THE
New Series,
VOL. IV.
*
*
*
Of the same Proprietors may be had, in Thirty-six Volumes,
THE
OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD
TO THE YEAR 1803.
THE
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. IV.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF JANUARY,
TO
THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL 1821.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY T. C. HANSARD, PETERBOROUGH-COURT, FLEETSTREET;
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME,
AND BROWN; J. M. RICHARDSON; BLACK, KINGSBURY, PARBURY, AND ALLEN;
J. HATCHARD & SON; J. RIDGWAY & SONS; E. JEFFERY & SON; RODWELL &
MARTIN; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1821.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
V. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1821. Jan. 23. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
3
1821. Jan. 25. Petitions relative to the Queen
104
Naples—Declaration of the Allied Sovereigns at Troppau
116
1821. Feb. 5. Petition from Birmingham relative to the Decline of Trade
350
1821. Feb. 19. Naples—Conduct of the Allied Powers
742
1821. Feb. 20. Queen's Annuity Bill
797
1821. Feb. 21. Foreign Trade—Commerce of the Country
824
1821. Feb. 26. Law of Treason—Ireland
938
1821. Mar. 2. Naples—Conduct of the Allied Powers
1039
1821. Mar. 27. Naples
1468
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1821. Jan. 23. Motion for Papers relative to the Omission of the Queen's Name in the Liturgy
26
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
37
1821. Jan. 24. Conduct of Ministers
65
Petitions relative to the Queen
65
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
95
The Queen—Liturgy
103
1821. Jan. 26. The King's Answer to the Address
119
1821. Jan. 26. Petitions relative to the Queen
119
Committee of Supply
138
Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion respecting the Omission of the Queen's Name in the Liturgy
139
1821. Jan. 31. Petitions relative to the Queen
221
Petitions for a Reform of Parliament
222
Petitions relative to the Queen
228
Provision for the Queen—Communication from her Majesty
236
1821. Feb. 1. Petitions relative to the Queen
280
Bank Notes
286
Breach of Privilege—Complaint of an Address published in the London Gazette
288
Revenue Accounts
298
Provision for the Queen
308
1821. Feb. 2. Petitions relative to the Queen
324
Breach of Privilege—Complaint of an Address published in the London Gazette
338
Bank of Ireland
339
Navy Estimates
342
1821. Feb. 5. Agricultural Distress
360
The Marquis of Tavistock's Motion relative to the Conduct of Ministers with regard to the Proceedings against the Queen
361
1821. Feb. 6. Water-works—Supply of Water to the Metropolis
422
Motion for a Committee to inquire into the State of Foreign Trade
425
Slave Trade
428
The Marquis of Tavistock's Motion relative to the Conduct of Ministers with regard to the Proceedings against the Queen
429
1821. Feb. 8. Petitions relative to the Queen
511
Trade of Bimingham—Petition of the Merchants
523
1821. Feb. 9 Timber Duties—Petition from New Brunswick in favour of
542
Censorship of the Press in India
553
Petitions relative to the Queen
553
Petition from Chester, complaining, of the Conduct of the Sheriff
554
Detention of a British Subject at Ghent—Petition of W. M'Dougall
562
Motion for defering the Committee of Ways and Means
563
Motion respecting the President of the Board of Control
574
1821. Feb. 12. Machinery—Petition of Rope-makers
579
Petitions relative to the Queen
580
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
583
Queen's Annuity Bill
606
1821. Feb. 13. Petitions relative to the Queen
608
Mr. Smith's Motion for restoring the Queen's Name to the Liturgy
620
1821. Feb. 14. Laws respecting the Admission of Attorneys and Solicitors
666
Conduct of Sheriffs in refusing to call County Meetings
667
Scotch Juries Bill
670
Smuggling Prevention Service
681
Malt Duties Bill
683
1821. Feb. 15. Case of the Bowditches
687
The Queen—Church of Scotland
689
Court of Admiralty in Scotland—Compensation to Clerks
715
1821. Feb. 16. Scotch Juries Bill
717
Irish union Duties
720
British Museum
723
Mr. Hume's Motion for submitting the Ordnance Estimates in Detail
726
1821. Feb. 19. Hull Poor Rates Bill
795
1821. Feb. 20. Prevention of Bank Forgeries
803
Nottingham Petition for the Impeachment of Ministers
804
Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Conduct of the Sheriff of Chester
811
Bill for Abolishing the African Company
823
1821. Feb. 21. The Queen—Milan Commission
836
Naples—Conduct of the Allied Powers
837
1821. Feb. 22. Agricultural Distress
895
Dublin Petition complaining of the Conduct of the High Sheriff
901
Addresses for Money—Standing Order
917
Conduct of Mr. Justice Best—Petition of Thomas Davison
918
Ionian Islands
933
1821. Feb. 26. Scotch Court of Admiralty—Compensation, to Clerks
939
Corn Averages
940
Capital Crimes Defence Bill
945
1821. Feb. 27. Metropolis Turnpike Trusts
946
West India Dock Company
947
1821. Feb. 28. Execution of Murat
948
Petitions respecting the Roman Catholic Claims
949
Mr. Plunkett's Motion for a Committee on the Roman Catholic Claims
961
1821. Mar. 1. State of Education in Ireland
1034
1821. Mar. 2. Resolutions respecting the Roman Catholic Claims
1066
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
1068
1821. Mar. 5. Grampound Disfranchisement Bill 5
1077
Husbandry Horses
1078
Transfer of Stock
1082
Mr. Ellis—Duties of a Master in Chancery in Ireland
1084
1821. Mar. 6. Mr. Maberly's Motion respecting the State of the Revenue, and the Repeal of the House and Window Duties
1100
1821. Mar. 7. Petition of N. Broadhurst, complaining of Ill-treatment in Lancaster Castle
1118
Petition of Thomas Davision—Right of Judges to fine a Defendant during the course of his Defence
1132
Mr. Gooch's Motion for a Committee on Agricultural Distress
1139
Criminal Law in Ireland
1161
1821. Mar. 9. Breach of Privilege—Complaint against "The Morning Chronicle."
1162
Petition of Charles Hill, complaining of Ill-treatment in Ilchester Gaol
1170
Army Estimates
1172
1821. Mar. 9. Army Estimates
1176
1821. Mar. 12. Petitions respecting the Roman Catholic Claims
1184
Army Estimates
1186
1821. Mar. 14. Vagrant Laws
1216
Mr. Robert Smith's Motion respecting the Austrian Loan
1219
1821. Mar. 15. Breach of Privilege—Complaint against "The Morning Post"
1246
Carlisle Election—Interference of the Military
1247
Bread
1257
Army Estimates
1258
County Courts Rate
1264
1821. Mar. 16. Petitions respecting the Roman Catholic Claims
1265
Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1269
1821. Mar. 19. Bank Cash Payments Bill
1315
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
1338
1821. Mar. 20. Petition of Captain Romeo, complaining of Ill-treatment
1345
Naples
1350
1821. Mar. 21. American Loyalists
1380
Repeal of the Malt Tax
1384
1821. Mar. 22. Mr. Hume's Motion respecting Receivers-General of Land and Assessed Taxes—and Distributors of Stamps
1401
1821. Mar. 23. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1412
1821. Mar. 25. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1445
1821. Mar. 27. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1473
1821. Mar. 28. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1489
1821. Mar. 29. Napoleon Buonaparté
1495
Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1497
Timber Duties
1500
1821. Mar. 30. Capital Crimes Defence Bill
1512
Army Estimates
1514
1821. April 2. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1523
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
1821. Jan. 23. KING'S SPEECH on Opening the Session
1
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
1821. Jan. 31. COPY of the Communication from the Queen, relative to the intended Provision for her Majesty
236
COPY of the Circular Dispatch to his Majesty's Missions at Foreign Courts, relative to the Discussions at Troppau and Laybach
283
FINANCE ACCOUNTS, for the Year 1820
App. i
V. LISTS.
1821. Jan. 23. List of the Minority in the House of Commons, on Mr. We therell's Motion for Papers relating to the Omission of the Queen's Name in the Liturgy
36
1821. Jan. 26. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, on Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion respecting the Omission of the Queen's Name in the Liturgy
219
1821. Feb. 6. LIST of the Majority, and also of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Marquis of Tavistock's Motion on the Conduct of Ministers with regard to the Proceedings against the Queen
507
1821. Feb. 9. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the Resolution, in the Committee of Ways and Means, for the Renewal of the Sugar Duties
574
1821. Feb. 13. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. John Smith's Motion for restoring her Majesty's Name to the Liturgy
665
1821. Feb. 14. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Malt Duties Bill
687
1821. Feb. 15. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion relative to the Order in Council, directed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, respecting the Omission of the Queen's Name in the Liturgy
715
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on a Motion for Compensation to Clerks in the Court of Admiralty in Scotland
717
1821. Feb. 16. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion for submitting the Ordnance Estimates in Detail
742
1821. Feb. 20. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on a Motion for printing the Nottingham Petition for the Impeachment of Ministers
810
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Conduct of the Sheriff of Chester
822
1821. Feb. 21. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Sir James Mackintosh's Motion respecting the Conduct of the Allied Powers towards Naples
894
1821. Feb. 22. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord John Russell's Motion respecting the Conduct of the High Sheriff of Dublin
917
1821. Feb. 28. LIST of the Majority, and also of the Minority, on Mr. Plunkett's Motion for a Committee on the Roman Catholic Claims
1030
1821. Mar. 2. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
1076
1821. Mar. 5. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Repeal of the Husbandry Horses Duty
1081
1821. Mar. 6. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Maberley's Resolutions respecting the State of the Revenue and the Repeal of the House and Window Duties
1127
1821. Mar. 7. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on a Motion for receiving the Petition of N. Broadhurst, complaining of Ill-treatment in Lancaster Castle
1131
1821. Mar. 9. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Stuart Wortley's Complaint against "The Morning Chronicle," for a Breach of Privilege
1169
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Creevey's Amendment to a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply
1176
1821. Mar. 12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Army Estimates
1215
1821. Mar. 14. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Macdonald's Motion for reducing the Army
1245
1821. Mar. 15. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Army
1263
1821. Mar. 21. LIST of the Majority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Western's Motion for the Repeal of the Malt Tax
1400
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
During the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-third Day of January 1821, in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.
