J.
Griffiths, J.
TELLERS.
Lamb, hon. G.
Smith (Lincoln) R.
Money, W. T.
Rice, T. S.
Morland, sir S. B.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 10, 1823.
DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. Leake
said, that all attempts made in this House with a view to remedy the delays too well known to exist in the practice of the court of Chancery, having hitherto, from various causes which it was not necessary for him at present to state, proved wholly unsuccessful, and the evil so generally, and in his opinion so justly, complained of, having, within the last four or five years, increased in a most alarming degree, and to an extent amounting in its effects, and consequences, almost to a denial of justice to the suitors of the court, he rose for the purpose of giving notice that it was his intention, as early as possible in the next session, to submit to the consideration of the House two hills; the one for the furtherance of justice in the court of Chancery; for preventing persons disqualified, or, not duly qualified, from being appointed officers, clerks, or ministers of the said court; for the better regulation of the several offices most immediately connected with the practice of the said court, particularly the Master's offices, the Register's office and the Examiner's-office; and Jog appointing a commission to settle and ascertain the fees to be received at such offices, for the future, for the purpose of creating a fund to defray so much of the salaries to paid to the officers, clerks, and ministers of the court, in lieu of the
1512
SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Brougham
rose to make a few observations on the nature of the bill, and other matters connected with its consideration. He stated, that the object of the bill was to facilitate inquiry, relative to the forms of process and proceedings in appeals in Scotland, by means of commissioners. This he looked upon as a much filter mode than the old practice; as it would obviate much of the trouble and expence incurred by sending for judges and practitioners, to ascertain points of form which evidence taken before commissioners would now furnish. He took occasion to urge the necessity of selecting able and intelligent persons for the performance of such a duty; as they would have task of no ordinary difficulty to discharge. They would have to come in contact with persons of a very acute and penetrating habit, much addicted to dispute, and not at all disinclined to start objections, even to first principles. Besides, the forms of pleading at both bars were very different, and therefore it was necessary that the commissioners should be judiciously selected; that the object of the bill might not fail td be carried into effective execution. He proceeded to say, that the bill had been carried through the other House with the support of a noble and learned lord, who would have done well to consider, whether its principles might riot be applied to the administration of justice in another part of the united kingdom; for he believed the forms of process in Scotland were not more prolix or objectionable, than those of the English court of Chancery. When the noble and learned lord at the head of that court did the other House, in carrying the resolutions on the appellate jurisdiction, evince a great anxiety to facilitate the proceedings of Scotch law, he ought not to have forgotten that the process of the court over
1513
vexata questio.
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
The Attorney General
thought that a great deal of the remarks and censures upon individuals indulged in by his hon. and learned friend might well have been spared. The commission to be appointed
1520
1521
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he had a few words to offer, only to one point of the discussion. He professed his ignorance of the general nature of the plan, and therefore would reserve his opinion until he should be better informed. It was admitted on all hands, that the evil was excessive, and that the necessity for a remedy could not be disputed. It was as plain that the appellate jurisdiction must be left with that tribunal which was of the highest authority in the kingdom. He could not say that this was the best possible plan. But, a doubt had been expressed by the hon. and learned gentleman whether, upon, instituting and installing this substitute, supposing that he should not fulfil the expectations entertained, concerning him and his office, it would be open to the House to go into a discussion upon the merits of a judicial office in the upper House. It was to this point, he wished to reply. Undoubtedly the House would be at liberty to deliberate upon this subject, without at all infringing upon the orders and constitution of the other House, and that too by the exercise of their own proper, jurisdiction; for, by the time this new machinery would be up and ready for use, the House would be called upon to provide for the salary of the new office. Up to 1816, the pay of the officers and clerks of that House, was provided for retrospectively. Since that period, the provision had been prospective; and he found on the estimates of the present session, an item for the salary of lord shaftesbury for this current year. It was obvious, therefore, that the House would have full opportunity for renewing the whole of this subject, at a period nearly as early as that in which the experiment was to be made.
1522
Mr. Abercromby
maintained, that the present was the only occasion on which his hon. and learned friend could animadvert on the strange and anomalous plan in question before it was carried into execution. He thought it was matter of much regret, that an opportunity for considering the subject had not been afforded until so late a period of the session. Nothing could be more interesting to the people generally, and more especially to the people of Scotland, than a proposal to alter and vary that roost important of all matters to the subjects of this realm—the ultimate decision of justice in the House of Lords. He knew no question of more deep and general interest than that which is hon. and learned friend, the Member for Lincoln, had agitated this session respecting the court of Chancery. Whether his hon. and learned friend, who this year had brought the abuses of the court of Chancery before the House, pursued the subject at another period or not, he was convinced the public would never rest, till a thorough investigation of the whole of those abuses had taken place. With respect to the appellate jurisdiction, the measure in contemplation would render the holder of the new appointment a greater person than the lord chancellor himself; for appeals might come before him from the court of Chancery; the lord chancellor's Deputy in the House might thus become his superior, as an equity judge. So far also as regarded the present Scotch appellants, he thought they ought to be allowed to withdraw their appeals, in case they should not approve of the new jurisdiction which Parliament appointed to decide them, but which in preferring those appeals they had never anticipated. It had been said, that this could not properly be called an innovation, because it was not intended to be a permanent alteration. But the did not dread innovation when permanent good was the object in view; although he most strongly objected to changes which were only to meet temporary emergencies. By the present measure a plan of profit would be created, and every man must know in his conscience, that if the existing administration were able to show the necessity of the appointment now, a future administration would he able to shows the necessity for continuing it. The result, in short, of this and the other alterations which had been made in the duties of the head of
1523
Mr. J. Williams
expressed his disappointment that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had not favoured the House with his sentiments upon the present subject. For his own part, he could not avoid expressing his conviction, that it was not the appellate jurisdiction only, but the whole business of the court of Chancery, which Parliament ought to investigate. As to the present bill, all he should object to was the period of the session at which it was introduced. In answer to what had been said by the right hon. gentleman opposite he would observe, that the alteration in the appellate jurisdiction was now an open question, but at the period when the right hon. secretary thought it might be best discussed, a person would be appointed to that newly-invented situation, and his very appointment might be urged as an argument against inquiry. The report which they had before them was not, in his opinion, fit evidence upon which to legislate; for it appeared to have been drawn up for the mete purpose of making a florid display of the vast labours which the lord chancellor had now to perform. He could not help adverting to what had been said by sir S. Romilly of lord Hardwicke—"That great man" (said he) "instead of sitting till two o'clock in the day, often sat tilt two in the morning;" and extra exertion," during that extra number of hours, might be one reason why the arrear of business was so much less in
1524
Mr. Peel
said, he thought he had observed a smile on the cheek of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, when he expressed his surprise that he (Mr. Peel) had not spoken during the present discussion. In reply, he could assure the hon. and learned gentleman that there were various reasons for his silence 1st, the two speeches of his right hon. friend, and of his learned friend the attorney-general, had exhausted the subject; next, he begged to assure the hon. and learned gentleman, that as he had sat in his place till three o'clock that morning, with not more than a fifth of the members then present in attendance, he was but little disposed to enter on such a subject as that now under consideration; 3rd. he had reason to think, from an intimation from the hon. and learned gentleman himself, that he would bring the subject before Parliament early next session; and upon a question of so much importance, he wished to reserve himself till that occasion should occur for delivering his sentiments at length. 4th. as he was to have the satisfaction of concurring with the hon. and learned gentleman in the vote he should give on the present
1525
Mr. Wetherell
said, that he considered the measure adopted in the other House of Parliament merely as a choice of considerable difficulties, and as such assented to it. He did so the more readily, because there appeared no necessity for rendering the appointment a permanent one.
Mr. Denman
remarked the singular fact, that in the speeches which had been delivered, none of the gentlemen opposite had thought proper to say that the bill was a good one. He trusted the commission for inquiry into the administration of the law in Scotland would supersede the necessity of adding to the law the ignoble officer alluded to. He would never vote one farthing for paying such an officer, and he called upon his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) to oppose any grant for that purpose. He objected also to the appointment of that officer, because it would in crease the judicial patronage, when the mode in which that patronage was dispensed and withheld was already most disadvantageous. His opinion on this subject was at least impartial, because now he held, by the vote of a great public body, the city of London, those advantages which he would rather hold from the public than from any individual: but no man could look at the manner in which his hon. and learned friends, the members for Winchelsea and Lincoln (Mr. Brougham and Mr. J. Williams) discharged their duty to their clients, and at the talent which they uniformly displayed, without being filled with surprise that they were not placed in the first ranks of their profession. The consequence of this rank being withheld from them, produced not only great inconvenience upon the northern circuit, but was a material drawback upon the interests of the profession; and he should suffer no opportunity to escape him, in which this subject was mentioned without expressing his opinion upon the injustice which had prompted their exclusion.
The bill was read a third time and passed.
1526
QUARANTINE REGULATIONS AT
Mr. Hume
, in bringing forward his motion with respect, to the Quarantine Laws of Malta, felt it necessary to explain shortly the nature of the grievance complained of, and the remedy which the aggrieved parties were, anxious to obtain. He had mentioned this subject early in the session, and he understood that it was to be inquired into; but he had four days ago received a letter from the Committee of Merchants at Malta, in which was an extract of a letter from lord Bathurst, stating, that after a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, he saw no good ground for altering the Quarantine laws with respect to that island. This answer of the noble lord had put the whole commercial interest of the island into a state of alarm. Therefore it was that, even at that late period of the session, he felt it necessary to make this motion. It was well known that Europe had for a long time, and as it were by a family compact, excluded the states of Barbary and the other Turkish states and dependencies, from that free intercourse which took place between the other ports of the Mediterranean, with the express view of preserving themselves as much as possible from the plague which raged in those countries. But while this law existed in the Mediterranean, as well as in all other European ports, the island of Malta was in free pratique with those ports. In 1813 the plague reached Malta, and was not removed until 1814. After this, the ports of Genoa and Leghorn notified that the ships of Malta (if no recurrence of the evil took place) were to be allowed free pratique as before. In 1814, circumstances arose which created a want of confidence in, Genoa and Leghorn, in consequence of which Malta was placed, with respect to her ships, upon the same footing with the Barbary or any other Turkish states. What he wished was, that Malta should be placed upon the same footing with other Mediterranean ports; that there should be established at Malta a Board of Health, instead of at allowing the power to rest with Dr. Greaves, who was under the control of sir T. Maitland, and who allowed persons from any part of Turkey, to land by his directions, without undergoing the usual quarantine. This it was that caused such a jealousy in the other Mediterranean ports, and induced them to place vessels from
1527
s.
1528
s.
s.
d.,
s.
d.
s.
d.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
did not rise to oppose the motion, to which he would have agreed without observation, did he not feel it to be an act of justice towards sir T. Maitland to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the hon. gentleman. With respect to the alteration in the duty on grain, if it could be regulated by any fixed principle, as might be the case under ordinary circumstances, the observations of the hon. member would be just; but, when it was recollected that the island depended upon a foreign supply, he could not assume, because a change was made in the rate of duty, that the system was bad, or that there did not exist some sufficient reason for the change. The hon. member had argued, that there ought to be an independent board of health at Malta, the same as at other ports, instead of the system of regulation which now prevailed there. But he could not have read the correspondence for which he now called, or he would have found, that the merchants admitted the theory of the quarantine system to be more perfect at Malta than any where else. Vessels carrying susceptible goods were formerly placed in quarantine for forty days. That period was now lessened one-half; others carrying goods less susceptible were detained for a shorter; time; and a third class, not likely to have any thing infectious on board, were placed under what was called the quarantine of observation. There was not, as the hon. member had asserted, any favouritism, in the invidious sense of the word, manifested towards men of war. If more indulgence was shown to them than mer-
1529
Mr. Hume
, upon that undertaking, consented to withdraw his motion.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, July 16, 1823.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
Lord Bexley
1530
The Earl of Harrowby
was of opinion that the bill ought not to pass. In the first place, he considered that the residence of a large manufacturing body in themes tropolis was
prima facie
1531
1532
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he was as willing as any one to applaud the conduct of the petitioners against the bill. No body of men could exhibit more patience and loyalty than they had done in the most critical times; but, feeling as he did, that, on the present occasion, they laboured under the greatest mistake, he should not be prevented from legislating according to the best of his judgment. The measure under consideration came recommended by the committee on foreign trade, three years ago, and he would ask their lordships to consider what it was that formed the power and strength of this country; what it was that had enabled us to conduct so many ways, and especially the last, as we had done? What but the extent and prosperity of our manufactures. Even the agricultural interests themselves were supported by it. Nor was he ready to admit, that the manufacturing districts were more disloyal than others. Birmingham was an instance to the contrary; and Manchester, notwithstanding recent events, was as loyal, peaceable and well-disposed as any part of the kingdom. The laws which the bill went to repeal were injurious, and contrary to the liberal spirit under which our manufactures had succeeded; and it was a proof of the mischief arising from, those enactments, that a rival manufactory had been set up at Streatham, in Surrey, because the enactments did not extend to that quarter. Whether the bill was or was not against the wishes of the operative manufacturers, it was for their interests that it should pass; and under this impression he would vote for the third reading.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that whatever the policy of the 13th of Geo. 2nd might be, it had continued in operation for nineteen years, and had been confirmed and reiterated in other acts of parliament, for nearly half a century. The question was, whether acts which had been so long in force should now be repealed at once? He did not mean to say that there ought to be no change, but contended that it should be gradual.
1533
The Earl of Rosslyn
approved of that part of the bill which went to repeal the restrictions on capital, and to allow the master manufacturers to employ any part of it other places. He thought the bill might be so amended on the third reading as to retain this provision, omitting those which were questionable.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 17, 1823.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Bexley
said, that with the assistance of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and other noble lords, he had been endeavouring to prepare the amended clauses in such a manner as to meet, what he understood was the opinion of the majority of their lordships. It was now proposed, that the power of the magistrates to regulate the wages of journeymen within the districts in question, should be left untouched; but that the master manufacturers should be allowed to employ any part of their capital out of those districts; and that the period within which information should be allowed for offences against the existing law, should be limited to three months. Such were the amendments proposed, and he now moved that they be introduced into the bill.
Lord Ellenborough
expressed his conviction, that the adoption of these amendments would be more advantageous to the journeymen, than if the bill had been thrown out altogether; because, in the latter case, the manifest injustice of the restriction on the employment of capital out of the districts in question, would no doubt have caused the renewal of the bill in the next session, under circumstances highly favourable to it. He trusted that the only advantage the journeymen would take of their triumph, if they chose to call it so, would be to come to some terms with their masters respecting the rate of: wages for figured articles. If not, it would be their own fault should the masters employ: their capital in districts where more moderate wages were paid. If they met their masters fairly they would not have apprehend, hat the masters would avail themselves of the provisions of the bill to remove any part of their capital from the districts in which it was at present employed.
1534
The Earl of Harrowby
concurred completely in all that had just fallen from the noble baron. He trusted the workmen would be sensible that to the uncommon prudence and propriety of their conduct, what had taken place was attributable; and he trusted, with the noble baron, that they would now show a disposition to come to fair terms with their masters on the score of wages, especially with regard to fancy articles. If they stickled for much higher wages than were paid in other places, they must necessarily be thrown out of much of their present employment.
Lord Calthorpe
felt sincere regret that the bill had not passed e in which it had entered their lordships' House; convinced as he was, not merely that it consulted the best principles of political economy, but that it was due, in humanity and justice, even to the very individuals by whom it had been so strongly opposed. He hoped, however, that ministers would not be deterred from pursuing, with regard to other branches of our trade, that liberal policy which he firmly believed was calculated to give a stronger impulse to the manufactures and commerce of this country than they had hitherto received from any legislative proceeding.
The Earl of Darlington
declared his hearty concurrence in the alterations which it was proposed to make in the bill, and without which he could not have voted for it.
The amendments were then agreed to, and the bill was read a third time and passed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, July 18, 1823.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ESTABLISHMENTS.]
Lord Colchester
said;—In pursuance of the notice which I have given, I propose now to move for certain returns of Roman Catholic chapels, colleges, and religious houses. The grounds upon which I presume to submit this motion to the consideration of your Lordships, are these.; that by the votes of the other House of parliament, a measure appears to have been brought forward within the present month, for enabling Roman Catholics to make endowments for what are described to be pious and charitable purposes; and
*
1535
1823, p. 550: 'Bill to enable Roman Catholics to make and execute gifts and grants for pious and charitable purposes; ordered to be brought in by sir Henry Parnell and sir john Newport."
†See Lords Journals, 22 May 1767; Address: and 21 Dec. 1767, Returns presented; 3 July 1780, Address; and 5 March 1781, Returns presented.
1536
*
*
Societatem Jesu
nondum restitutam
quamvis
restitute sit,
Anglia recipietur.
1537
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that he was
1538
1539
The Lord Chancellor
took this opportunity to defend the conduct of the noble baron (Colchester) in submitting the motion he had made; for there could exist no doubt whatever, that the bill so likely to have originated in the other House was intended to repeal the law of the land with respect to religious houses. If hereafter such a measure should ever reach this House, he had only to hope that it would not arrive at a late period of the session next year, but that full opportunity would be given to examine and discuss it. But at present he hoped the noble lord (Colchester) to the honour and purity of whose motives all who knew him must do justice, would consent to withdraw his motion.
Lord Colchester
, in reply, said:—Of the few observations upon the present state of this question which it now becomes my duty to offer to your lordships, the first shall be addressed to the speech of the noble earl who has opposed the motion. The measure announced by the votes of the other House, made the call imperative upon me, and those who hold the same opinions, to prepare to meet it; and if the noble lord complains of the lateness of the time at which this motion is made, let the blame of delay lie upon those who proposed their own measure at so late a period of the session. The bill to be presented in the other House extends, according to its title, to the whole of the United Kingdom; and the noble lord mis-states the fact in asserting that it relates exclusively to Ireland. When he objects to the mode of instituting this inquiry in England, through the parochial clergy, he forgets or overlooks the very course adopted upon the former occasions of 1767 and 1780; and the right reverend prelates now present can inform him, that there is no novelty whatever in this sort of communication between them and their clergy, respecting the religious state of their parishes, such inquiries are continually recurring upon their visitations. As to Ireland, when he asks, why this in-
1540
This motion was accordingly, with leave of the House, withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, July 18, 1823.
SILK MANUFACTURE BILL.]
Mr. Calcraft
wished to know what steps it was intended to take with respect to the Silk Manufacture bill, which he understood had come down from the Lords with several amendments, after their lordships had agreed to an inquiry into which that House had refused to enter.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that as it was usual for the person who introduced a bill, after-wards to move whatever amendments it might receive in the House of Lords, he had hoped that the hon. gentleman would have allowed him to state the course which he purposed to adopt. He was free to say, that that measure had been so dealt with in the other House of parliament, and so materially altered, that it was not his intention to move the adoption of the amendments made by the Lords. The bill which was sent up do the Lords had been framed by a committee of that Houses, after an examination
1541
Mr. Calcraft
said, he did not, until that moment, know what course the right hon. gentleman intended to take. He had rather imagined, as two conferences were about to be held with the Lords, that the right hon. gentleman would have endeavoured to negative the amendments, and leave the result to a third conference. Those who opposed the bill in the other House had so torn and mutilated those fine principles, which the right hon. gentleman thought necessary for the benefit of a set of people who told him they were very well off and perfectly satisfied, that he did not wonder at his abandonment of the measure. Their lordships had altered the bill in such a way, that the right hon. gentleman could no longer agree to foster it. Indeed, it would have been impossible for him to concur in such amendments. Much difference of opinion seemed to exist amongst the members of administration. The other evening there was a difference on a pure matter of taste, and now there appeared to be a difference on a mere matter of trade. The fate of this bill would, he hoped, teach gentlemen not to introduce measures vitally affecting large bodies of the community, without fully considering and perfectly understanding the subject.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he was extremely glad that the bill would not be allowed to pass in its amended shape. But the opportunity ought not to be suffered to go by without exposing the sort of regard that was had to the principles of justice and humanity by the parties who had altered the bill. The narrow, intolerant, and he would say ignorant, principles, on which the amendments proceeded, ought to be canvassed: for the purpose of showing that the measure as altered would be most unjust and mischievous. Individuals elsewhere had supported those amendments, on the ground, that they would secure the comfort and happiness of the class who would be affected by the bill; while it could be clearly demonstrated, that the measure, as it now stood, would create misery and distress amongst those people. It was a measure entirely on one
1542
Mr. Bright
was exceedingly glad that the bill was lost; not so much on account of the principle on which is was founded, but because no inquiry had been entered into. The Lords had examined the parties interested, and the result was, that they had removed those clauses which were most relied on in that House. It would now go forth to the world, that the Commons had refused to listen to the representations of the people, while the Lords had lent a willing ear to their complaints. It was a lamentable thing, that they, the representatives of the people, would not hearken to the voice of the people, on matters which so deeply, interested them. He repeated, that he was glad the bill had been defeated. The principles on which it proceeded were not, in his opinion, fitted for the complicated state of society in which they lived; and if they attempted to legislate without entertaining practical views, they would destroy the prosperity and happiness of those whom they intended to benefit.
Mr. Gordon
regretted most sincerely that the bill had not been carried, be cause he thought it one of the first steps towards improving the system of legislation with respect to trade. It should be recollected, that the committee of the House of Lords, with one exception, unanimously approved of this bill; and it was merely owing to the objections of a learned lord, who had such extraordinary power over that House, that the measure was not carried. He hoped, however, that the right, hon. gentleman would again bring the bill under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Secretary Canning
was afraid the hon. member for Bristol triumphed more at the bill in question being defeated, than he himself supposed; for he not only, rejoiced at the failure of that bill, but his argument went to denounce all measures which might be introduced with the view of establishing a general system of free trade. The present bill was framed, originally in conformity with those liberal principles which all professed to admire and to be guided by—although every man perhaps had desired some little exception to their application, in cases affecting
APPENDIX.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS,
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY, 1823.
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.
No. I.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, IRELAND, for the Year
HEADS OF REVENUE.
CROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, alter deducting REPAYMENTS, &c.
Ordinary Revenues.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Customs
14,384,710
16
10½
1,461,290
8
0¼
12,923,420
8
10¼
Excise
31,190,948
6
3¼
2,214,603
6
11
28,976,344
19
4¼
Stamps
7,106,745
0
1½
226,250
9
9
6,880,494
10
4½
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
7,538,826
3
2½
21,183
0
8¾
7,517,643
2
5¾
Post Office
2,128,926
10
8
79,598
6
0
2,049,328
4
8
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound of Pensions
68,730
5
2¼
68,730
5
2¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
62,612
12
9
62,612
12
9
Crown Lands
250,059
11
3½
250,059
11
3½
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
13,195
0
0¾
13,195
0
0¾
Lottery; Surplus Produce, after payment of Prizes
234,000
0
0
234,000
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
7,870
2
3½
7,870
2
8½
TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues
63,040,496
13
9¾
4,002,925
11
5
59,037,571
2
4¾
Other Resources.
Proceeds of Old Naval Stores, per Act 3 Geo. 4. c. 127, s. 4.
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
Unclaimed Dividends, Annuities, Lottery Prizes. £c. per Act 56 Geo. 3 c. 97
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
Amount of Savings on Third Class of Civil List, in the year ended 5th January, 1821
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
3¼
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3. c. 34, for the Employment of the Poor
197,500
0
0
197,500
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.
81,516
8
3¾
81,516
8
3¾
Imprest Monies, repaid by sundry Public Account ants, and other Monies paid to the Public
328,195
13
11¾
328,195
13
11¾
TOTALS, exclusive of Loans
63,801,494
3
5½
4,002,925
11
5
59,798,568
12
0¼
Loans
11,872,155
9
2¾
11,872,155
9
2¾
TOTALS of the Public Income of the United Kingdom including Loans
75,673,649
12
8¼
4,002,925
11
5
71,670,724
1
3¼
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 24th March 1823.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and ended 5th January, 1823.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1822.