1821
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, January 23, 1821.
THE KING'S SPEECH ON OPENING THE
This day his Majesty came in state to the House of Peers, and being seated on the throne, the gentleman usher of the Black Rod was directed to summon the Commons to attend. The Commons, headed by their Speaker, having presented themselves at the bar, his Majesty delivered the following most gracious Speech to both Houses:
"My Lords and Gentlemen:
"I have the satisfaction of acquainting you, that I continue to receive from foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country.
"It will be a matter of deep regret to me, if the occurrences which have lately taken place in Italy should eventually lead to any interruption of tranquillity in that quarter; but it will, in such case, be my great object to secure to my people the continuance of peace.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons;
"The measures by which, in the last session of Parliament, you made provision for the expenses of my civil government, and for the honour and dignity of the Crown, demand my warmest acknowledgments.
"I have directed that the Estimates for the current year shall be laid before you;
2
"You will observe from the Accounts of the Public revenue, that, notwithstanding the receipts in Ireland have proved materially deficient, in consequence of the unfortunate circumstances which have affected the commercial credit of that part of the united kingdom, and although our foreign trade, during the early part of this time, was in a state of depression, the total revenue has, nevertheless, exceeded that of the preceding year.
"A considerable part of this increase must be ascribed to the new taxes; but in some of those branches which are the surest indications of internal wealth, the augmentation has fully realized, any expectation which could have been reasonably formed of it,
"The separate provision which was made for the queen, as princess of Wales, in the year 1814, terminated with the demise of his late majesty.
"I have, in the mean time, directed advances, as authorized by law; and it will, under present circumstances, be for you to consider what new arrangements should be made on this subject.
"My Lords and Gentlemen;
"I have great pleasure in being able to acquaint you, that a considerable improve-
3
"It will be my most anxious desire to concur in every measure which may be considered as calculated to advance our internal prosperity.
"I well know that, notwithstanding the agitations produced by temporary circumstances, and amidst the distress which still presses upon a large portion of my subjects, the firmest reliance may be placed on that affectionate and loyal attachment to my person and government, of which I have recently received so many testimonies from all parts of my kingdom; and which, whilst it is most grateful to the strongest feelings of my heart, I shall ever consider as the best and surest safeguard of my throne.
"In the discharge of the important duties imposed upon you, you will, I am confident, be sensible of the indispensable necessity of promoting and maintaining, to the utmost of your power, a due obedience to the laws, and of instilling into all classes of my subjects a respect for lawful authority, and for those established institutions under which the country has been enabled to overcome so many difficulties, and to which, under Providence, may be ascribed our happiness and renown as a nation."
His Majesty then retired and the Commons returned to their own House.
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT
His Majesty's most gracious Speech having been again read by the lord chancellor, and also by the reading clerk at the table,
The Earl of Belmore
rose for the purpose of moving an Address of Thanks to his majesty. He commenced by expressing his earnest hope that their lordships would concur unanimously in the motion which he was about to propose. He felt most inadequate to the task which he had undertaken, but it gave him confidence
4
5
Lord Prudhoe
rose to second the address, but spoke in so low a tone of voice that little of what he said could be collected below the bar.—He remarked, that as the noble earl who had just set down had done full justice, in submitting the Address, to the statements in his majesty's Speech, he should not trouble their lordships with many words. On the question of our foreign connexions, he fully agreed in the sentiments expressed by the noble earl; for, notwithstanding the pacific assurances of foreign powers, it became this country to observe their proceedings with a vigilant eye. He hoped at the same time, that
6
Earl Grey,
in rising after the noble mover and seconder of the address, intimated that it was not his intention to offer any opposition, in consequence of what had fallen from these noble lords, or of what was contained in the address itself. He must say, however, that he could not concur in the address, because, though he had no objection to make to what it contained, both it and the Speech from the throne, fell far short of what he thought ought to have been found in them. In the Speech there was a total absence of those explanations on the state of the country which were to be expected from the throne at a period like the present. The noble earl who moved the address anticipated their lordships' concurrence in the congratulations offered to the throne on account of those expressions of loyalty and attachment recently received by his majesty, from all quarters of the country. In this anticipation the noble lord was perfectly justified; because, whatever differ-
7
8
9
10
11
12
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that as the noble earl had not opposed any thing in the address, but only objected to it for what it did not contain; as, subject to this objection, there was no statement in the Speech from the throne which the noble earl did not approve, it was not necessary for him to detain their lordships by entering into any detailed reply. As, however, he might be supposed to acquiesce in the statements of the noble earl if he allowed his speech to pass entirely unnoticed, he thought it necessary to say a few words on some of the topics to which the noble earl had called the attention of the House. In noticing the sentiments of loyalty alluded to in the Speech from the throne, the noble earl had been pleased to intimate that the universal opinion of the country was, that the present system of government ought to be changed. He had not, however, explained what he meant by the system of government, or what was the nature of the change supposed to be required. He was ready to allow that at public meetings a distinction was to be made between expressions of loyalty to the throne and approbation of the measures of government. That the former did not include the latter he fully admitted, and he hoped the time never would come in this country, in which the vices and errors of the government were not separated from the throne, and the distinction the noble earl contended for maintained. The noble earl would, however, find himself much mistaken in the opinion he had advanced. Instead of wishing for a change, it was certain that all the thinking part of the country approved of the system on which the government was conducted, and would consider any departure from it as leading to inevitable ruin. He was not prepared to say
13
14
15
16
17
Lord Holland
said, it was not his intention to enter into a wide field of discussion upon the general state of the country. His object originally was, to put two or three very simple questions to the noble earl on the other side of the House; and he should have confined himself to those questions, if it was not for the topics that had been introduced. At the same time he should avoid entering into any review of the general system of the government. The noble lord (Liverpool) had professed not to understand what was meant by a system of government; perhaps he did not. It was natural enough that those who were in the habit of adopting measures one day, and abandoning them the next, should find out that they had no system whatever, and consequently be puzzled by expressions which seemed to imply that they had. His noble friend, however (earl Grey), had marked out distinctly, as he thought, the meaning which he attached to the words. What he meant by a total change of system was, a restoration of the confidence which used formerly to exist between the people and their rulers; a restoration of the old English homely good-humoured government, which had been so long abandoned, and so much impaired by the practices of the present administration. Such was the change to which his noble friend had alluded. It was not his intention, at present, to point out how a contrary system might be adopted, but there was one part of the speech from the throne, upon which, notwithstanding the explicit commentary of the mover of the address, he should feel that he was not acting as an honest man if he did not express
18
19
"The doctor understood the call,
"But had not always where with all."
20
21
22
moral
moral
23
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, in reply to the noble baron, that the questions he had put involved subjects of such magnitude that he could not attempt to answer them without going into a detail, which he was not prepared to do at that moment. If, however, the noble lord should think proper to call for specific information on any of the points to which he had referred, and should give notice of a motion to that effect, he would be ready on any such occasion to go into the subject, and to answer the inquiries of the noble lord. At present he hoped their lordships would see that he could not well go into such a detail.
Lord Holland
said, that the questions which he had put to the noble earl could not excite discussion at present, or require that detail which the noble earl seemed to imagine. He would, however, put them in a shape where they might be answered by a single "Ay" or "No." And, first,
24
The Earl of Liverpool
again observed, that the present was not the moment to go into such details, but that he would be ready to meet the noble lord on the subject on any future occasion, when he should think proper to submit a motion respecting it.
Lord Holland,
after this refusal, wished the noble lord joy of belonging to an administration whose affairs were so complicated, as that the head of it could not give an answer, ay or no, to a few plain questions.