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, 1823.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent. for which the Cross Receipt was collected.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
13,298,441
12
6¼
2,327,567
14
9
10,663,616
18
0¾
307,256
19
8½
13,298,441
12
6¼
10
15
2
30,758,945
5
1¼
1,792,978
13
10½
27,283,408
11
5¼
1,682,557
19
9½
30,758,945
5
1¼
4
7
3
7,315,952
8
0½
206,082
9
6¼
6,632,546
13
3½
477,323
5
2¾
7,315,952
8
0½
2
18
0
7,933,099
10
0¾
437,646
0
8½
7,218,844
2
0
276,609
7
4¼
7,933,099
10
0¾
5
1
11
2,289,955
19
4¼
640,869
4
11¾
1,428,230
15
4¼
220,855
19
0¼
2,289,955
19
4¼
23
4
2
72,994
8
10½
1,834
19
2
67,924
12
3¼
3,234
17
5¼
72 994
8
10½
2
13
5
63,525
8
11
8,844
1
1
54,580
0
0
101
7
10
63 525
8
11
14
2
6
295,866
4
4¾
265,973
8
11½
973
6
8
28 919
13
9¼
295,866
4
4¾
21
0
0
15,931
1
5¼
3,295
9
0
9,606
10
2
3,029
2
3¼
15,931
1
5¼
9
16
3
234,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
231,000
0
0
234,000
0
0
1
5
8
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
—
7,870
2
8½
7,870
2
8½
7,870
2
8½
—
62,340,454
6
1
5,688,091
17
0½
53,652,473
16
7½
2,999,888
12
5
62,340,454
6
1
6
12
0
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
—
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
—
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
3¼
—
197,500
0
0
197,500
0
0
197,500
0
0
—
85,064
5
0½
82,695
3
5¼
2,369
1
7¼
85,064
5
0½
—
328,195
13
11¾
328,195
13
11¾
328,195
18
11¾
—
63,104,999
12
5½
5,688,091
17
0½
54,414,650
1
4¾
3,002,257
14
0¼
63,104,999
12
5½
—
11,872,155
9
2¾
11,872,155
9
2¾
11,872,155
9
2¾
—
74,977,155
1
8¼
5,688,091
17
0½
66,286,805
10
7½
3,002,257
14
0¼
74,977,155
1
8¼
—
No. II.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY the Year ended
HEADS OF REVENUE.
CROSS RECEIPT.
Re-payments, 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
12,237,251
14
0
1,236,842
13
3
11,000,409
0
9
Excise
29,312,391
7
0½
2,172,133
18
3
27,140,257
8
9½
Stamps
6,634,722
19
7½
216,849
1
9¾
6,417,873
17
9¾
Taxes under the management of the Commissioners of Taxes
7,260,998
15
7¾
8,915
11
2¾
7,252,083
4
5
Post Office
1,942,902
6
10¾
61,357
14
1¼
1,881,544
12
9½
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
68,730
5
2¼
68,730
5
2¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
62,612
12
9
62,612
12
9
Crown Lands
250,059
11
3½
250,059
11
3½
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
13,195
0
0¾
13,195
0
0¾
Lottery, Surplus Produce after Payment of Prizes
234,000
0
0
234,000
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues
58,070,736
17
2
3,696,098
18
7¾
54,374,637
18
6¼
Other Resources.
Proceeds of Old Naval Stores, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 127, s. 4
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
Unclaimed Dividends, Annuities, Lottery Prizes. &c. per Act 56 Geo 3, c. 97
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
Amount of Savings on 3rd Class of Civil List in the Year ended 5th January 1821
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
3¼
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 54, for the Employment of the Poor
197,500
0
0
197,500
0
0
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
248,319
13
7
248,319
13
7
TOTALS (exclusive of Loans)
58,670,341
18
1¼
3,696,098
18
7¾
54,974,242
19
5½
Loans
11,708,617
0
0
11,708,617
0
0
TOTALS of the Public Income of Great Britain, including Loans
70,378,958
18
1¼
3,696,098
18
7¾
66,682,859
19
5½
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1823.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of GREAT BRITAIN for 5th January, 1823.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES Outstanding 5th Jan. 1822.
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, 1823.
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.
11,332,236
17
7½
1,669,401
18
7¾
9,397,113
10
6½
265,741
8
5¼
11,332,256
17
7½
8
17
11
28,834,606
13
2
1,478,690
12
4
25,747,441
0
0
1,608,475
5
10
28,834,606
18
2
3
16
5
6,736,711
17
6½
168,388
15
1¼
6,208,552
9
1
359,770
13
4¼
6,736,711
17
6½
2
10
9
7,650,540
11
4
386,179
6
10¼
6,994,007
12
1¾
270,353
12
4
7,650,540
11
4
4
11
8
2,080,204
6
11 1/12
546,330
8
1
1,359,000
0
0
174,873
18
10 1/12
2,080,204
6
11 1/12
25
14
3
72,994
8
10½
1,834
19
2
67,924
12
3¼
3,234
17
5¼
72,994
8
10½
2
13
5
63,525
8
11
8,844
1
l
54,580
0
0
101
7
10
63,525
8
11
14
2
6
295,866
4
4¾
265,973
3
11½
973
6
8
28,919
13
9¼
295,866
4
4¾
21
0
0
15,931
1
5¼
3,295
9
0
9,606
10
2
3,029
2
3¼
15,931
1
5¼
9
16
3
234,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
231,000
0
0
234,000
0
0
1
5
8
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
57,370,509
19
10 7/12
4,531,938
14
2¾
50,124,071
5
6½
2,714,500
0
1 4/12
57,370,509
19
10 7/12
5
12
10
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
—
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
—
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
8¼
—
197,500
0
0
197,500
0
0
197,500
0
0
—
248,319
13
7
248,319
13
7
248,319
13
7
—
57,570,115
0
9 10/12
4,531,938
14
2¾
50,723,676
6
5¾
2,714,500
0
1 4/12
57,970,115
0
9 10/12
—
11,708,617
0
0
11,708,617
0
0
11,708,617
0
0
—
69,678,732
0
9 10/12
4,531,938
14
2¾
62,432,293
6
5¾
2,714,500
0
1 4/12
69,678,732
0
9 10/12
—
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 Revenues.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Customs
2,147,459
2
10½
224,447
14
9¼
1,923,011
8
1¼
Excise
1,878,556
19
2 7/8
42,469
8
8
1,836,087
10
6 7/8
Stamps
472,022
0
6
9,401
7
11¼
462,620
12
6¾
Taxes
277,827
7
6¾
12,267
9
6
265,559
18
0¾
Post Office
186,024
3
9¼
18,240
11
10¾.
167,783
11
10½
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
7,870
2
8½
7,870
2
8½
TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues
4,969,759
16
7 7/8
306,826
12
9¼
4,662,933
3
10⅝
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
1,107
13
10¼
1,107
13
10¼
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
14,549
8
1
14,549
8
1
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for building Gaols, under Act 50 Geo. 3, c.
103
17,420
17
6¾
17,420
17
6¾
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury, under the Police Act of 55 Geo. 3
39,942
19
4½
39,942
19
4½
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for Public Works and Employment of the Poor,
under Acts 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 and 124
8,326
4
9¾
8,326
4
9¾
On Account of Advances to the Board of V Health, under Act 58 Geo. 3, c. 47
169
4
7½
169
4
7½
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the
Public
79,876
0
4¾
79,876
0
4¾
TOTALS, exclusive of Loans
5,131,152
5
4⅜
306,826
12
9¼
4,824,325
12
7⅛
Loans
163,538
9
2¾
163,538
9
2¾
TOTALS of the Public Income of Ireland, including Loans
5,294,690
14
7⅛
306,826
12
9¼
4,987,864
1
9⅞
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1823.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of IRELAND, for the Year January, 1823.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES, outstanding 5th Jan. 1822.
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, 1823.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent. for winch the Gross Receipt was Collected.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1,966,184
14
10¾
658,165
16
1¼
1,266,503
7
6¼
41,515
11
3¼
1,966,184
14
10¾
21
7
6
1,924,338
6
11¼
314,288
1
6½
1,535,967
11
5¼
74,082
13
11½
1,924,338
6
11¼
12
16
0
579,240
10
6
37,693
14
5
423,994
4
2½
117,552
11
10½
579,240
10
6
7
19
8
282,558
18
8¾
51,466
13
10¼
224,836
9
10¼
6,255
15
0¼
282,558
18
8¾
18
10
6
209,751
12
5¼
94,538
16
10¾
69,230
15
4¼
45,982
0
2¼
209,751
12
5¼
50
16
5
7,870
2
8½
7,870
2
8½
7,870
2
8½
—
4,969,944
6
2½
1,156,153
2
9¾
3,528,402
11
1
285,388
12
3¾
4,969,944
6
2½
17
15
5
1,107
13
10¼
1,107
13
10¼
1,107
13
10¼
—
14,549
8
1
14,549
8
1
14,549
8
1
—
20,968
14
3½
18,599
12
8¼
2,369
1
7¼
20,968
14
3½
—
39,942
19
4½
39,942
19
4½
39,942
19
4½
—
8,326
4
9¾
8,326
4
9¾
8,326
4
9¾
—
169
4
7½
169
4
7½
169
4
7½
—
79,876
0
4¾
79,876
0
4¾
79,876
0
4¾
—
5,134,884
11
7¾
1,156,153
2
9¾
3,690,973
14
11
287,757
13
11
5,134,884
11
7¾
—
163,538
9
2¾
163,538
9
2¾
163,538
9
2¾
—
5,298,423
0
10½
1,156,153
2
9¾
3,854,512
4
1¾
287,757
13
11
5,298,423
0
10½
—
No. IV.—AN 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, 1822
3,302,883
3
8¾
Customs
12,923,420
8
10¼
Excise
28,976,344
19
4¼
Stamps
6,880,494
10
4½
Taxes under the management of the Commissioners of Taxes, including Arrears of Property
Tax
7,517,643
2
5¾
Post Office
2,049,328
4
8
One Shilling and Sixpence Duly on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on
Pensions
68,730
5
2¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
62,612
12
9
Crown Lands
250,059
11
3½
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
13,195
0
0¾
Surplus Produce of Lottery, after Payment of Lottery Prizes
234,000
0
0
Surplus Fees of regulated Public Offices
53,872
4
8
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
7,870
2
8½
59,037,571
2
4¾
62,340,454
6
1
Deduct Balances and Bills outstanding 5th January, 1823
2,999,888
12
5
Total Ordinary Revenues
59,340,565
13
8
OTHER RESOURCES.
Balances outstanding on 5th January, 1822
3,547
16
8¾
Proceeds of Old Naval Stores
151,000
0
0
Money received from the Bank of England, more than repaid to them, on account of Unclaimed
Dividends
1,666
5
1
The Amount of Savings on 3rd Class of the Civil List, at the 5th January, 1821
1,119
2
3¼
Money paid into the Exchequer, by the Commissioners for issuing Bills for Public Works
197,500
0
0
Money repaid in Ireland, on account of Advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various
Acts for Public Improvement
81,516
8
3¾
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
328,195
13
11¾
764,545
6
4½
Deduct Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January, 1823
2,369
1
7¼
762,175
4
9¼
60,102,740
18
5¼
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, &c. at 5th January, 1822
3,302,883
3
8¼
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, &c. at 5th January, 1822
3,547
16
8¾
3,306,431
0
5
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, &c. at 5th January, 1823
2,999,888
12
5
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, &c. at 5th January, 1823
2,369
1
7¼
3,002,257
14
0¼
Balances less in 1823 than in 1822
304,173
6
4¾
Surplus Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure issued thereout
4,915,519
19
9¾
Actual Excess of Income above Expenditure
4,611,346
13
5
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
TAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1823, 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
4,160,270
16
10¾
Other Payments
1,527,821
0
1¾
Total Payments out of the Income, prior to the Payments into the Exchequer
5,688,091
17
0½
PAYMENTS OUT OF EXCHEQUER.
Dividend, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822, exclusive of 15,811,710
l.
s.
d.
29,490,897
4
2½
Interest on Exchequer Bills and Irish Treasury Bills, exclusive of 301,250
l.
1,430,596
16
10½
30,921,494
1
1
Issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
1,400,000
0
0
Civil List 4 Quarters to 5th Jan. 1823
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon Consolidated Fund 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
378,432
5
1¾
Salaries and Allowances 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
72,953
10
2½
Officers of Courts of Justice 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
83,377
12
5¼
Expenses of the Mint 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
14,750
0
8
Bounties 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
183,716
7
5
Miscellaneous Ireland 4 Quarters to 10th Oct. 1822
248,253
6
9½
2,041,439
16
4
Army
7,698,973
16
6½
Navy
4,945,642
2
11¾
Navy Treasurer of Greenwich Hospital, to pay Out-Pensioners
248,000
0
0
Ordnance
1,007,821
1
5¼
Miscellaneous
2,105,797
3
3¼
16,006,234
4
2¾
Deduct the Sum issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, being charged in the above Issues of Supplies
1,400,000
0
0
14,606,234
4
2¾
Bank of Ireland, Balance due for Advances for Commercial Credit
105,181
9
4¾
Interest on Advances made on the credit of the Loan, from the Sinking Fund in Ireland, 1821
6,546
9
7½
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills under Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, and 124, for the Employment of the Poor
34,500
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
383,734
0
11
529,961
19
11¼
Total Expenditure, exclusive of the Sums applied to the Reduction of the National Debt
55,187,221
18
7½
Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure thereout.