Lord Eilenborough
said, that undoubtedly that man was to be regarded as the greatest benefactor of his country, who could take the most certain means of preventing the calamities which might befal it. If, then, we looked back upon the state of the affairs of Europe for the last twenty-five years, who was to be considered as the man capable of conferring the greatest benefit upon his country? Not the noble general opposite, who had succeeded in putting an end to the war, but the individual who, at its commencement, possessed the means of altogether preventing the war. He congratulated the House and the country, that the noble baron possessed the means of preventing a war, which by many persons was considered likely to take place, not by bringing into action the military power of the country, but by a few words in the speech from the throne, and, what was still more extraordinary, by an application for the payment of a debt! Surely the noble baron must be aware, that the only effectual way of enforcing the payment of a debt must be, an application from a general at the head of an army. It certainly appeared to him, that every thing had been done by this government, which, under the circumstances, was proper to be done. The answer which they had given to the Austrian government, was this, "We sincerely hope you will not go to war; and if you do, we will give you no assistance." The noble baron had dwelt much upon the situation to which
25
Lord Holland
said, that he could have no objection to answer the question of the noble lord. The language which this country ought to have used to Austria, should hate been plain and unequivocal-We should have declared explicitly, that we would take no part in such a war; and we should have expressed, openly, in the face of Europe, not only our disapprobation of the war, but of the principle of the war. The noble baron had said, that the most effectual way of addressing an emperor was, by a general at the head of an army; but he forgot that this was no longer the case, when that emperor was looking for assistance and support from the party addressing him. Notwithstanding the surprise expressed by the noble baron, he saw nothing so preposterous in supposing, that if, instead of the paragraph which the speech now contained, there had been one, lamenting that any of the allies should think of interfering with the rights of independent nations, the conduct of Austria would have been influenced by such a declaration. For his own part, he believed it would have prevented Austria from marching; at all events, they who thought that it would not have kept her for a long time hesitating and
26
Lord Ellenborough
congratulated the noble baron and the country, since, notwithstanding the lamentable effects which he had ascribed to the policy pursued in this country for the last twenty-five years, he still thought its moral character stood so high, that a solemn declaration of its opinion must be imperative upon the greatest military power in Europe.
Lord Holland
said, that the noble baron had totally misapprehended what had fallen from him. He had never dreamt of ascribing any such miraculous effect to the moral character of the country.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it might not be amiss to observe, that if one noble lord were Austria and the other England, it would be extremely difficult to determine, whether they might or might not be prevented from going to war [a laugh].
The Address was agreed to
nem. diss.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, January 23, 1821.
THE QUEEN—LITURGY.]
Lord A. Hamilton
gave notice, that he intended upon Friday next to bring forward a motion relative to the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy.
Mr. Wetherell
rose for the purpose of making a few observation relative to certain documents, of which he thought the House ought to be in possession, before the motion of the noble lord was taken into consideration. He should, therefore, give notice of a motion for the production of such documents on some day before Friday. He was proceeding to state his reasons for so doing, when he was called to order by.
The Speaker,
who was satisfied that the learned member would excuse him for interruption, but nothing was so irregular as to offer remarks upon that which was only a notice of motion.
Mr. Tierney
said, that it appeared to him that the learned gentleman intended, in consequence of the notice just given for Friday, to give notice of a motion for the production of certain papers previously to that day. He wished, in short, to put the House in possession of such information as would enable it to form a proper judgment on the question which would then be submitted to it.
Lord Castlereagh
admitted that such might be the meaning of the learned gen-
27
Lord Folkestone
said, it was competent to the learned gentleman, if he thought proper, to move at that instant for the documents he wanted.
Mr. Banket
said, it was not usual for gentlemen to give notices of motions before the King's Speech had been taken into consideration. He did not mean to say, that it was not competent to members to do so, but he thought that, unless under very peculiar circumstances, the respect which was due to his majesty ought to induce the House not to engage in any previous discussions.
The Speaker
observed, that if the learned member would explain his object, he would apologise if he had misunderstood him. He understood the learned member intended to offer some observations upon the notice of the noble lord. That, it appeared to him, would be contrary to the usual forms of the House. It was impossible that any observations could be made leading to a discussion, without going on to a termination of the question. If he mistook the learned member, he begged his pardon; but if he did not, he put it to him and to the House, whether he was not irregular in addressing the House on the notice of the noble lord?
Mr. Wetherell
said, he had been misunderstood. He intended to move for the production of certain papers, which he conceived absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of the noble lord's motion.
Lord Castlereagh
thought the learned member could not make any motion of the kind without notice.
Mr. Wetherell
said, that provided he could attain his object, the mode by which be did so was quite immaterial to him. He was ready to bow to the will of the House. The papers for which he was about to move were, in his opinion, absolutely necessary, in order to come to a proper understanding of the noble lord's motion. However, in deference to the opinion of the House, he was ready to reverse the proceeding, and to give notice for a future day [cries of "no, no, move now,"]. He would then move at once for "Copies. 1. Of all Collects or Litanies in the Public Liturgy of the Church in each reign, from the reign of James I (inclusive) to the present time, in which
28
Lord Castlereagh
thought it would be more convenient to give notice of the motion. The learned member was transgressing the rules and forms of the House. He was moving without notice for documents which nobody understood. If the learned member thought there was any reluctance on his part to produce those do-
29
Mr. Tierney
said, that as far as he understood the noble lord, he had no objection to the hon. and learned member's motion, hut only to the time of making it. It was most extraordinary, that any objection as to time should be made, when the documents moved for were those upon which the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy had been rounded; but the noble lord had no idea where those documents could be found! If that was the case, he should wish to know where the noble lord had laid his fingers upon them, when the order in council was made for excluding her majesty's name from the Liturgy? Now he would only beg the House, to consider the way in which the question stood. The learned member who made the motion, was not an ally of his (Mr. Tierney's); he was the uniform supporter of ministers. A noble friend of his had given notice of a motion for Friday. The learned member said, that there were certain documents which he wished to have laid before the House, in order to guide his decision upon that motion. He thought he could not form an opinion in the absence of those documents. The noble lord opposite said he had no objection to the production of the documents, but he would not allow them to be produced now. This was as much as to say, "you must first decide upon the question, and afterwards you may
30
31
Mr. Wetherell
wished to explain the reason why he could not consent to withdraw his motion. He presumed that the noble lord had read over, in February last, the documents which he was now desirous of obtaining. It was in that month that her majesty's name was erased from the Liturgy; and he could not suppose that the privy council would come to a determination on so important a measure without looking into the law and usage of the constitution regarding it. When the noble lord said, that he did not know where to find the documents, did he mean to say, that he had not looked into the litanies of the church to know what were the rights of a Queen Consort before he struck her name out of them? He could not suppose, that when the noble lord hazarded the desperate venture of striking the Queen's name out of the Liturgy in which it had been constantly retained for the long space of two centuries, he was ignorant where to find the records by which the legality or illegality of it was to be defended. Had the noble lord never been at the British Museum? Or was he ignorant that the undoubted, the uniform, and the unbroken usage, from the time of Henry VIII. downwards, was in favour of the Queen's right to have her name continued in the Liturgy? He could not strictly and seriously mean to give a negative to either of these two questions: and one of the principal reasons which induced him to make his present motion without any previous notice was, that he presumed that ministers had carefully investigated each of the required documents. Now, however, they were to be told that they had come too suddenly with the question upon ministers, and that they had been guilty of a paltry parliamentary trick. But the fact was not so: ministers were not taken by surprise. Did the noble lord presume, did the noble lord dare to assert in the face of the Commons of England, that his colleagues erased her majesty's name from the Liturgy, without considering how far they were justified by the laws of the country in doing so? If he meant to say, that they had done it unadvisedly—and unadvisedly he, for one, believed that they had done it—what a censure did he pass upon his coadjutors in office, in saying that they had struck
32
Mr. Bathurst
complained, that his noble friend had been entirely misunderstood, and therefore misrepresented by the learned gentleman. Was that learned gentleman so ignorant of parliamentary forms, as not to know the difference between consulting public printed documents, and consulting public documents properly authenticated? The latter were dispersed in different public offices; and therefore, without previous inquiry, it was impossible to say where a man could lay his hands upon them. The right hon. member was proceeding when
Mr. Hume
rose to order. The right hon. gentleman had, since the last meeting of parliament, accepted a place of emolument under the Crown, by which his seat was vacated. He wished to know whether he had been re-elected? If the acceptance of a place worth 5,000
l.
Mr. Bathurst
was obliged to the hon. member for reminding him that he was perhaps subjecting himself to a fine of 500
l.
l.
Mr. Tierney
was aware that under the act of parliament for managing the affairs of India, there were some commissioners who had no salaries; but there were three who received salaries. Now, he wished to know of the right hon. gentleman whether he was one of the supernumeraries, as they were called, or was the president of the Board of Control! He did not know whether what he had read in the Gazette was correct or not; but there he
33
Mr. Bathurst
replied, that the salary belonging to that office was in the appointment of the Crown. Now, the Crown had not, as yet, appointed him any salary, as he was already in possession of another office under it.
Mr. Tierney
had to congratulate the House at last on a piece of economy on the part of ministers. One of them held the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster and the' presidency of the Board of Control—and yet only received the emoluments of one office!
Lord Milton
had always understood, that the late sir James Pulteney, whilst secretary at war, had received no salary; but he had never understood, that on accepting that office, he had been excused from vacating his seat in consequence of it. The acceptance of the office vacated the scat quite as much as the acceptance of the salary.
Mr. Creevey
remarked, that it mattered not whether a member accepting office declined receiving any salary, or thought proper to give it away. The question was, was it an office of profit under government? If so, the member of course vacated his seat. He was of opinion, that the right hon. member had vacated his seat, by accepting the office of president of the Board of Control.
Mr. Bathurst
referred to the act in question, which, he contended, did not include members holding offices without salary. He then proceeded to argue upon the question before the House. His noble friend had no objection to the principle of the motion, but he conceived some delay necessary, in order to procure the documents called for. They were not to be picked up in the streets, nor in the shop of a bookseller, but must be had from the most authentic sources.