4,915,519
19
9¾
60,102,741
13
5¼
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March, 1823.
S. R. LUSHINGTON.
No. II.—An Account of the Nett PUBLIC INCOME in 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
7,993,937
8
5½
2,669,679
9
7
10,663,616
18
0½
Excise
25,921,770
5
11¼
1,361,638
5
6
27,283,408
11
5¼
Stamps
6,632,546
13
3½
6,632,546
13
3½
Taxes under the management of the Commissioners of Taxes, including Arrears of Property Tax
7,216,262
1
7¼
2,582
0
5
7,218,844
2
0¼
Post Office
1,428,230
15
4¾
1,428,250
15
4¾
One Shilling and Sixpence Duly on Pensions and Salaries; and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
67,924
12
3¼
67,924
12
3¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
54,580
0
0
54,580
0
0
Crown Lands
973
6
8
973
6
8
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenues
9,606
10
2
9,606
10
2
Surplus Produce of Lottery, after Payment of Lottery Prizes
231,000
0
0
231,000
0
0
Surplus Fees, regulated Public Offices
53,872
4
8
53,872
4
8
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
7,870
2
8¾
7,870
2
8¾
Total Ordinary Revenue
53,652,473
16
8¼
Proceeds of Old Naval Stores
151,000
0
0
151,000
0
0
Money received from the Bank of England more than repaid to them, on account of unclaimed Dividends
1,666
5
1
1,666
5
1
The Amount of Savings on 3rd Class of the Civil List, at the 5th January, 1821
1,119
2
3¼
1,119
2
3¼
Money paid into the Exchequer by the Commissioners for issuing Bills for Public Works
197,500
0
0
197,500
0
0
Money repaid in Ireland on Account o Advances from the Consolidated Fund under various Acts for Public Improvement
82,695
3
5¼
82,695
3
5¼
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
306,322
7
0½
21,873
6
11¼
328,195
13
11¾
Total paid into the Exchequer
49,777,710
13
11¼
4,636,939
7
6¼
54,414,650
1
5½
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March, 1823.
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1823, 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, 4 quarters to 10th Oct. 1822, exclusive of 15,811,710
l.
s.
d.
29,490,897
4
2½
Interest on Exchequer Bills and Irish Treasury Bills, exclusive of 301,250
l.
1,430,596
16
10½
30,921,494
1
1
Issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, per Act 3rd Geo. 4, c. 51
1,400,000
0
0
Civil List, 4 quarters to 5th January, 1823
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament, upon Consolidated Fund, 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
378,432
5
1¾
Salaries and Allowances 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
72,953
10
2½
Officers of Courts of Justice 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
83,377
12
5¼
Expenses of the Mint 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
14,750
0
8
Bounties 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
183,716
7
5
Miscellaneous Ireland 4 quarters, to 10th Oct. 1822
248,253
6
9½
2,041,439
16
4
Army
7,698,973
16
6½
Navy
4,945,642
2
11¾
Navy Treasurer of Greenwich Hospital to pay Out-Pensions
248,000
0
0
Ordnance
1,007,821
1
5¼
Miscellaneous
2,105,797
3
3¼
16,006,234
4
2¾
Deduct the Sum issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, being charged in the above Issues for Supplies
1,400,000
0
0
14,606,234
4
2¾
Total
48,969,16S
1
7¾
Bank of Ireland—Balance doe for Advances for Commercial Credit
105,181
9
4¾
Interest oil Advances made on the Credit of the Loan from the Sinking Fund in Ireland, 1821
6,546
9
7½
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills under 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124, for the employment of the Poor
34,500
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
383,734
0
11
529,961
19
11¼
Total
19,499,130
1
7
Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer over Expenditure thereout
4,915,519
19
10½
54,414,650
1
5½
S. R.
LUSHINGTON
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 for paying off the Unfunded Dabt, within the same period; and
£.
s.
d.
Balances in the Exchequer on the 5th January, 1822
6,019,064
9
2
MONEY RAISED
In the Year ended 5th January, 1823, by the creation of Funded or Unfunded Debt.
FUNDED DEBT.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Contributions to Loan per Act 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 70
6,100,000
0
0
Contributions to Ireland Act 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 70
163,538
9
2¾
Contributions to Ireland Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 73
5,100,000
0
0
Money from the East India Company Do. 93
508,617
0
0
11,872,155
9
2¾
UNFUNDED DEBT.
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 1 & 2 Geo. 4. c. 71
10,441,300
0
0
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 3 — 8
20,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 3— 122
10,007,100
0
0
Exchequer Public Works Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124
34,500
0
0
Exchequer Churches Act 53 — 45
109,650
0
0
40,592,550
0
0
52,464,705
9
2¾
TOTAL
58,483,769
18
5½
Excess of income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure defrayed thereout
4,915,519
19
10½
63,399,289
18
4
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March, 1823.
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
EXCHEQUER on the 5th of January, 1822; the amount of Money raised by additions 1823; the Money applied towards the Redemption of the Funded, the Money remaining in the Exchequer on the 5th January, 1823.
£.
s.
d.
APPLIED BY
The Commissioners for the Redaction of the National Debt, in the
Redemption of Funded Debt.
Sinking Fund Interest on Redeemed
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Funded Debt
15,811,710
12
9
Unfunded Debt
301,250
0
0
16,112,960
12
9
Nary 5 per cent. Annuities paid off
In Great Britain
2,737,359
0
10
Ireland
39,000
0
0
2,776,359
0
10
Applied towards Redemption of Funded Debt.
18,889,319
13
7
UNFUNDED DEBT.
Issued to the Paymasters of Exchequer Bills to pay off
Unfunded Debt
35,537,950
0
0
Irish Treasury Bills
1,000,000
0
0
TOTAL Unfunded Debt paid off
36,537,950
0
0
55,427,269
13
7
Balances at 5th January, 1823
7,797,020
4
9
Do. to the Account of the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, towards
payments becoming due from them on 15th January, 1823
175,000
0
0
7,972,020
4
9
63,399,289
18
4
S. R.
LUSHINGTON
No. I.—An Account of the INCOME of the CONSOLIDATED FUND arising in the 1823; and also
of the Actual Payments on account
£.
s.
d.
The Total Income applicable to Consolidated Fund
49,777,710
13
11¼
49,777,710
13
11¼
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March, 1823.
No. II.—An Account of the MONEY applicable to the Payment of the CHARGE of the 1823,
and of the several CHARGES which have become due thereon, charged upon the said fund, at the
commence-
£.
s.
d.
Income arising in Great Britain
46,086,736
18
11½
£.
s.
d.
Income arising in Ireland
3,690,973
14
11¾
Add the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards the Supplies, in the
Quarter ended 5th January, 1822
368,619
12
2
4,059,593
7
1¾
Deduct the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fond in Ireland, towards the Supplies, in the
Quarter ended 5th January, 1823
89,628
17
5¼
Total applicable to the Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended 5th
January, 1823
3,969,964
9
8½
To Cash brought to this Account, to discharge the Exchequer Bills deposited in
the Tellers Chest, previously to the 5th January, 1822, pursuant to Act 59 Geo. 3, c. 19, and
then remaining in the Tellers Chest
1,437,000
0
0
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the payment of the Charge, to the 5th
January, 1823
5,928,354
13
3
57,422,056
1
11
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March, 1823.
CLASS III.—CONSOLIDATED FUND.
United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, of the
CONSOLIDATED FUND within the same Year.
HEADS OF PAYMENT.
£.
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to
10th October, 1822
45,302,607
16
11½
Sinking Fund Irish Treasury Bills
11,250
0
0
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the Credit of the Consolidated Fund
124,187
12
7½
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
1,400,000
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January 1823
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October
1822
378,432
5
1¾
Salaries and Allowances upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October 1822
72,953
10
2½
Officers of Courts of Justice upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October
1822
83,377
12
5¼
Expenses of the Mint upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October 1822
14,750
0
8
Bounties upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October 1822
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October 1822
183,716
7
5
Miscellaneous Ireland upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October 1822
248,253
6
9½
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
383,734
0
11
Interest on Advances made by the Bank of Ireland, on Sinking Fund Loan, 1821
6,546
9
7½
49,269,765
16
5½
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
507,944
17
5¾
49,777,710
13
11¼
S. R. LUSHINGTON.
CONSOLIDATED FUND of the United Kingdom, in the Year ended 5th January, in the same Year,
including the Amount of EXCHEQUER BILLS ment and at the termination of the Year.
HEADS OF CHARGE.
£.
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to
5th January, 1823
44,570,638
17
0½
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the Credit of the Consolidated Fund
87,925
5
1½
Sinking Fund Irish Treasury Bills
10,000
0
0
Trustees Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
1,400,000
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1823
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January,
1823
375,243
4
1½
Salaries and Allowances upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1823
73,005
5
4¼
Officers of Courts of Justice upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January,
1823
89,861
15
8½
Expenses of the Mint upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1823
14,750
0
8
Bounties upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1823
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1823
190,196
9
11
Miscellaneous Ireland upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1823
238,894
14
11¾
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
383,734
0
10
Interest on Advances by the Bank of Ireland, on Sinking Fund Loan, 1821
6,546
9
7½
43,500,752
17
0½
Exchequer Bills issued to make good the Charge of Consolidated Fund to the 5th January, 1822
(including £.1,437,000 issued from the Consolidated Fund, towards the Supplies, and for
which Sum, Exchequer Bills not bearing Interest, are deposited in the Tellers Chest
8,921,303
4
10½
57,422,056
1
11
S. R. LUSHINGTON.
An Account of the State of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBTS of GREAT BRITAIN the Debt created by
DEBT.
—
1. CAPITALS.
2. CAPITALS redeemed and transferred to the Commissioners.
3. CAPITALS UNREDEEMED.
IN GREAT BRITAIN.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Debt due to the South Sea Company
at £.3 per cent
3,662,784
8
6
3,662,784
3
6
Old South Sea Annuities
at £.3 per cent
4,795,870
2
7
157,000
0
0
4,638,870
2
7
New South Sea Annuities
at £.3 per cent
3,219,330
2
10
53,000
0
0
3,166,330
2
10
South Sea Annuities, 1751
at £.3 per cent
735,600
0
0
11,000
0
0
724,600
0
0
Debt due to the Bank of England
at £.3 per cent
14,686,800
0
0
14,686,800
0
0
Bank Annuities, created in 1726
at £.3 per cent
1,000,000
0
0
1,641
19
10
998,358
0
2
Consolidated Annuities
at £.3 per cent
376,045,172
18
6
10,269,286
16
5
365,775,886
2
1
Reduced Annuities
at £.3 per cent
136,321,680
19
8
2,910,569
1
3
133,411,111
18
5
Total at £.3 per cent
540,467,238
12
1
13,402,497
17
6
527,064,740
14
7
Annuities
at £.3½ per cent
16,296,440
14
2
197,700
0
0
16,098,740
14
2
Consolidated Annuities
£.4 per cent
74,962,645
12
4
118,784
14
3
74,843,860
18
1
New £.4 per cent Annuities
147,200,668
2
0
199,599
13
5
147,001,068
8
7
£.5 per cents 1797 and 1802
1,013,668
12
4
5,060
5
11
1,008,608
6
5
Great Britain
779,940,661
12
11
13,923,642
11
1
766,017,019
1
10
IN IRELAND.
(In British Currency.)
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland,
at £.4 per cent
1,615,384
12
4
1,615,584
12
4
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland,
at £.5 per cent
1,015,384
12
4
1,015,584
12
4
£.3½ per cent Debentured and Stock
20,466,738
9
3
7,827,841
13
10
12,638,896
15
5
£.4 per cent Debentured and Stock
1,024,580
10
4
163,538
9
3
861,242
1
1
New £.4 per cent Debentured and Stock
9,658,385
8
8
9,658,335
8
8
Ireland
33,780,473
12
11
7,991,180
3
1
25,789,293
9
10
Total United Kingdom
813,721,135
5
10
21,914,822
14
2
791,806,312
11
8
——
STOCK.
Note.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
To provide for the Charge of Loans, and by redemption of Land Tax, at the 5lh January,
1822
352,035,839
14
5
Directed to be cancelled by Acts of the year, 1822, to provide for the Charge of

Military and Naval Pensions and Superannuations; for Interest of Unredeemed East India Debt
incorporated with Great Britain; and for the Charge of Sinking Fund Loan, 1822
102,227,572
0
0
3 per cts.
5,078,000
0
0
3½ per cts.
107,305,572
0
0
For redemption of Land Tax
90,935
7
6
3 per cts.
107,396,507
7
6
459,432,547
1
11
CLASS IV.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
and IRELAND, and of the CHARGE thereupon at the 5th of January, 1823, including
7,500,000
l.
CHARGE.
—
IN GREAT BRITAIN, including PORTUGAL.
IN IRELAND. (in British Currency.)
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Sinking Fund
Annual Grants
1,200,000
0
0
62,445
5
7
Expired Annuities
79,880
14
6
66,616
6
6
Exchequer Life Annuities, Unclaimed and Expired
51,999
3
1
—
Percentage on Capitals created by Loans
11,504,877
16
8
266,441
11
8
Annual Interest on Stock redeemed
421,982
16
6
280,507
19
11
Long Annuities
11,798
7
6
—
13,270,538
18
3
676,011
3
8
Due to the Public Creditor
Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt
25,299,625
15
0
978,531
1
11
Long Annuities, expire 1860
1,347,637
11
2
—
Life Annuities, payable at the Exchequer
28,944
10
5
—
Do. Irish life Annuities
35,461
7
9
7,127
10
9
26,711,669
4
4
985,658
12
8
Management
282,388
19
10
660
0
0
26,994,058
4
2
986,318
12
8
40,264,597
2
5
1,662,329
16
4
41,926,926
18
9
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
Total United Kingdom
43,064,597
2
5
1,662,329
16
4
44,726,926
18
9
DEBT.
CHARGE.
LOANS FOR THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY, FUNDED IN GREAT BRITAIN.
CAPITALS.
CAPITALS redeemed and transferred to the Commissioners.
CAPITALS unredeemed.
——
—
ANNUAL CHARGE.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Imperial Annuities, £.3 per cent
7,502,633
6
8
2,778,801
3
0
4,723,832
3
8
Sinking Fund
per centage on Capital created by Loan, 1797
36,693
0
0
Annual Interest on Stock redeemed
83,364.
0
8
120,057
0
8
Due to the Public Creditor
Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt
141,714
19
3
Management
1,605
15
9
143,320
15
0
263,377
15
8
ABSTRACT.
ANNUAL CHARGE.
—
CAPITALS.
CAPITALS redeemed and transferred to the Commissioners.
CAPITALS unredeemed.
Due to the Public Creditor.
MANAGEMENT.
SINKING FUND.
TOTAL.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Great Britain
779,940,661
12
11
13,923,642
11
1
766,017,019
1
10
26,711,669
4
4
282,388
19
10
13,270,538
18
3
40,264,597
2
5
Ireland
33,780,473
12
11
7,991,180
3
1
25,789,293
9
10
985,658
12
8
660
0
0
676,011
3
8
1,662,329
16
4
Germany
7,502,633
6
8
2,778,801
3
0
4,723,832
3
8
141,714
19
3
1,605
15
9
120,057
0
8
263,377
15
8
821,223,768
12
6
24,693,623
17
2
796,530,144
15
4
27,839,042
16
3
284,654
15
7
14,066,607
2
7
42,190,304
14
5
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil
Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
30,639,042
16
3
284,654
15
7
14,066,607
2
7
44,990,304
14
5
National Debt Office, 22nd March, 1823.
S. HIGHAM
CLASS V.—UNFUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, and of the Demands outstanding
on the 5th January, 1823.
—
PROVIDED.
UNPROVIDED.
TOTAL.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Exchequer Bills
1,337,000
0
0
34,944,150
0
0
36,281,150
0
0
Sums remaining unpaid, charged upon Aids granted by Parliament
4,591,592
11
7¾
4,591,595
11
7¾
Advances made out of Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards Supplies which are to be repaid
to Consolidated Fund, out of Ways and Means in Great Britain
613,027
18
3½
613,027
18
3½
TOTAL Unfunded Debt, and Demands outstanding
6,541,620
9
11¼
34,944,150
0
0
41,485,770
9
11¼
Ways and Means
7,010,668
7
9¾
—
—
SURPLUS Ways and Means
469,047
17
10½
—
—
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Charge upon the Consolidated Fund
5,928,354
13
3
5,928,354
13
3
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March, 1823.
S. R. LUSHINGTON.
An Account showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the United Kingdom of GREAT
BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1822, have been disposed of; distinguished under their several
Heads; to 5th January, 1823.
SERVICES.
SUMS voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
NAVY
5,398,425
2
11
5,818,581
11
4
ORDNANCE
1,281,398
2
6
759,429
9
1½
FORCES
7,755,042
4
10½
6,262,304
0
1¼
For defraying the CHARGE of the CIVIL, ESTABLISHMENTS under-mentioned;
viz.
Of Sierra Leone; from the 1st or January to the 31st of Dec. 1822.
22,176
2
10½
20,000
0
0
Of Sierra New South Wales from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
13,347
2
6
7,000
0
0
Of Sierra Newfoundland from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
6,488
10
0
4,000
0
0
Of Sierra Prince Edward's Island from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
3,520
15
0
3,520
5
0
Of Sierra New Brunswick from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
6,757
10
0
3,000
0
0
Of Sierra Nova Scotia from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
14,098
17
6
8,000
0
0
Of Sierra Upper Canada from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
11,992
10
0
5,000
0
0
Of Sierra Dominica from January to 31st of Dec. 1822.
600
0
0
300
0
0
Of the Bahama Islands, in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers out of
the Duly Fund, and the incidental Charges attending the same
3,506
17
6
3,506
17
6
To pay off and discharge such of the Proprietors of Navy 5 per cent. Annuities, and of Irish
5 per cent. Annuities, payable at the Bank of England, as have signified their dissent to
receive 4 pounds per cent. Annuities in lieu thereof
2,700,000
0
0
2,700,000
0
0
Royal Military College; from the 25th of December, 1821, to the 24th of December, 1822
13,662
1
7
10,112
14
11
Charge of the Royal Military Asylum; for the same time
26,149
14
6
17,290
15
7
For paying Interest on Exchequer Bills, Irish Treasury Bills, and Mint Notes; for 1822
1,200,000
0
0
1,200,000
0
0
To be issued to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; for 1822, in
respect of Exchequer Bills
290,000
0
0
217,500
0
0
Works and Repairs of Public Buildings; for 1822
40,000
0
0
Extraordinary Expenses of the Mint, in the Gold Coinage; for 1822
10,500
0
0
10,500
0
0
Extraordinary Expenses that may be incurred for Prosecutions, &c. relating lo the Coin
of this Kingdom; for 1822
5,000
0
0
Expense of Law Charges; for 1822
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
Expense attending the confining, maintaining and employing Convicts at Home; for 1822
81,363
0
0
81,363
0
0
Expenses of the Establishment of the Public Office Bow street, including the Horse and Foot
Patrol, and of the Establishment of the River Police; for 1822
33,567
11
0
8,353
2
0
Amount of Bills drawn or to be drawn from New South Wales; for 1822
100,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
Salaries to certain Officers, and the Expenses of the Court and Receipt of Exchequer; for
1822
7,000
0
0
4,777
18
11
Salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court, of their Clerks, and the
Contingent Expenses of the Office; for 1822
8,640
0
0
4,800
0
0
Salaries or Allowances granted to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, for reading courses of Lectures; for 1822
953
7
6
Expenses of the House of Lords and Commons; for 1822
19,055
0
0
10,333
11
9
Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons; for 1822
22,800
0
0
16,302
12
3
CLASS VI.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Extraordinary Expenses of the Department of the. Lord Chamberlain, for Fittings and
Furniture for the two Houses of Parliament; in 1822
4,800
0
0
1,795
5
8
Expense of certain Colonial Services, formerly paid out of the Extraordinaries of the Army;
for 1822
2,442
10
0
2,442
10
0
Charge for printing Acts of Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament, for the Sheriffs,
Clerks of the Peace, and Chief Magistrates throughout the United Kingdom, and for the acting
Justices throughout Great Britain; also for printing Bills, Reports, Evidence, and other Papers
and Accounts for the House of Lords; for 1822
17,000
0
0
—
Expense of printing the Voles of the House of Commons, during the present Session
3,500
0
0
3,500
0
0
Deficiency of the Grant of 1821, for printing the Voles of the House of Commons, during the
last session
204
15
9
204
15
9
For paying, in the year 1822, the usual Allowances lo 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 Saint Martin-in-the Fields, and Others
7,036
8
10
3,556
3
11
Deficiency of the Grant of 1870, for the Supplemental Charge for Printing done by order of
the House of Commons, pertaining to the Session of 1819
5,434
7
1
5,434
7
1
Expense of printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers, by order of the House of Commons,
during the present Session
20,000
0
0
—
Deficiency of the Grant of 1821 for printing Acts of Parliament for the two Houses of
Parliament, for the Sheriffs, Clerks of the Peace, and Chief Magistrates throughout the United
Kingdom, and for the acting Justices throughout Great Britain; also for printing Bills, Reports,
Evidence, and other Papers and Accounts for the House of Lords
1,235
10
2½
1,235
10
2½
Deficiency of the Grant of 1821, for printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers, by Order of
the House of Commons, during the last Session
10,479
14
7
10,479
14
7
Expense that may be incurred in 1822, for printing 1,750 copies of the 77th volume of the
Journals of the House of Commons for the present Session
3,500
0
0
—
Expense that may be incurred for re-printing Journals and Reports of the House of Commons;
in 1822
3,000
0
0
—
Foreign and other Secret Services; for 1822
40,000
0
0
21,553
10
0
For making good the Deficiencies in the Fee Funds, in the Departments of the Treasury, Three
Secretaries of State, and Privy Council; for 1822
72,327
0
0
52,002
14
7
Contingent Expenses and Messengers Bills in the Departments of the Treasury, Three
Secretaries of State, Privy Council, and lords Chamberlain; for 1822
78,794
0
0
69,471
8
2
For defraying, in 1822, the Charge of Allowances or Compensations, granted or allowed as
retired Allowances or Superannuations, to Persons formerly employed in Public Offices or
Departments, or in the Public Service, according to the Act of the 50th of his late Majesty
7,891
6
3
2,381
13
4
To pay off and discharge such of the proprietors of 5 per cent Annuities and Government
Debentures, payable at the Bank of Ireland, as have signified their dissent lo receive 4 per
cent Annuities in lieu thereof
39,000
0
0
39,000
0
0
To pay off and discharge such of the Proprietors of Navy 5 per cent Annuities, and of Irish
5 per cent Annuities, payable at the Bank of England, who have signified their dissent to
receive 4 per cent Annuities in lieu thereof
38,000
0
0
37,359
0
10
To pay off and discharge such of the Proprietors of 5 per cent Annuities, and Government
Debentures, payable at the Bank of Ireland, as have signified their dissent, as Trustees, to
receive 4 per cent annuities in lieu thereof
24,000
0
0
—
To make good the Deficiency of the Grants for the Service of the year 1821
290,456
13
5¼
—
For defraying the Deficiency of the Grant of 1821, for printing 1,750 Copies of the 76th
volume of the Journals of the House of Commons
2,183
12
1
2,183
12
1
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
For enabling His Majesty to provide for such Expenses of a Civil nature as do not form a
part of the ordinary Charges of the Civil List; for 1822
200,000
0
0
174,976
15
0¼
For defraying the Expenses of Out-Pensioners of Greenwich Hospital; for 1822
310,000
0
0
160,000
0
0
To defray the Charge of Forts and Possessions on the Gold Coast of Africa; for 1822
20,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
The following SERVICES are directed to be paid, without any Fee or Deduction
whatsoever:
Expense of Works carrying on at the College of Edinburgh; for 1822
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Expense of the building of a Penitentiary House at Milbank; for 1822
18,000
0
0
16,000
0
0
Expense of sundry Works, executing at Port Patrick Harbour; for the year 1822
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
For paying, in 1822, the Awards of the Commissioners established in London, in pursuance of
an Act of the 58lh of his late Majesty, for carrying into effect a Convention between his late
Majesty and his Most Faithful Majesty; to Claimants of Portuguese Vessels and Cargoes, captured
by British Cruisers, on account of the unlawful trading in Slaves, since the 1st of June,
1814
35,000
0
0
—
Expense of the Penitentiary House at Milbank; from 24th June, 1822 to 24th June 1823
23,000
0
0
—
Expense of the National Vaccine Establishment; for 1822
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
American Loyalists; for 1822
7,500
0
0
3,000
0
0
Expense of confining and maintaining Criminal Lunatics; for 1822
3,306
10
0
1,698
12
3
Repairs of Henry the Seventh's Chapel; for 1822
1,847
0
0
1,847
0
0
British museum; for 1822
9,425
13
0
9,425
13
0
For enabling His Majesty to grant Relief, in 1822, to Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants,
Dutch Naval Officers, Saint 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
19,000
0
0
7,500
0
0
For the support of the Institution called The Refuge for the Destitute; for 1822
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
To enable the Commissioners for the Caledonian Canal, to proceed in opening the Navigation
between the Eastern and Western
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
Expense of sundry Works executing at Donaghadee Harbour; for 1822
15,000
0
0
15,000
0
0
Expense of sundry Works executing at Port Patrick Harbour; for 1822
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Expense of sundry Works, proposed to be done at Holyhead Harbour; in 1822
12,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
For discharging, in 1822, outstanding Demands, relative to purchasing Houses and Grounds for
the further Improvement of Westminster
1,000
0
0
—
To complete the Payment of the Expenses of erecting New Courts for the Commissioners of
Bankrupts, in Basinghall-street
2,700
0
0
2,700
0
0
To pay in 1822, the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of the Commissioners, appointed, under
the Treaty with Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, for preventing the illegal Traffic in
Slaves
18,700
0
0
2,456
8
0
To make Compensation to Three of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Collection and
Management of the Revenue in Ireland, for their assiduity care and pains in the execution of the
Trusts reposed in them by Parliament; for one year
4,500
0
0
4,500
0
0
Towards defraying the Expense of building the New Courts of Justice in Westminster Hall
30,000
0
0
—
One year's Wages, to certain of the Servants of her late Majesty Queen Caroline
971
18
0
971
18
0
Compensation to Henry Burgess, for the Expenses incurred by him, in prosecuting his plan for
the more speedy conveyance of Letters, and of his loss of time and exertions, in that
undertaking
7,300
0
0
7,300
0
0
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
To defray the Sums awarded to William Jauncey and Beverley Robinson, being two American
Loyalists, whose Claims were not included in the list submitted to parliament in the last
session
12,184
3
7
12,184
3
7
To complete the Sum of 12,500
l.