Sir James Mackintosh
remarked, that if ministers had not seen the documents now moved for—if they had not entered into that investigation of them into which they ought to have entered, then in reality they could not know whether the examination of them might not be decisive of the illegality of the measure in question. If they had examined them, as they said they had, what need was there of a moment's previous notice? If they were not now possessed of them, it was
34
The Solicitor-General
said, that his! learned friend laboured under a very erroneous impression. He had stated that, because these documents were not in the possession of ministers, ministers had no justifiable grounds for erasing her majesty's name from the Liturgy; but he had been completely misinformed: for he ought to have known that there could be no alteration in the Liturgy without an order of council. He could assure the House that ministers had consulted the documents then moved for.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that the information given to the House by the solicitor-general, differed so much from that given to it. by the noble lord opposite, that the House would find some difficulty in reconciling it. The noble lord said that the Queen's name had been erased from the liturgy after a full examination of all the necessary documents; whilst the solicitor-general, at the same moment that he confessed that they had consulted these documents, disdained to rest upon them, and left the matter to be defended by the order in council. The motion was not pressed by the learned mover, from any intention of anticipating the debate, or from any wish to prolong the discussion. The noble lord had therefore taken a wrong course in meeting it by the previous question. If the principle were acceded to, there might be no objection to some delay in the production of the necessary papers. His noble friend, too, might then be induced to postpone the motion of which he had given notice, to a more distant day, or he might, after considering the reasons urged in favour of such delay, find them unsatisfactory. He himself entertained not the smallest doubt, that if the motion were now acceded to, there would be no difficulty in obtaining all the documents in the course of a single morning.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
was desirous of stating the considerations which would induce him to vote for the motion of his learned friend. Undoubtedly it was the usual practice of the House to postpone, on the first day of the session, the discussion of every question until after the Speech from the throne had been taken into consideration. This rule, however, was not uniformly observed, nor could it
35
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
fully concurred in the observation of the learned serjeant—an observation on which every member, he trusted, would feel it his duty to act, namely, that the question to which the present motion referred, should be discussed as one of constitutional law, without reference to party or partiality. But, though he agreed most fully with him in that feeling, he still must consider the present a most improper time for such a motion. An allusion had been made by the learned serjeant to cases in which discussions on questions, independent of privilege, preceded the consideration of a speech from the throne. It was true that such cases did occur; but every member would recollect with what disapprobation these very extraordinary motions had been received by the House.
The previous question being put, "That the question be now put," the House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 260: Majority against Mr. Wetherell's motion, 91. Mr. Wetherell then gave notice of his intention to renew his motion tomorrow.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Allen, J.H.
36
Astell, Wm.
Haldimand, W.
Belgrave, vise.
Hamilton, lord A.
Beaumont, T. W.
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Barham, Jos. F.
Harbord, hon. E.
Baring, Henry
Heathcote, sir G.
Baring, Alex.
Heathcote, J. G.
Barrett, J. M.
Heron, sir Rob.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hill, lord A.
Bernal, Ralph
Hobhouse, J. C.
Birch, Joseph
Hornby, Edmund
Brougham, Henry
Honywood, W. P.
Browne, Dom.
Hume, Joseph
Bright, Henry
Hurst, Robt.
Burdett, sir F.
Jervoise, G. P.
Bury, vise.
Ring, sir J. D.
Buxton, T. F.
Kennedy, J. F.
Butterworth, Jos.
Lambton, John G.
Baillie, John
Langstone, J. H.
Bennett, John
Lennard, T. B.
Blake, sir F.
Lemon, sir W.
Boughton, W. E. B.
Lloyd, S. M.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Lushington, Steph.
Bentinck, lord W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Balfour, J.
Macdonald, J.
Calcraft, J. H.
Martin, John
Calcraft, John
Milton, viset.
Calvert, Charles
Monk, J. B.
Calvert, Nic.
Moore, Peter
Campbell, hon. J.
Moore, Abraham
Carew, R. S.
Marjoribanks, S.
Carter, John
Marryat, J.
Cavendish, Henry
Maberley, John
Clifford, capt.
Maberley, W. L.
Clifton, visc.
Mahon, hon. S.
Cripps, Joseph
Newman, R. W.
Coke, T. W.jun.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Coffin, sir I.
Nugent, lord
Colburne, N. R.
Onslow, Arthur
Concannon, Lucius
O'Grady, Standish
Coussmaker, G.
O'Callaghan, J.
Curwen, J. C.
Ord, Wm.
Creevey, Thos.
Ossulston, lord
Chaloner, Rob.
Palmer, colonel
Dundas, C.
Palmer, C. F.
Davies, T. H.
Parnell, sir Henry
Dickinson, W.
Pierce, Henry
Duncannon, visc.
Phillips, G. R.
Dundas, hon. T.
Phillips, George
Denman, Thos.
Plumer, Wm.
Denison, Wm.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Ebrington, visc.
Power, Richd.
Ellice, Edw.
Price, Robert
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Pryse, Pryse
Farquharson, A.
Prittie, hon. F. A.
Ferguson, sir R. C.
Pym, Francis
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M
Rice, T. S.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Ramsay, sir A.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Rickford, Wm.
Folkestone, visc.
Ricardo, David
Farrand, Rob.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Gaskell, Ben.
Robarts, Ab.
Gurney, Hudson
Robinson, sir Geo.
Gordon, Robt.
Rowley, sir W.
Graham, J. R. G.
Rumbold, Charles
Graham, Sandford
Russell, lord John
Grenfell, Pascoe
Russell, lord Wm.
Griffiths, J. W.
Russell, R. G.
37
Ramsden, J. C.
Tavistock, marq. of
Smith, hon. Robt.
Taylor, M. A.
Smith, Sam.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Smith, Geo.
Tennyson, C.
Smith, Wm.
Warre, J. A.
Sebright, sir John
White, Luke
Scourfield, W. H.
Western, C. G.
Scott, James
Wharton, John
Scarlett, James
Whitbread, W. H.
Scudamore, R. P.
Whitbread, Sam. C.
Sefton, carl of
Wilkins, Walter
Stanley, lord
Williams, Wm.
Stuart, lord J.
Wilson, sir Robt.
Sykes, Daniel
Wood, Matthew
Shelly, sir John
Wyvill, M.
Talbot, R. W.
TELLERS.
Tynte, C. K.
Grant, J. P.
Townshend, lord C.
Wetherell, Charles
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.]
The Speaker acquainted the House that that House had been in the House of Peers, where his Majesty had delivered a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and of which, to prevent mistakes, he had obtained a copy. [See p. 1.] After the Speaker had read the Speech,
Mr. George Bankes
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—Mr. Speaker; In proposing an Address to his Majesty, of acknowledgment for the gracious Speech which we heard some hours ago, and which you have at last had an opportunity of reading to us, I shall not trouble you with any expressions of conscious insufficiency, because I am aware they are a very poor excuse for the presumption of a voluntary undertaking, and because I do not apprehend any thing very difficult in returning a suitable acknowledgment for gracious intimations and assurances, every way calculated to inspire a dutiful and affectionate feeling. As one of his majesty's many, many loyal subjects, I propose, Sir, that we approach his Throne, to assure him of the fidelity of a nation which is sound at heart—a nation not so intoxicated by the splendor of unparalleled triumphs, nor so lulled to apathy by the security of a profound peace, as to visit with ingratitude the promoter of those triumphs and the procurer of this honourable repose. In a nation in which all are free, folly must have her freedom, and mischief will mark her for its tool; folly will discharge her debts of gratitude by denying their amount—by forgetting the danger from which she has been delivered, though ever when in peril herself the loudest to complain and the foremost to despair. The spirit of mischief can
38
39
"Saw his own feather on the fatal dart,
And winged the shaft which quivered in his heart;
Keen was the pang, but keener still to feel,
He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel."