8,247
8
5½
8,247
8
5½
To be paid lo sir W. Adams, as a reward for the Services which he has rendered to the
Public, in superintending the Ophthalmic Hospital
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the following Services in IRELAND, which are directed to be paid
Nett in British Currency.
For the employment of the poor in Ireland, and other purposes relating thereto, as the
exigency of affairs may require
100,000
0
0
92,307
13
10¼
To enable his Majesty to take such measures as the exigency of affairs in Ireland, may
require
200,000
0
0
92,307
13
10¼
Civil Contingencies in Ireland; for one year, ending the 5th Jan. 1823
20,000
0
0
18,253
9
2¾
For making good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1821, for defraying the Expense of Printing,
Stationery, and other Disbursements of the Chief and Undersecretaries Offices and Apartments,
and other Public Offices in Dublin Castle, &c.; and for Riding Charges and other Expenses of
the Deputy Pursuivants and Messengers attending the said Offices; and also superannuated
Allowances in the Chief Secretary's Office
867
0
0
867
0
0
For making good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1821, for defraying the Expense of printing
1,500 Copies of a compressed quarto edition of the Statutes of the United Kingdom, for the use
of the Magistrates of Ireland; and also 250 Copies of a folio edition of the same, bound for the
use of the Lords, Bishops, and Public Officers in Ireland
1,202
5
2
1,202
5
2
Expense of printing 325 Copies of a folio edition of the Public General Acts of the present
Session, for the use of the Lords, Bishops, and other Public Officers in Ireland; and also 1,500
Copies of a quarto edition, for the use of the acting resident Magistrates in Ireland
3,000
0
0
1,255
8
5
Expense of supporting the Non-conforming Ministers in Ireland; for one year
8,697
4
7½
6,522
18
5¼
Expense of supporting the Seceding Ministers from the Synod of Ulster, in Ireland; for one
year
4,034
15
5
2,017
7
8½
Expense of supporting the Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland; for one year
756
0
0
756
0
0
For improving and completing the Harbour of Howth; in 1822
4,348
0
0
1,846
3
1
Expense of making a survey of the River Shannon
2,023
0
0
923
1
6½
For carrying on the Works of the Harbour of Dunmore; in 1822
8,000
0
0
—
Probable Expenditure of the Board of Works in Ireland; in 1822
16,154
0
0
11,060
16
1½
Expense of Printing, Stationery, and other Disbursements of the Chief and Under Secretaries
Offices and Apartments, and other Public Offices in Dublin Castle, &c. and for Riding
Charges and other Expenses of the Deputy Pursuivants and Messengers attending the said Offices;
and also superannuated Allowances in the Chief Secretary's Office; for one year, ending 5th Jan.
1823
17,500
0
0
13,118
0
1¾
Expense of publishing Proclamations, and other matters of a public nature, in the Dublin
Gazette, and other Newspapers in Ireland; for the same time
7,000
0
0
6,374
11
5½
Expense of Criminal Prosecutions, and other Law Expenses in Ireland; for the same time
23,000
0
0
23,000
0
0
Expense of apprehending Public Offenders in Ireland; for the same time
1,500
0
0
129
4
7½
Salaries of the Lottery Officers in Ireland; for one year, ending the 24th day of June
1822
1,449
19
4
1,346
2
5½
Retired Allowances to several late Governors of the House of Industry, Dublin; for two
years, ending the 5th Jan. 1823
1,200
0
0
1,015
7
8¼
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Expense of the Police and Watch Establishments of the City of Dublin; for one year, ending
the 5th Jan. 1823
28,000
0
0
28,000
0
0
Allowances due to the several Persons who have been temporarily appointed to perform the
duties of the Prothonotary, Clerk of the Rules, Filacer, Clerk of the Pleadings, and
Chirographer of the Court of Common Pleas, in Ireland, and of their several Clerks and
Assistants, as specified in an Act of the last Session, for regulating Proceedings in the Courts
of Law in Ireland
3,092
6
2
3,092
6
2
Expenses of the Board of the Directors and Officers, and of the maintenance of Inland
Navigations; for 1822
3,500
0
0
3,500
0
0
For carrying on the Works at the royal Harbour of George the Fourth, at King's Town
(formerly Dunleary)
30,000
0
0
18,461
10
9¼
Salaries of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Duties, Salaries and Emoluments
of the Officers, Clerks and Ministers of Justice, in all Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts in
Ireland; for one year, ending the 5th Jan. 1823
7,200
0
0
4,866
1
6
Expense of the Royal Irish Academy; for the same time
300
0
0
—
Expense of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests; for the same time
500
0
0
500
0
0
Expense of building Churches and Glebe Houses, and of purchasing Glebes in Ireland; for the
same time
9,230
0
0
9,230
0
0
Expense of the Commissioners for making wide and convenient Streets in Dublin; for the same
time
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Expense of the Trustees of the Linen and Hempen Manufactures, for one year, ending the 5th
Jan. 1823, to be by the said Trustees applied in such manner, as shrill appear to them to be
most Conducive to promote and encourage the said Manufactures in Ireland
19,938
9
2¾
19,938
9
2¾
Additional Allowance to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Navigation in Ireland; for one
year, ending the 5th Jan. 1823
276
18
5½
276
18
5½
Expense of the House of Industry, Hospitals, and Asylum for Industrious Children in Dublin;
for the same time
19,000
0
0
13,846
3
0½
Expense of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin; for the same time
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Expense of the Female Orphan House, in the Circular Road near Dublin; for the same time
2,347
0
0
2,347
0
0
Expense of the Westmorland Lock Hospital in Dublin; for the same time
2,692
0
0
2,692
0
0
Expense of the Lying-in-Hospital in Dublin; for the same time
2,800
0
0
2,800
0
0
Expense of Doctor Stevens's Hospital; for the same time
1,400
0
0
1,400
0
0
Expense of the Fever Hospital and House of Recovery in Cork-street, Dublin; for the same
time
3,692
0
0
3,692
0
0
Expense of the Hospital for Incurables in Dublin; for one year, ending the 5th Jan.
1823
300
0
0
300
0
0
Expense of the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland; for the same time
17,000
0
0
17,000
0
0
Expense of the Foundling Hospital in Dublin; for the same time
30,000
0
0
30,000
0
0
Expense of the association incorporated for discountenancing Vice, and promoting the
knowledge and practice of the Christian Religion in Ireland; for the same time
6,464
0
0
6,464
0
0
Expense of the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland; for the same
time
10,000
0
0
8,307
13
10
For enabling the lord lieutenant of Ireland to issue Money from time to time, in aid of
Schools established by Voluntary Contributions
4,000
0
0
—
—
—
Expense of the Hibernian Society for Soldiers Children; for the same time
7,600
0
0
7,600
0
0
Expense of the Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin; for the same time
1,600
0
0
1,600
0
0
Expense of the Establishment of the Roman Catholio Seminary in Ireland; for the same
time
8,928
0
0
6,646
3
1
Expense of the Royal Cork Institution; for the same time
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Expense of the Royal Dublin Society; for the same time
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Expense of the Farming Society of Ireland; for the same time
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
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
1818,
CLASS VI.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1819, 1820, 1821, and 1822, now remaining unpaid or unprovided for
£.29,000,000
0
0
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to several Acts of the 57th and
58th of his late Majesty, and one Act of the 1st of his present Majesty, for authorising the
issue of Exchequer Bills, for the carrying on Public Works land Fisheries in the United Kingdom;
and for Building, and promoting the Building, of additional Churches, over and above the amount
granted in the two last Sessions of Parliament, for the discharge of the Exchequer Bills issued
under the two first-mentioned Acts
263,150
0
0
29,263,150
0
0
24,026,150
0
0
To pay off and discharge Irish Treasury Bills charged upon the Aids or Supplies of the year
1822, outstanding and unprovided for
1,000,000
0
0
Towards paying off and discharging Treasury Bills issued in Ireland, in the year ended the
5th day of January, 1822, to make good to the governor and company of the Bank of Ireland, the
sum remaining unpaid to the said governor and company, on the 11th of July, 1821, on account of
money advanced by them under an act of the 1st year of the reign of his present Majesty, for the
assistance of Trade and Manufactures in Ireland, by authorising the advance of certain sums for
the Support of Commercial Credit there
105,181
9
4¾
1,105,181
9
4¾
1,105,181
9
4¾
51,629,437
8
3¾
41,685,079
12
3¼
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES,
Not being part of the Supplies granted for the Service of the
Year.
Sums paid to 5th January, 1823.
Estimated further Miscellaneous Payments.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
William Rose Haworth, esq. on his salary for additional trouble in preparing Exchequer
Bills, pursuant to Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 1
150
0
0
Grosvenor Charles Bedford, esq. his Successor
—
—
—
50
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
5,400
0
0
2,350
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for building additional Churches, per Act 58
Geo. 3, c. 45
3,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Commercial Exchequer Bills
3,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Collection and Management
of the Revenue in Ireland
8,000
0
0
Bank of England, for Management on Life Annuities
1,827
15
7½
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for the Redemption of the Land-tax
—
—
—
2,413
12
11
For defraying the Charges of preparing and drawing the Lotteries for 1822, &c.
—
—
—
17,000
0
0
Repayment of Annuities claimed pursuant to Act 56 Geo. 3, c. 142
31
10
0
21,409
5
7½
21,813
12
11
21,409
5
7½
Total Payments for Services not voted
43,222
18
6½
Amount of Sums voted as above
51,629,437
8
3¾
Total Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
51,672,660
6
10¼
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
WAYS AND MEANS
for answering the foregoing Services.
£
s.
d.
Duty on Sugar, Tobacco and Snuff, Foreign Spirits and Sweets, and on Pensions,
Offices, &c.