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. James Browne
rose to second the Address. He said, that eventful times had been lately witnessed, in which destructive principles had assumed new shapes, and menaced every thing valuable with ruin. He hoped such scenes would never be renewed. He could almost wish them obliterated from our history, if it were not that their remembrance might have a salutary influence on two sets of men—one of whom forgot their duty to their country, in the heated activity of party, and the other passively submitted to the development of principles at variance with all its interests. As to the Address which had just been offered to the House, he did not know what grounds of opposition there could be to it. The present times imposed on parliament a heavy responsibility. He was sure it was the wish of every honest man to see parliament take such steps as would tend to tranquillise the country. It was only his part to show that the Address advised such a mode of proceeding. It was peculiarly necessary in these times, when principles of rational duty and conduct had been so much laid aside, that parliament should not so descend from its high station, and be so forgetful of its dignity as to allow the session to terminate without attending to the wants, the interests and the business of the nation [hear! from all parts of the House]. He should not have indulged in those general observations, if
45
Mr. Curwen
concurred in many of the general observations expressed by the honourable mover and seconder of the Address, and agreed with them, that the Speech from the throne did not contain any topic on which there could be any material difference of opinion; but although what it contained was not likely to provoke discussion, yet he could not but remark upon what it had omitted. It was not the first time he had had to lament the ignorance which ministers showed of the real state of the country. When he looked to the state of agriculture, he would ask, could the noble lord opposite be really ignorant that the agricultural interests were in so wretched a condition, that scarcely any abatement would induce the cultivators of the land to go on with their labours? Knowing, as he did, their privations, their disappointments,
46
47
Mr. Tierney
said, it was with great satisfaction that in rising to speak, on the first day of the session, on the address in answer to the Speech from the throne, he felt himself freed from the necessity of troubling the House with any amendment. He knew, from long experience, that, as a mark of respect to the Crown, the course always adopted in the House was, never to move an amendment unless the address contained something which pledged gentlemen to an opinion contrary to that which they really entertained. The gentlemen on his side of the House came,
48
49
50
l
l
l
l
l
51
52
53
Lord Castlereagh
said, he did not rise an account of any thing which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last; on the contrary, he thought he had gone through the several topics of the Speech from the throne, with much candour, and a great deal of good temper. He might be allowed to say, however, that when, in an early part of the evening, he had seen the right hon. gentleman driving into the field of the hon. and learned member, he was led to believe that the debate would be a long and stormy one, and he did not know at what period of the morning they would be enabled to separate. Now it appeared that he had been mistaken, and for all that had happened, they might as well have proceeded at once to the ordinary business, as have consumed the early part of the evening in a very novel and useless kind of debate. But, though it could not be objected to the Speech from the throne, that it contained any topic which could excite a debate, they were, nevertheless, told, that important matters had been omitted which it should not have passed over. An hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Curwen,) had brought before the notice of the House the agricultural interests. He could assure the hon. gentleman that government did not look with indifference on them or on any of the interests in which the prosperity of the country was bound up; but he believed that the distress of which he spoke, arose more from the internal circumstances of the country, than the state of the laws as
54
55
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
56
l
l
l
57
58
59
60
Lord Folkestone
observed, that however much provoked to do so by some of the topics which the noble lord had introduced in his speech, he would not detain the House for any length of time. He certainly did not entertain much hope that the country would get rid of the noble lord, if it depended on that House. So long as the influence of government was exercised in that House—that was, so long as the House was constituted as it was, so long he had no doubt the noble lord would enjoy the confidence and support of that House, in spite of the opinion of the country. He dared to say, the noble lord, or his right hon. friends, could shew them in black and white how well their trust in the confidence of the House was founded. He dared to say that the gentlemen of the Treasury, if they exhibited the correspondence which usually took place before the meeting of parliament, could afford a very satisfactory reason for the expectation of ministers on the subject. But, if the noble lord relied on the confidence of the country—if he thought, that because, he possessed the confidence of the sovereign and of that House, he therefore possessed the confidence of the country, he would find that he was very much mistaken. The events of the last three months ought to convince the noble lord of his error, if he supposed that he and his friends possessed the confidence of the country. At no period of our history had half, or even a tithe of the number of public meetings taken place, that had been held within the period he had mentioned; and at every one of those meetings, held in such a manner as to admit of public discussion, the conduct of the noble lord and his colleagues had experienced the most unequivocal reprobation. That a number of what were called Loyal Addresses had been sent up to the Crown, he knew perfectly well; but they had been voted in secret, among gentlemen who were professed supporters of the present administration, although not one of them had ventured to express any opinion of the measures of the noble lord and his colleagues. Expressions of loyalty coming
61
62
63
64
Mr. Wodehouse
protested against the assumption, that whoever supported the measures of administration, and especially with reference to her majesty, must necessarily be a most servile dependant on a most wicked government. From whom came the objection to the loyal Addresses, which some characterised as abetting tyranny, others as fomenting sedition?—From those who considered it a feather in their caps, that they were the advocates of freedom of opinion. If, however, he, or those who thought with him, expressed their opinion, they were instantly called "dogs," "dunghill dogs," "hole and cornermen."—Hole and corner men!—Why, there was no hole or corner, however obscure, into which he would not retire, if he conceived it necessary to the free and uncontrolled expression of his sentiments. It was the power of expressing an unbiassed opinion, that made the privilege valuable.
Lord Folkestone
explained, that he had never objected to the expression of any opinion, but merely to the manner in which it was expressed. He wondered how the King could derive any satisfaction from addresses got up in the secret manner he had pointed out.
Mr. Bathurst
rose to vindicate his noble relative, lord Sidmouth, from the imputation which had been cast upon him by the noble lord. He contended, that the selections of the Addresses for presentation to the King were founded in the strictest policy, and denied that in this selection any improper preference had been given.
Mr. Warre
contended, that the expla-
65
The Address was then put and agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, January 24, 1821.
CONDUCT OF MINISTERS.]—
The Marquis of Tavistock
said, that as his noble friend, lord A. Hamilton, had fixed his motion for Friday, he wished to give notice, that he would, on Monday se'nnight, move a Resolution expressive of the opinion of the House on the conduct of ministers in the late proceedings against her Majesty.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Sir W. Lemon
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Truro, in Cornwall, complaining of the late proceeding by Bill of Pains and Penalties against their beloved and gracious Queen. They prayed the House to use its influence in restoring her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and in re-instating her in all the constitutional rights and privileges which belonged to her as Queen Consort of these realms; they also prayed an inquiry into the conspiracy by which her majesty had been accused; and expressed a hope that parliament would exert itself to prevent a recurrence of those disgraceful proceedings against her, by which the country had so long been agitated.
Mr. Tynte
presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of Bridgewater, upon which he begged to offer a few observations. The petition would show the sentiments entertained by them of her majesty's innocence of the gross charges made against her. For himself, he was not influenced by any opinion either of her majesty's guilt or innocence. He disapproved of the whole proceeding, because he felt that the charges brought against her majesty were of a most vague and indefinite nature, and in opposition to the established laws of the country.—He disapproved of those proceedings, because they did not afford her majesty the same means of defence which were grant-
66
Sir Robert Wilson
thought, that as ministers took care to publish all the loyal addresses, as they were called, and the loyal addresses only, in the gazette, the petitioners to Parliament in favour of her majesty were entitled to have their petitions printed. He therefore moved, that the said petitions be printed.
Mr. Pearse
presented a petition from, the inhabitants of Northallerton, complaining of the late proceeding against her majesty, which they observed had its origin in a foul and malignant conspiracy. They prayed the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, that a provision suitable to her rank as Queen Consort should be made for her, and that an immediate inquiry should be entered into, as to the origin of the Milan commission,
67
Mr. Western
said, that a petition had been presented, praying that House to institute an inquiry into the conspiracy against the Queen. He wished to learn from the noble lord opposite when he meant to institute that inquiry. The noble lord had said, during the last session, that if there was any conspiracy, it ought to be investigated, it ought to be probed to the bottom, in order that its nature, extent, and authors might be known. He (Mr. W.) would say, that a more foul and abominable conspiracy he had never heard of. The evidence produced against her majesty was proved to be all false and perjured. The accusations brought by his majesty's ministers had been supported by testimony which was proved to be perjured, bribed, procured by the most corrupt means and influence. The whole of the base and abominable proceeding was marked by bribery, perjury, and subornation. It was perfectly clear that the Milan commission was at the bottom of this foul and atrocious conspiracy.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he would not be dragged prematurely, by large and high sounding phrases into a discussion of such an important question. He meant no personal disrespect to the honourable member; but, on a question so grave and so important, he would not make any statements until it should come under the judgment of the House fairly. If the hon. gentleman thought it proper that parliament should institute an inquiry of the kind alluded to, it was perfectly competent for him to move such an inquiry. He was in the recollection of the House, when he said, that in the last session, when a gallant general (Sir R. Ferguson) had moved for the production of documents to show the nature of the Milan commission, he (Lord C.) had complained of the choice of time for such a motion, when the conduct of the Queen herself was under investigation. He must really express his surprise that gentlemen who had on every occasion when the house met moved an address to his majesty for a prorogation, in order to extinguish all inquiry on the subject of the Queen, should now appear so anxious to move any question on the subject.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, it was true, that he had, last session made a motion on this subject, of which the noble lord had got rid by a mode peculiar to himself; that
68
Lord Castlereagh
said, the gallant general had assumed that this was the proper time for entering upon such an inquiry. If he conceived so, let him make any motion he pleased upon the subject.
Mr. Bennet
said, that, when the infamous bill of Pains and Penalties was in the other House, and when the infamous evidence in support of it had been circulated through the country, he had taken upon himself to say, that the evidence was decisive of the existence of a conspiracy—he would not say by whom—against the honour and dignity of the Queen. The noble lord had then said, that if a conspiracy did exist, he wished most anxiously to have it brought to light. He now called upon the noble lord to put his most anxious wish into execution. Ministers owed it to themselves, to the Crown, and to the country, to institute an inquiry into this odious transaction. Be they guilty or not guilty, they were charged by the country with having conspired against the honour and character of her majesty; and they were bound to enter upon the inquiry, if they valued what remained of their character. The noble lord accused the Opposition side of the House, with having last year endeavoured to put a stop to the proceedings against her majesty. True, they did so, because they not only saw the iniquity of the measure, but the evils which it would bring upon the country. Therefore it was, that they called for a prorogation of parliament. But now they called for inquiry, for the purpose of punishing the guilty, even though they should be found to be the confidential ministers and advisers of the Crown. There was nothing more natural than that ministers should wish to keep themselves safe; but the hoxir for such an inquiry would come, and that he hoped and trusted very shortly. He was anxious, for the honour of his majesty, that a full inquiry should be gone into. That House was bound to speak strongly, to prove that there existed a mutual feeling between the House and the country, and to force and drag for-
69
Lord Castlereagh,
said, it was for those honourable members who alleged that a conspiracy existed to prove it. It was rather too much to call upon those who were not aware of any such conspiracy to prove its existence.
Sir R. Fergusson
asked the noble lord, whether the conspiracy, or whatever it was called, by which the evidence was collected, did not cost money? and if so, whether that expense was to be brought under the notice of parliament?