3,000,000
0
0
Excise Duty on Tea, per Act 59 Geo. 3, c. 53
1,500,000
0
0
Profits of Lotteries, estimated at
200,000
0
0
Monies to arise from the Sale of Old Naval and Victualling Stores
151,000
0
0
Loan per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 73, from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the
National Debt
7,500,000
0
0
Trustees for the Payment of Naval and Military Pensions, and Civil
Superannuations, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,450,000
0
0
East India Company, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 93
508,617
0
0
Unclaimed Dividends, &c., after deducting Repayments to the Bank of England,
for Deficiencies of Balance in their hands
1,666
5
1
Interest on Land Tax redeemed by Money
52
2
9¼
Interest on Land Tax redeemed by Stock
6,000
0
0
Voluntary Contributions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 27
15,780
10
1
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
183,500
0
0
15,516,615
17
11¼
Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means; viz. 3 Geo. 4, c. 8 3 Geo. 4, c. 122
£.20,000,000
0
0
16,500,000
0
0
36,500,000
0
0
Total Ways and Means
52,016,615
17
11¼
Total Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
51,672,660
6
10¼
Surplus Ways and Means
343,955
11
1
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 25th March 1822.
S. R. LUSHINGTON.
Mem.
l.
CLASS VII.—ARREARS AND BALANCES.
[This Head, which occupies 125 folio pages in the Parliamentary Accounts, is here omitted, as
not being of general utility.]
CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
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, 1823 (stated
exclusive of the Trade between Great Britain and Ireland reciprocally.)
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures Exported according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Fereign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1821
32,438,650
17
3
38,395,555
7
2
10,555,912
10
3
48,951,467
17
5
36,424,652
13
11
1822
30,792,763
4
10
40,831,744
17
5
10,629,689
5
8
51,461,434
3
1
36,659,631
3
0
1823
30,500,094
17
4
44,236,533
2
4
9,227,589
6
11
53,464,122
9
3
36,968,964
9
9
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 24th March, 1823.
WILLIAM IRVING,
Inspector General of Imports and Exports.
FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from GREAT BRITAIN, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January, 1823 (stated exclusive of the Trade with Ireland).
YEARS Ending 5th January.
VALUE of IMPORTS calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures Exported 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.
VALUE, exclusive of the Trade with Ireland.
1821
31,484,108
11
8
37,818,035
13
3
10,525,025
18
8
48,343,061
11
11
35,568,669
9
5
1822
29,724,173
13
7
40,194,892
13
11
10,602,090
0
0
50,796,982
13
11
35,826,082
13
7
1823
29,401,807
10
10
43,558,488
12
9
9,211,927
16
10
52,770,416
9
7
36,176,896
13
11
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 14th March, 1823.
WILLIAM IRVING.
Inspector General of Imports and Exports.
An Account the Value of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from IRELAND, during each of the three Years ending 5th January, 1823 (stated inclusive and exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN).
——
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, as computed at the Average Prices Current.
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 inclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN.
5th January, 1821
5,197,192
17
8
7,089,441
11
6
89,781
6
11
7,179,222
18
5
10,308,713
11
9¼
— 1822
6,407,427
15
8¾
7,703,857
11
8¾
77,795
4
3¼
7,781,652
16
0
9,808,057
19
7¼
— 1823
6,607,487
12
5¾
6,771,607
2
3½
54,302
7
3
6,825,909
9
6½
7,871,237
10
9
YEARS ENDING
VALUE exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN.
5th January, 1821
954,542
5
7
577,519
13
11
30,886
11
7
608,406
5
6
855,983
4
6½
— 1822
1,068,589
11
3½
636,852
3
6½
27,599
5
7½
664,451
9
2
833,548
9
5
— 1823
1,098,287
6
6
678,044
9
7
15,661
10
1
693,705
19
8
792,067
15
10
Custom-House, Dublin, 19th March, 1823.
WILLIAM MARRABLE,
Inspector General of the Imports and Exports of Ireland.
CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
NEW VESSELS BUILT.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, that were built and registered in the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, in the Years ending the 5th January, 1821, 1822, and 1823, respectively.
——
In the Years ending the 5th January,
1821.
1822.
1823.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
United Kingdom
619
66,691
585
58,076
564
50,928
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
16
1,451
12
1,406
7
605
British Plantations
243
16,440
275
15,365
152
11,001
Total
883
84,582
872
74,847
723
62,534
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 Years 1820, 1821, and
1822, respectively.
——
On 30th Sept. 1820.
On 30th Sept. 1821.
On 30th Sept. 1822.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
United Kingdom
21,473
2,412,804
155,335
21,163
2,329,213
150,424
20,756
2,288,999
147,539
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
496
26,225
3,775
489
26,639
3,859
482
26,404
3,788
British Plantations
3,405
209,564
15,304
3,384
204,350
14,896
3,404
203,641
15,016
Total
25,374
2,643,593
174,414
25,036
2,560,202
169,179
24,642
2,519,044
166,333
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, 1823.
Years ending 5th Jan.
SHIPPING ENTERED INWARDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM,
(Exclusive of the Intercourse between Great Britain and
Ireland.)
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1821
11,285
1,668,060
100,325
3,472
447,611
27,633
14,757
2,115,671
127,958
1822
10,805
1,599,423
97,485
3,261
396,107
26,043
14,066
1,995,530
123,528
1823
11,087
1,663,627
98,980
3,389
469,151
28,421
14,476
2,132,778
127,401
SHIPPING CLEARED OUTWARDS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM,
(Exclusive of the Intercourse between Great Britain and
Ireland.)
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1821
10,102
1,549,508
95,849
2,969
433,328
24,545
13,071
1,982,836
120,394
1822
9,797
1,488,644
93,377
2,626
383,786
22,162
12,423
1,872,430
115,539
1823
10,023
1,539,260
95,998
2,843
457,542
25,394
12,866
1,996,802
121,392
Custom House, London, 24th March, 1823.
WM. IRVING.
INDEX
TO VOL. IX.
NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Appellate Jurisdiction, 1246, 1321, 1348
Austria, 435
B
Beer Bill, 1432
C
Commutation of Tithes in Ireland, 538
Contracts; Equitable Adjustment of, 1
D
Dissenters' Marriages Bill, 967
E
English Catholics Elective Franchise Bill, 1476
Equitable Adjustment of Contracts, 1
F
Foreign Policy of Great Britain, 170
Foreign Wool, 648
France and Spain; Negotiations relative to, 170
I
Ireland; Commutation of Tithes in, 538
Ireland; State of, 1033
Irish Insurrection Bill, 1439
Irish Tithes Composition and Commutation Bills, 1452, 1490
M
Marriage Act Amendment Bill, 540, 649
Marriages in Foreign Countries, 1319
N
Negotiations relative to France and Spain, 170
R
Roman Catholic Establishments, 1534
S
Silk Manufacture Bill, 985, 1529, 1533
Spain; Dispute between France and, 170
State of Ireland, 1033
Switzerland, 436
T
Thompson, Mr.; his Petition for an Equitable Adjustment of Contracts, 1
Tithes in Ireland, 538
W
Wool; Foreign, 648
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abolition of Slavery, 255, 257
Administration of the Laws in Ireland, 1203, 1255
Agricultural Distress, 609
America; North West Coast of, 387
Austria, 439.
B
Barilla Duties, 738, 973
Beer Duties Bill, 214, 975, 992, 1494
Breach of Privilege, 117, 691
British Roman Catholics Test Regulation Bill, 573, 1031, 1127,
British Museum, 1112, 1357
Budget The, 1412
Bull Baiting, 433
Burning of' Hindoo Widows, 1017
Butt, Mr., 1074.
C
Carlile, Mr.; his Petition respecting the Seizure of his Property, 114
Cash Payments; Resumption of, 833
Chancery; Delays in the Court of, 706, 739, 1511
Cochrane, Hon. Basil; his Petition respecting Vic. tualling Board, 1139
Combination of Workmen Bill, 546
Complaint against the "British Press," 117
Complaint against the "Morning Chronicle" 691
Coronation; Expense of the, 828, 1106
Criminal Laws, 397
Cumberland; Olive (styling herself) Princess of, 1021
Currency; Alterations in the, 833
D
Dog Fights, 433
Dublin Theatre; Riot in the, 8, 34, 69, 83, 119, 151, 239, 441, 467, 507, 550, 644
E
East and West India Sugars; Duties on, 444
Edinburgh; Petition from, for Parliamentary Reform, 31
F
Felo de Se Bill, 550
Foreign Policy of the Country, 1498
Foreign Wool Tax, 239
Four and a Half per Cent Duties, 819
Free Discussion in Matters of Religion; Petition for, 1365
G
Game Bill; Sale of, 79, 644
Greeks, 439.
H
Half-pay of the Army in Ireland, 442
Haydon, Mr.; his Petition respecting Historical Painters, 1209
Hindoo Infanticide, 1021
Hindoo Widows; Burning of, 1017
Historical Painters, 1209
I
Ingrossing Bills, l428
Insolvent Debtors Bill, 376
Ireland; Administration of the Laws in, 1203, 1255
Ireland; Education of the Poor of, 1241
Ireland; Half-pay of the Army in, 442
Ireland; Poor of, Employment of the, 102
Ireland; Lord Lieutenancy of, 1212
Irish Insurrection Bill, 218, 1147
Irish Tithes Composition and Commutation Bills, 366, 602, 802, 989, 1434
Irish Trading Vessels, 388
Irish Harbour and Light Dues, 383
Irish Joint Tenancy Bill, 560
J
Juries; Special, 563
Juries; Grand, 964
Jurors' Qualification Bill, 1103, 1496
L
Larcenies (Benefit of Clergy) Bill, 1244
Law Merchant, 256
Law of Settlement, 693
Law of Principal and Factor, 211, 256
Leeward Island Duties, 819
Library of the late King, 1112, 1357
London Bridge Bill, 988
Lord Advocate of Scotland; Conduct of, in the case of W. M. Borthwick, 664
Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, 1212
Lottery, 1139
M
Machinery, 598
Madhouses; Private, 1332
Malt and Beer Tax; Collection of, 592
Malta; Quarantine Regulations at, 1526
Marriages; Roman Catholic, 965
Middlesex County Court, 1079
N
Navy; Promotions in the, 1079
Newfoundland; State of, 245,
New South Wales Jurisdiction Bill, 1400
O
O'Grady; Conduct of Chief Baron, 360, 977, 993, 1421, 1429, 1506
Olive (styling herself) Princess of Cumberland, 1022
Owen, Mr.; his Plan, 1021
P
Parliamentary Reform, 30, 609, 1072
Penitentiary at Millbank, 1493
Poor of Ireland; Employment of the, 1021
Poor of Ireland; Education of the, 1241
Principal and Factor; Law of, 211, 256
Private Madhouses, 1332
Promotions in the Navy, 1079
Q
Quarantine Regulations at Malta, 1526
R
Reciprocity of Duties Bill, 795, 1434
Reform of Parliament, 30, 609, 1072
Religious Opinions, 1365
Resumption of Cash Payments, 833
Requin; Capture of the Ship, 1405
Roman Catholics of England Elective Franchise Bill, 1341
Roman Catholics Test Regulation Bill, 573, 1031, 1127
Roman Catholic Marriages, 965
Roman Catholics of Ireland; their Petition respecting the Administration of the Law, 1203, 1255
Rowan, G.; his Petition complaining of a Member, 1253, 1318, 1361
Russia, 387
S
Sale of Game Bill, 79, 644
Scotch Commissaries Courts Bill, 1337
Scotch Juries Bill, 1332
Scotch Linen Manufacture, 150
Scotch County Representation, 611
Scottish Law Commission Bill, 1512
Settlement; Law of, 693
Sheriff of Dublin; Conduct of, 8, 34, 69, 83, 119, 151, 239, 441, 467, 507, 550, 644
Silk Manufacture Bill, 143, 217, 377, 810, 831
Slavery; Abolition of, 255, 257
Small Debts; Recovery of, 542
Special Juries, 563
Spitalfields Silk Manufacture Acts, 143, 217, 377, 810, 831
Standing Order respecting Bills on Trade, 435
Sugars; Duty on East and West India, 444
Switzerland, 439
T
Tallow; Duty on the Importation of, 213
Tallow-Candles; Repeal of Duty on, 390
Trade; Standing Order respecting Bills on, 435
U
Usury Laws Repeal Bill, 1014, 1319
W
Wages of Manufacturers, 598
Wool Tax; Foreign, 239
Workmen Bill; Combination of, 546.
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Aberdeen, Earl of, 1338
B
Bathurst, Earl, 1038
Bexley, Lord, 1433, 1529, 1533
C
Caledon, Earl of, 1046
Caltborpe, Lord, 210, 971, 1440, 1534
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 540, 651, 656, 970
Carnarvon, Earl of, 972, 1071, 1251, 1356
Chester, Bishop of, 542, 650, 652, 971
Clare, Earl of, 1041
Clifden, Viscount, 1041, 1439
Colchester, Lord, 1320, 1348, 1534
D
Dacre, Lord, 1433
Darlington, Earl of, 1534
Darnley, Earl of, 1043, 1439, 1440
David's St., Bishop of, 1482
Derry, Bishop of, 542
Devonshire, Duke of, 1033
E
Eldon, Earl of;
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 207, 541, 542, 658, 659, 660, 972, 986, 1354, 1356, 1432, 1490, 1533
Erskine, Lord, 1321
G
Gosford, Earl of, 1046
Grey, Earl, I70
Grosvenor, Earl, 1321, 1328
H
Harrowby, Earl of, 971, 1486, 1530, 1534
Holland, Lord, 200, 1051, 1319,1330, 1356, 1490
K
Kildare, Bishop of, 1071
King, Lord, 1063, 1489
L
Llandaff, Bishop of, 972
Lansdown, Marquis of, 435, 538, 967, 973, 1063, 1320, 1476, 1488
Landerdale, Earl of, 1320
Leinster, Duke of, 1440
Limerick, Earl of, 1062, 1440
Liverpool, Earl of, 191, 435, 648, 654, 969, 985, 1068, 1246, 1320, 1355, 1433, 1439, 1487, 1489, 1492, 1532
London, Bishop of, 659
Lord Chancellor (Eldon), 542, 650, 653, 963, 985, 1321, 1322; 1354, 1485, 1532
M
Manvers, Lord, 1321
Maryborough, Lord, 1046
Melville, Lord, 1329, 1488
Norwich, Bishop of, 1479
P
Powerscourt, Lord, 656
R
Redesdale, Lord, 657, 971, 1353, 1478
Rosslyn, Earl of, 1252, 1355
S
Sidmouth, Lord, 660
Stanhope, Earl, 1
Slowell, Lord, 661
W
Westmorland, Earl of, 542, 649, 650, 1478
Worcester, Bishop of, 971
Y
York, Archbishop of, 651.
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abercaomby, Hon. James, 10, 31, 118, 120, 160, 362, 363 376, 442, 514, 664, 761, 803, 1235, 1302, 1335, 1427, 1522
Acland, Sir Thomas, 648A
Althorp, Viscount, 221, 349, 543, 597, 702
Attorney General (Sir Robert Gifford), 132, 431, 569, 724, 1077, 1245, 1519
Attwood, Matthias, 598, 945
B
Bankes, Henry, 589, 1032, 1126, 1138, 1197, 1341, 1425
Bankes, George, 587, 804, 1032, 1346
Baring, Alexander, 125, 211, 255, 342, 386, 537, 896, 1360
Barry, Colonel, 12, 117, 132, 375, 441, 494, 559, 607, 804, 1294
Becher, W. W. 237
Bennel, Hon. Henry Grey, 569, 597, 600, 954, 967, 981, 984, 1079, 1098, 1142, 1334
Benell, John, 81, 596, 607
Bernal Ralph, 338
Binning, Lord, 33, 638, 688, 974, 1334, 1345
Blake, Sir Francis, 794
Bridges, Sir John, 1434
Bright, Henry, 125, 254, 570, 815, 832, 1403, 1438
Brougham, Henry, 24, 79, 81, 112, 129, 217, 326, 433, 439, 495, 500, 504, 506, 517, 525, 526, 646, 775 816, 826, 982, 1138, 1203, 1209, 1211, 1253, 1255, 1311, 1318, 1333, 1361, 1362, 1364, 1494, 1497, 1512
Browne, Dennis, 438, 605, 803, 1198, 1232
Browne, Dominick, 560, 803
Burdell, Sir Francis, 12
Butterworth, Joseph, 500, 1346
Buxion, Thomas Fowell, 150, 217, 257, 351, 360, 378, 384, 385, 429, 434, 810, 1017, 1021, 1405, 1412
Byng, George, 597, 833
C
Calcraft, John, 32, 384, 438, 512, 537, 604, 1434
Calvert, C. 877
Canning, Right Hon. George, 127, 134, 275, 359, 361, 362, 366, 388, 441, 501, 515, 693, 791, 804, 825, 979, 980, 991, 1009, 1099, 1138, 1237, 1337, 1423, 1430, 1474, 1510, 1521
Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Right Hon. Fred. Robinson), 385, 394, 438, 439, 593, 830, 973, 976, 989, 1108, 1112, 1139, 1359, 1409, 1412, 1421.
Clerk, Sir George, 621.
Cockburn, Sir George, 1094
Coffin, Sir Isaac, 600, 1073, 1098
Colbourn, N. W. R., 1123, 1404
Colthurst, Sir N., 134, 227
Copley, Sir John;
see
Courtenay, William, 738, 753, 1476
Cranborne, Lord, 644
Creevey, Thomas, 560, 819
Croker, John Wilson, 523, 1123, 1142, 1211, 1254, 1357
Crosbie, Colonel, 1254, 1364
Curwen, John Christian, 396, 600, 1079
D
Daly, James, 562, 1301, 1475
Davies, Colonel, 1193
Davenport, D. 1015
Dawson, George, 133, 533, 807, 1238
Deerhurst, Lord, 645
Denison, J. W., 214, 738, 975
Denman, Thomas, 10, 116, 126, 363, 559, 737, 739, 965, 980, 1077, 1139, 1202, 1525
Douglas, Keith, 454, 1340
Drummond, Home, 686
Dugdale, D. S., 549
Dundas, Right Hon. W., 32
E
Ebrington, Lord, 609
Ellice, Edward, 379, 380, 535, 739, 799, 814, 832
Ellis Charles, 295, 451
Ellis, G. Agar, 989, 1359
Ellis, Thomas, 562, 967
Ennismore, Lord, 233
F
Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 34, 151, 438
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 1363, 1434
Fitzgerald, Vesey, 237, 366, 605, 805, 807, 1302, 1364
Folkestone, Viscount, 608, 913
Forbes, Charles, 467, 1020, 1404
G
Gascoyne, Isaac, 442, 1345
Gifford, Sir Robert; see Attorney General
Glenorchy, Lord, 642
Gooch, T. 1346
Gordon, Captain, 254, 1093
Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry, 218, 368, 512, 604, 606, 607, 609, 805, 806, 809, 990, 1022, 1186, 1226, 1244, 1279, 1506, 1510
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 739, 810, 817
Grant, J. P. 33, 639, 684, 967, 1013
Grattan, James, 442
Gurney, Hudson, 588, 739, 831, 974, 1126, 1342, 1510
H
Haldimand, William, 380
Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 228, 611, 612, 974, 1337, 1508
Heron, Sir Robert, 441
Heygate, Mr. Alderman, 377
Hill, Sir George, 135, 608, 1031, 1239
Hobhouse, John Cam, 376, 572, 692, 1074, 1078, 1113, 1127, 1197, 1332, 1357
Holford, George, 1494
Horton, Wilmot, 1403, 1404, 1528
Home, Joseph, 34, 114, 213, 245, 365, 378, 441, 530, 533, 534, 565, 595, 815, 826, 828, 988, 1019, 1025, 1077, 1079, 1100, 1106, 1212, 1240, 1332, 1347, 1365, 1371, 1404, 1411, 1421, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1438, 1474, 1509, 1526
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, 149, 150, 212, 213, 217, 382, 384, 386, 389, 435, 463, 548, 795, 813, 833, 939, 991, 1438
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H., 530, 562, 1005, 1238, 1298, 1317, 1422, 1430, 1508
J
James, William, 833, 913, 1072
Jones, John, 536, 691
K
Kennedy, T., 32, 623, 687 1341
L
Leake, William, 1511
Lennard, T. B., 116, 550, 1079, 1123
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 213
Leycester, Ralph, 1139
Littleton, E. J. 546
Lockhart, J. 706, 1432
Long, Sir Charles, 1119, 1210, 1358
Lord Advocate of Scotland [Sir W. Rae] 640, 677, 1337, 1341
Lushington, Stephen Rumbold, 365, 1345
Lushington, Dr., 132, 1474
M
Maberly, John, 151, 215, 592, 976, 992, 1412
Maberly, William, 1016
Mackintosh, Sir James, 121, 160, 386, 387, 397, 431, 590, 594, 632, 818, 966, 1012, 1014, 1119, 1244, 1336, 1400, 1404
Marryal, James, 256, 320, 459, 802,1403, 1405, 1438
Martin, Sir Byam, 1098
Martin, John, 213
Martin, Richard, 431. 433, 434, 562, 693, 1195, 1238, 1305
Maxwell, John, 386, 601, 621
Milton, Lord, 150, 234, 385, 641, 643
Monck, J. B 214, 397, 597, 945, 966, 976, 993
Money, W. T. 1020, 1399
Moore Peter, 237, 547, 549, 815
N
Nicholl, Sir John, 602
Newport, Sir John, 232, 361, 375, 389, 510, 596, 804, 805,806, 1199, 1236, 1241
Noel, Sir Gerard, 1022, 1027, 1031
Nogent, Lord, 574, 591, 965, 1128, 1138
O
O'Grady, Captain, 1001, 1431, 1475, 1507, 1509
Ommaney, Sir F., 1099
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 256, 611, 1319
P
Palmer, Charles, 1498
Palmer, Charles Fysbe, 1098
Palmerston, Viscount, 81, 443
Parnell, Sir Henry, 151, 605, 1148, 1202, 1230, 1293, 1507
Peel, Mr. Secretary. 12, 117, 120, 235, 364, 375, 420, 433, 510, 535, 587, 606, 648, 706, 805, 922, 981, 984, 1010, 1013, 1026, 1032, 1105, 1137, 1201, 1232, 1306, 1333, 1336, 1344, 1399, 1475, 1493, 1496, 1497, 1507, 1524
Peel, William, 1343
Philips, George, 382, 567, 599, 965, 1016
Phillimore, Dr., 965, 967
Plonkett, Right Hon. W. C. 9, 119, 128, 229, 503
Poyntz, Mr., 645
R
Rae, Sir William;
see
Ricardo, David, 149, 213, 214, 215, 378, 380, 457, 597, 601, 606, 738, 801, 816, 831, 849, 974, 976, 1015, 1386, 1399, 1438
Rice, Thomas Spring, 237, 360, 363, 384, 388, 805, 806, 978, 981, 993, 1021, 1198, 1424, 1425, 1427, 1429, 1432, 1474, 1475, 1506
Ridley, Sir M. W. 118, 434
Robertson, Alexander, 226, 256, 456, 801, 1195, 1434
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick;
see
Rose, Sir George, 312
Rumbold, C. E. 1438
S
Scarlett, James, 211, 213, 430, 502, 536, 546, 703, 772, 978, 1009, 1474, 1475, 1497, 1507, 1508
Sebright, Sir John, 239, 644
Shelley, Sir John, 644
smith, John, 223, 256, 433, 504, 1015, 1193, 1343, 1346
Smith, Robert, 364, 1507
Smith, William, 308, 378, 380. 434, 589, 1202, 1398
Solicitor General [Sir John Singleton Copley], 115, 789, 1005, 1076, 1141, 1426, 1428, 1474
Somerset, Lord G., 738
Speaker, the, [Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton] 691
Stanley, Lord, 548, 965
Stewart, Sir John, 376
Stuart-Wortley, John, 380, 437, 548, 586, 647, 1439
Sumner, Holme, 989
Sutton, Right Hon. Charles Manners;
see
Sykes, Daniel, 256, 318, 390, 799
T
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 253, 568, 608, 732, 737, 966, 1493, 1497
Tennyson, C. 648
Thompson, Alderman, 150, 1435
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 1008
Titchfield, Marquis of, 859
Trench, Colonel, 376, 562
Twiss, Horace, 624, 1391
W
Wallace, Right Hon. Thomas, 149, 385, 389, 800, 1435
Western, C. C. 596, 833, 1103, 1494, 1496
Wetherell, Charles, 123, 159, 365, 374, 586, 605, 764, 804, 990, 1014, 1032, 1424, 1430, 1525
Whitbread, S. C. 646
Whitmore, W. 444
Wilberforce, William, 287, 461, 1020, 1384
Williams, John, 644, 706, 1510, 1523
Williams, William, 150, 573
Wilmot, R. J. 253;
see
Wilson, Thomas, 143, 802, 1016, 1142, 1398, 1432
Wodehouse, Edmund, 596, 902
Wood, Colonel, 596, 693, 814
Wood, Mr. Alderman, 1494
Wynn. C. W. W. 119, 361, 363, 467, 493, 1009, 1019, 1021, 1255, 1334, 1361, 1424, 1509
Y
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 536, 1141, 1359
END OF VOL. IX.