Mr. Curwen
said, he held in his hand a petition from the borough of Cocker-mouth, which was most respectably signed, by a great proportion of the inhabitants of that town. The petitioners complained of the injustice done to her majesty in striking her name out of the Liturgy, before any trial had been instituted against her. They went on to state, that they had seen with sorrow and indignation the perjury and prevarication used in the witnesses against her majesty. They prayed that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy; and also that the House would exert its influence in advising his majesty to dismiss from his councils his present ministers; men who, for the last twenty years, had declined practising that economy which was recommended from time to time by the Crown. He felt himself bound to support this petition. He had for years been listening to the tales and slanders which had been circulated against her majesty, and what was the result? They had heard the evidence brought forward against her majesty—evidence upon which, as a juryman, he, upon his oath, would have acquitted her. He pledged himself, that he, for one, would use every effort in his power to restore to her majesty those rights and privileges which belonged to her as Queen Consort. He hoped ministers would retrace their steps, and render to her majesty that justice to which she was entitled. This was the only means by which the peace of the country could be restored.
Mr. Sykes
presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull. The hon. member said, he would not, after what had been already said, offer a single observation upon this petition, were it not that those persons who
70
Mr. Lambton
said, he held in his hands a petition from the inhabitants of Stockton, in the county of Durham, most numerously and respectably signed, deprecating the late odious and uncalled for proceedings against her majesty, and praying the interference of that House to have her restored to all her just and constitutional rights. In availing himself of this opportunity for submitting a few observations on the subject, he must remark, in the first place, that it would be more to the honour of the House, and would tend more to sustain its character and dignity, if they were to pay a greater degree of attention to the sentiments and prayers of the people. The present was a time when the House was labouring under the just reproach of but ill representing the sense of the country. He could not easily understand, therefore, with what propriety it could be made matter of charge against any individual member, that he had given expression to the feelings and opinions of his constituents. The petitioners in this instance complained, after professions of their own loyalty and attachment to the constitution, of a class of persons calling themselves exclusive loyalists, (No, no; from a member on the ministerial side of the House.) If the hon. member who thus interrupted him could show that he was stating what was not the fact, he should be ready to confess his error; but if he was accurately describing the contents of this petition, he was not to be deterred by such cries from the open and fearless discharge of his duty. He should, therefore, now repeat, that the petitioners complained of a class of persons arrogating to themselves the merit of exclusive loyalty, and accusing their fellow-countrymen of hostility to the throne, on no other ground than their hostility to his majesty's ministers. Amongst the many amusing exhibitions
71
Lord Castlereagh
said, he was not aware of any disposition on the part of the House to treat the petitions of any class of his majesty's subjects with indifference or neglect; but the hon. member had attributed to him a speech which it might have been desirable that he should make, but which he nevertheless had not made. All that he recollected to have said on the subject was, that he was not bound to answer any question when he considered that it might be inconvenient to the public service.
Mr. Lambton
denied that he had put into the noble lord's mouth any sentiments which he had not uttered, or that he had any intention of placing the noble lord in a wrong light before the country. His allusion, in the first instance, was to the noble lord's answer that evening to the observations of his hon. friend the member for Essex. The expression relative to the British lion he did not ascribe to the noble lord; he had met with it in a part of the Press which was very zealous and active in the service of his majesty's ministers.
Mr. Benett,
of Wiltshire, said, he was
72
73
Mr. Tennyson
said, that he had a petition to present from the borough of Great Grimsby, in the county of Lincoln. What had fallen the night before from the noble lord had led, certainly, to an inference in his mind, that it was not the intention of his majesty's government to take any further steps against the Queen. He understood the noble lord to say, that but one proposition would be submitted relative to the Queen, and. that this would be on the subject of the income to be provided for her. All he should say, therefore, at present, on this point was, that his majesty's ministers would have better consulted their duty, if, instead of abruptly dismissing parliament, they had, by proposing an immediate provision, and candidly disclaiming any intention to renew the prosecution, rendered the numerous meetings which had since taken place, and the petitions which were now pouring in upon them, unnecessary. This remark, however, he made on the presumption that no further proceedings were meditated; but it was a presumption in which he was strongly fortified by the expression of the noble lord. With respect to the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he must observe, that the principle on which he always understood it to have been originally excluded, was the existence of charges, an inquiry into which might afterwards render it necessary to remove it. His majesty's ministers were now reduced to the alternative of allowing that the charges had not been proved, or maintaining that the defence had failed. They had not maintained the latter proposition; and he could not, therefore, conceive what fair objection could be now urged to the insertion of her majesty's name. He should now present the petition, which prayed, that a royal residence might be assigned to the Queen, and
74
Mr. Hume
presented petitions from Perth, Aberdeen, Annan, and Banff, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and that a suitable income and residence might be afforded her. He had no hesitation in stating, that if Scotland had been adequately and fairly represented—if it had the benefit of that reform in the state of the representation, the necessity of which was felt by the whole empire, and which he fondly anticipated, there would not have been a single petition from that class now called the exclusive loyalists of the country.
Mr. Estcourt
said, he held in his hand a petition signed by 400 persons, inhabitants of Devizes. It complained of the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, the corrupt offer which had been made to her to induce her to remain abroad, the refusal of every advantage to enable her to make a full defence, and the production of a mass of false evidence against her. It prayed that the House would adopt measures for restoring her to the full and and unqualified enjoyment of all her rights and privileges, as the only means of averting consequences detrimental to the best interests, and dangerous to the tranquillity of the country.
Mr. Robert Gordon
observed, that he had anticipated that which had now taken place. The hon. member did indeed present the petition of 400 of the inhabitants of Devizes, but he had not thought proper to say one word in support of it. Although the hon. member and his hon. colleague (Mr. Pearce) were members for the town of Devizes, and therefore had no objection to present this petition; yet, in point of fact, those who subscribed it had no right to look for any support from either of them. In common parlance, the two hon. gentlemen, for whom he personally entertained great respect, were called members for Devizes; but in reality were the representatives only of some twenty or thirty aldermen in that borough. This was a very happy illustration of what had, the night before, fallen from the noble lord (Castlereagh,) as to his hopes of enjoying the confidence of the House and of the country. The confidence of the House, indeed, the noble lord was pretty sure of possessing, just as he was sure of possessing the confidence of the aldermen at Devizes: but was he
75
Mr. Pearse
said, that, as one of the members for the town of Devizes, he had communicated with some of the petitioners; and when they had desired him to support the prayer of their petition, he had told them frankly, that he had an opinion as well as themselves upon the subject of it, and that he could not give it his support. The 400 persons whom the hon. gentleman had described as of so much consequence at Devizes as fairly to express the general sense entertained there, were not persons of weight or consequence, but had been selected with great pains, and without reference to their qualifications. An address, containing very different sentiments, had been agreed to by those who possessed the intelligence and respectability of the town.
Sir Francis Burdett
observed, that as an example of the great variety of opinion which existed on this painful subject, they were told, that the view taken by the 400 petitioners differed from that of the mayor, and a few, he believed twelve, aldermen. This was undoubtedly a very fair specimen of the manner in which the people were represented, and their sentiments expressed in that House. He trusted, however, that the country was to be at length tranquillized; and that, by a compliance with the prayer of so many petitions, parliament would find leisure to apply its attention to more important subjects. He was gratified to hear from the noble lord an explanation of what was before somewhat ambiguous, and that ministers no longer contemplated
76
Lord Castlereagh
did not rise to make any general observations on what had fallen from the hon. baronet; but lest it might be supposed, from the tone and temper assumed by the hon. baronet, that his majesty's government had altered or abandoned some intention which they might have entertained in the period intervening between the commencement of the proceedings and the giving up of the bill, he could assure the hon. baronet, that no such alteration had taken place.
77
Mr. Estcourt
observed, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. baronet, that he was elected, not by 12, but by 36 persons (a laugh.) Undoubtedly, he was elected to represent the borough of Devizes, by that number of individuals; but his apprehension was, that when he was sent to the House of Commons, he was one of the representatives of the whole nation, and was called on to take care, not merely of the interests of his constituents but of the empire at large. A more loyal, independent, or respectable body of men did not exist, than the corporation of Devizes; and the hon. baronet was mistaken if he supposed that any kind of improper inducement was held out to the members of that corporation to influence them to pursue a course contrary to their honest conviction, when the election of members to serve them in parliament took place. It was not true that the corporation of Devizes was biassed by any unworthy feeling; and it was equally untrue, that the members for that borough, when they came into the House of Commons, were influenced by any feeling but an honest desire to promote the good of the empire at large.
Sir F. Burdett
begged pardon for setting the hon. gentleman right upon one point. He had not said a syllable that in the slightest degree reflected either on him or his constituents. With respect to the question he had put to the noble lord, he did not consider the answer that had been given to it as satisfactory. From what the noble lord said, it appeared that ministers now continued in the "position of determination" which they had formed previously to the commencement of those proceedings. But he conceived it to be very important for the House and the country to know, and to know distinctly, whether they were to consider that no further criminatory proceedings would be resorted to against the queen.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that when the hon. baronet, had before put this question, he expressed himself as if the government were now occupied in considering some proceeding which they had not contemplated previously to the withdrawing of the bill. In answer, he had distinctly stated to the House, that the moment the bill was withdrawn, government ceased
78
Mr. Brougham
said, the noble lord had informed the House, that all proceedings against her majesty had ceased, and that it was not the intention of his majesty's government to institute any further proceedings in the way of trial. Was he to understand, not only that no further trial would be instituted, but that nothing in the nature of punishment would be continued, as if the trial had proceeded and terminated in a conviction?
Lord Castlereagh
said, that punishment was not to be presumed or supposed, because his majesty was not advised by his ministers to alter that arrangement which his majesty, in council, had thought fitting to have carried into effect before the proceeding was instituted.
Lord John Russell
begged to call to the recollection of the noble lord the grounds on which, during the last session, the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was defended by ministers. Would they, it was asked, place in the Liturgy the name of a person over whom heavy charges were pending, and which name, in the event of guilt being established, they would be bound to erase? If then, such exclusion was continued, he was forced to conclude that ministers took it for granted, that those heavy charges had been substantiated against her majesty.
Dr. Lushington
rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Ilchester, in which the petitioners expressed their detestation of the measures that had been adopted towards her majesty, and prayed that a provision suitable to her rank might be afforded her, and that she should be restored to her just rights and immunities. He was in the recollection of the House, and they would be able to judge of the correctness of the statement he was about to make. The noble lord, in answer to a question put to him by a right hon. friend of his, relative to the adjournments that took place during the last session, had said, that the consideration of the question would be postponed to a future day, in order to see whether the proceedings would arrive at such a conclusion, in the House of Lords, as to occasion the measure then in progress to be brought down to this House; and that, if it took a different turn, parliament would meet to make a provision for her majesty. (Lord
79
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that if the learned gentleman meant to say, that he had intimated, that, in the event of the bill not passing the other House of Parliament, the House of Commons should meet for the purpose of granting a provision to her majesty, he must declare that he never said the House should so meet; and that he could not have said so, because he never had any such impression on his mind. He thought the learned gentleman must recollect what passed on that occasion; and if he did, he would find that it did not bear him out in his statement. He had said, that if the bill came down from the other House, he would then enforce the call; but if it did not, he considered that step unnecessary. Now it was evident they could not have proceeded to consider of a provision for the Queen, without entering into all the collateral topics that were connected with the subject; and that could never have been done without an enforcement of the call. The observation of a noble lord on that occasion, was, that there would be,
80
Lord Folkestone
said, he did not see the force of the reasons which the noble lord had adduced, with respect to what his learned friend had stated to have occurred on a former occasion. The noble lord might assert that he had no intention of stating the proposition that the House was to meet in order to provide for her majesty, and yet he might, unawares, have thrown out such a statement. When it was so strongly stated, as matter of recollection, that the words were used, it was more fair to suppose that something of the kind was said, than that no expression of that description occurred. The noble lord declared his statement to have been, that if the bill did not come down, the call of the House was not to be enforced; but if it did, that then the call would be enforced; and he argued that it would be impossible to discuss the subject of the intended provision, and the other topics connected with it, unless there was a call of the House. But it was very singular that they were now rapidly proceeding towards the consideration of the necessary provision for her majesty, and yet no call of the House had taken place. There was, it was true, a very full attendance of members, and doubtless many good reasons could be assigned for it. Notwithstanding what the noble lord had said, he would state most positively, that the impression on his mind was precisely the same as that which his learned friend appeared to have imbibed. The noble lord had said, that if the bill went on, there should be a call of the House; but if the bill did not proceed, it was consented to, by all parties, that the call should not take place for the purpose of adopting measures respecting the provision for her majesty. Now, he (lord F.) complained, that the call was not enforced for the purpose of considering those other matters to which the noble lord had re-
81
82
Dr. Lushington
felt a strong conviction of his own correctness. He might be mistaken; but he hoped when the noble lord next made any statement on a subject of so important a nature, both to his majesty's government and the country, he would express himself in plain and intelligible language. This would be extremely convenient to honourable members, many of whom had come out of the country, eutertaining precisely the same opinion that he did.
Sir T. Acland
presented two petitions, condemning the conduct of ministers in the proceedings against the Queen, and praying, that her name might forthwith be restored to the Liturgy, One of them was from the inhabitants of Axminster; the other from the inhabitants of Colyton.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
rose, to present a similar petition from the inhabitants of the borough of Sudbury. He observed, that it prayed, that her majesty might be restored to the enjoyment of all her lawful rights and privileges; and, what was not common in these days, the language in which it was couched was not only respectful to both Houses of parliament, but also to the sovereign. He wished to take that opportunity of expressing his opinion on the subject of the petition, which his constituents had called upon him to support. This was a time when every man who valued the constitution should speak out. No man could deplore more than he did, the introduction of the bill of Pains and Penalties; and he deplored it because he firmly believed that it was not justified by any state necessity, nor could tend to any good purpose. He could not but congratulate the Mouse and the country on the declaration of the noble lord opposite, that there would be no further proceedings instituted against her majesty. He was one of those who de-
83
84
85
Mr. Hume
said, he was extremely sorry the lion, member had made a sort of general charge of treason—for he thought it was no less—against the Queen, for having uttered the sentiments contained in the letter to his majesty. He wished the hon. member had confined himself. to a statement of specific facts, and particular circumstances. He held that letter in his hand, and he called on the hon. member to point out any one passage that could justify the assertion he had advanced, much less that could warrant him in directing such an attack on an individual who was not, and who could not, be present to defend herself. The hon. member's conduct, in this instance, was like that of ministers on all occasions. The proceeding he had adopted was most ungenerous, most unmanly, most unfair; and in the face of the House, he protested against it. Why should the hon. member pursue the plan of the noble lord opposite, and endeavour, by a side-wind, to do that which he could not effect in a direct manner? If he wished to censure her majesty, or any of her advisers, he would have an opportunity of doing it plainly and openly; but the mode which he had been pleased to adopt was most unfair. He was as much disposed to support the authority of that House and the dignity of the throne as any man, but yet he would say, that no sentiment contained in the letter of the 7th of August, to which the Queen had put her name, appeared to his feeling to be at all improper [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. Those who could lay their hands upon their hearts and applaud themselves for the conduct they had observed towards a deserted and defenceless woman, were of course extremely glad to receive any little assistance which gentlemen at either side of the House might be inclined to bestow on them. Therefore it was, that they so loudly cheered the hon. member who had just sat down; and the present cheers, though conveying a different meaning, formed a part of the same system. But let those who condemned the Queen place themselves in the situation in which she stood when that letter was written. Was there a man in that House so mean,
86
de facto
87
de facto
88
Mr. Alderman Heygate
claimed the indulgence of the House while he vindicated himself from the attack of the hon. gentleman. He was perfectly surprised at the manner in which his observations had been met. Any body who had heard them and had not heard his own observations, would naturally have thought that he had defended the bill of Pains and Penalties, and justified the original rejection of the Queen's name from the Liturgy. Equally surprised was he to hear a charge of having made an unmanly attack upon an unfortunate and illus-
89
90
Mr. Lockhart
said, he felt extreme reluctance in coming forward on this occasion. He cordially agreed in the wish expressed by an hon. member early ill the evening, that something might be done which would bury in oblivion this unfortunate question. The hon. alderman appeared to concur in this wish; but he was sorry to find that the expression of his sentiments was rather at variance with the promotion of that salutary conclusion which was on so many accounts desirable. The hon. alderman had read to the House several objectionable passages which her majesty had been so ill advised as to insert in her answers to addresses. It was, he feared, but too true that much objectionable matter would be found on both
91
92
93
in toto
Lord Nugent
begged to say a word on what had fallen from the honourable alderman, in the elaborate vindication which he had entered into of himself, as to what he had been charged with having said in his original speech. In the lion, alderman's first speech, he had thought fit to charge her majesty with having been guilty of a crime in her letter to the king, for which any other subject would have been amenable to the law. When, however, the hon. alderman was called upon to point out the passages in which that charge was founded, he failed to produce them, and professed, that he had forgotten them. He now again called
94
Mr. Alderman Heygate
explained, that what he had said was this—that not having the letter by him at the moment, he could not quote the passages he alluded to with accuracy from recollection.
Lord Nugent,
in continuation, contended that the hon. alderman could not be surprised at being charged with unmanliness, when he came forward with charges against the Queen, founded on a document, which, when he was called upon to produce, he said he had not in his possession, and the contents of which he had forgotten. Instead of producing the passages in the letter on which he had founded his charge, the hon. alderman had quoted certain passages from answers which had been given by her majesty to the addresses presented to her. He would be the last man to say, that many of those answers were not highly improper, or that they did not reflect great disgrace on those by whom her majesty had been advised to present them. At the same time, the unfortunate and anomalous situation of her majesty—the persecution she had suffered—the obloquy that had been heaped upon her by a venal press, all these were circumstances which ought to be taken into account, in estimating the course which she had pursued. It was, in his opinion, not very manly, harshly to condemn her majesty under such circumstances. It was too much like the conduct of those Spanish Inquisitors, who, having stretched their victim on the rack, converted the ravings of pain into additional matter of accusation. This mode of conduct he could not think manly or English. Undoubtedly, he thought with the hon. alderman, that many passages in the answers of her majesty to the addresses that had been presented to her were extremely reprehensible, and that they reflected great disgrace on the good sense and education of those who had advised her majesty to make them. But this he would say, that ill as he thought of those who had advised her majesty to make those answers, he thought the blame which those persons had justly incurred, vanished into air, compared with the blame to which those persons were liable who had advised his majesty to give the answers which he had given, to addresses from certain bodies of the people. The hon. alderman must recollect some of these; and especially one to an address which the hon. alderman,
95
The several petitions were laid on the table and ordered to be printed.
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.]—
Mr. G. Bankes
appeared at the bar, with the report of the Address on the king's Speech. On the motion that it be brought up,
The Hon. William Lamb
observed, that with respect to most of the topics to which the address referred, there would be various opportunities of discussing them. There was one, however, of so urgent a nature, and on which a step might suddenly be taken, so irremediable as to place it entirely out of the power of that House, that he felt it to be impossible, consistently with his sense of duty, to allow it to pass without a few observations. That topic was the present state of the affairs of Naples, and of the conferences with reference to that state, which were supposed to be going on among the great sovereigns of Europe. He knew, that in touching on this subject, he was touching on a delicate matter, because it was one which might be considered in a course of negociation, and he should therefore treat it accordingly. He certainly was not one of those who were of opinion, that no circumstances could occur in any country affecting its internal condition and the principles on which its government was to be carried on, which would justify the interference of any foreign power. At the same time he must say, that from all he had heard of the transactions in Naples, and of the principles on which those transactions had been founded, there was not a shadow of ground or reason justifying the interference of foreign powers on that occasion. There had been no violent acts committed; there had been no doctrines avowed dangerous to the peace of the neighbouring nations, or subversive of the first principles of civilized society. But, what he particularly rose for was, to make a remark or two on the statement in the Speech from the throne, and in the speech of the noble lord opposite on this interesting subject. As far as he could understand those statements, they professed the observance of a strict neutrality by the
96
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that as it was impossible to dispatch a subject so interesting and important in a few sentences, it would, in his opinion, be more expedient to postpone its consideration until an opportunity' should be afforded for discussing it in parliament in the ample manner which it deserved. The general reasoning of the hon. gentleman was undoubtedly fair, but it did not appear to him to be strictly applicable to the line of policy which this country was, in the present instance, called upon to adopt. He begged not to be understood as giving any opinion upon the present subject; but it must be evident to the hon. gentleman, and to the House, tha£ other powers might entertain apprehensions with respect to
97
data
Mr. Warre
remarked, that the noble lord had now repeated those observations which he had made in his speech yesterday, and which were strongly calculated to arrest attention and to excite alarm. He would take the opportunity, before he sat down, of asking the noble lord a question on the subject of Naples, to which the noble lord would of course give or withhold an answer, as he should think proper. A great deal of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman near him, appeared to him to be extremely worthy of the noble lord's consideration. It was with great regret he heard the noble lord hold it out as a probability, that any consideration of safety to the Austrian dominions, as that subject might be viewed by the Austrian government, might justly operate to render the gallant, noble, and justifiable effort of the Neapolitan people to assert their independence, the means of exposing them to the aggressions of foreign powers. With respect to the question that he wished to ask the noble lord, he felt himself especially justified in putting it; because some of his majesty's ships of war had been employed on a service connected and interwoven with the recent transactions in the kingdom of Naples: he meant in transporting the king of Naples to Leghorn. He therefore begged to ask the noble lord if he could foresee the probable time when he would be able to furnish the House with information, either in the shape of documents or otherwise, on this
98
Lord Castlereagh
professed himself unable to give any precise answer to the question of the hon. gentleman. It could not be expected of any member of his majesty's government, in the discharge of his public duty, to communicate any of the circumstances that might have reached him on such an occasion; while the transaction to which those circumstances related was still pending. If the hon. member would, at a subsequent period, move for any information which he might wish for as to the course pursued by this country in the transaction, there could be no difficulty in producing it; but he would himself see, that any communication respecting the larger European question would be attended with more difficulty. This, however, he had no hesitation in distinctly declaring, that the course which had been pursued by this country on the subject, in no way rendered it a party to the proceedings, whatever they might be of the three great powers assembled at Laybach. Although there had certainly been no difficulty on the part of the English admiral on the station, to afford the king of Naples every possible facility for his voyage from Naples to Leghorn—yet it ought not to be inferred from that interference, that England had any participation either in the invitation of his majesty, the king of Naples, to Laybach, or in any other part of the policy of the three great powers on the subject. It was unquestionably a matter of great delicacy, and one on which he could not be called on prematurely, to disclose the policy by which the powers in question were actuated.
Sir Robert Wilson
said, he had been given to understand that a Neapolitan of high rank and character had been sent to the English court by the constitutional government recently established in Naples; but that having tendered his credentials, he was, though received with the noble lord's usual urbanity, not recognised in his character of envoy; on the ground that it was impossible for the British government to recognise any act of the new government at Naples, until the allied powers had come to some decision on the negotiation then carrying on at Troppau, and since at Laybach. On that ground, after remaining three weeks here, he understood that the individual in question
99
100
Lord Castlereagh
declared his impossibility of entering into all the details of this subject, even were he prepared himself to feel all the animation with which the gallant general appeared invariably to contemplate every possible species of revolution. He denied, however, that a reluctance to acknowledge a revolution suddenly effected in any country was a just ground of hostility. Without entering into particulars, he would merely observe, that the English government were required to recognise new forms and changes, suddenly brought about under very mysterious circumstances, and principally by one sect. It seemed tolerably evident, that the object of that sect was not confined to Naples, but extended itself to the subversion of all the existing governments in Italy, and the union of the whole into one state. He by no means wished to declare, that such a plan demanded, or would justify, the interference of neighbouring powers. That must be a subject of much deliberation and investigation on the part of those powers, and it was a problem which, he trusted, we should not undertake to solve. He positively denied, however, that we had done any thing which the Neapolitan government were justified in considering as an act of hostility: and he could assure the gallant general that we had not done any thing which the Neapolitan government so considered. The intercourse between the two countries continued on the same footing as before the late changes. The ministers at both courts communicated as usual, and carried on the ordinary routine of diplomatic intercourse. But he protested
101
Sir R. Wilson
wished to ask the noble lord, whether the non-recognition of the new Neapolitan minister was accompanied by any circumstances hostile to the new constitutional government of Naples?
Lord Castlereagh
—Certainly not.
Mr. James
adverted to the Austrian loan, and requested to know if there was any prospect of its being repaid.
Lord Castlereagh
replied, that in the early period after the contraction of that loan, there had been some payments upon it; but for a long course of years no payment had taken place; and although some communications had recently been interchanged on the subject, they were not of a nature to hold out any great prospect of a speedy repayment.
Mr. James
then gave notice, that he would shortly submit to the House a motion for papers explanatory of the subject.
Sir Robert Heron
was sure the question of Naples would not be treated as one of delicacy by Austria. If that House exhibited so much delicacy upon it, Naples might be over-run and annihilated before any beneficial interference could be interposed. Our ancestors would not have shown much delicacy under such circum-
102
Mr. Hume,
although he rather differed from his hon. friend on the question of the propriety of interference on the part of this country, thought that we ought to take every opportunity of showing our good will towards the Neapolitans. It had been stated to him, that an application had been made to our government, to know if permission would be granted to export to Naples a supply of arms, for the manufacture of which a commission had been received in this country. If such an application had been made and refused, it would show, that our government favoured the objects of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, rather than the struggle of the Neapolitans for independence. He should be very sorry if such a disposition had manifested itself and he requested to know how the fact stood.
Mr. F. Robinson
replied, that as the law at present stood, there was no obstacle to the export of arms to any part of Europe—except Spain. Power was given by law to prohibit the export of arms by an order in council; but that power had been exercised only with reference to Spain. The export of arms to Naples was therefore perfectly free.
Mr. Hume
observed, that that was no answer to his question. Had any such application as that which he had described been made?
Lord Castlereagh
said, that he had not heard of any such application.
103
Mr. Bankes
then brought up the report. After it had been read a second time, and on the question for agreeing to it,
Mr. Hume,
adverting to the paragraph which related to the reductions said to have been made in the military establishment of the country, said, he presumed that his majesty's ministers were prepared to say in what branches, and to what extent, those reductions had taken place.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that it was impossible for him to answer at present. The nature of these reductions would appear when the Army Estimates should be laid on the table.
Mr. Hume
said, he should have supposed that ministers, before they put the passage in question into his majesty's mouth, would have the estimates before them, otherwise they had made his majesty state that, of the truth of which they could not be assured.
The address was then agreed to.
THE QUEEN—LITURGY.]—
Mr. Wetherell,
in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice yesterday, observed, that as a noble lord had given notice of a motion which was unquestionably the most important that had been brought under the consideration of parliament since the year 1789, it was impossible for any gentleman to go into the examination of that question until the necessary preliminary information had been given to the House. Were he to state, as an historical fact, that for three centuries the name of a queen consort had in no instance but one, that of the consort of George 1. been omitted in the Liturgy, he had no doubt that he should get credit for having stated the fact correctly; but he apprehended that, in parliamentary practice, such an important question ought not to be decided without a regular authentication of the facts by which the decision of the House was to be regulated. When he first proposed to move for certain papers on this subject, it had been supposed by the right hon. the chancellor for the duchyr of Lancaster, that he intended to move for a whole magazine of prayer-books. This however, was not the case. From the reign of James I. down to the present time, there were only seven instances in which he wished to know what the practice had been; and therefore the first branch of his motion would only require that seven short collects should be extracted. The two other documents which
104
Lord Castlereagh
had no objection to the production of the documents now moved for, although at the same time he saw no necessity for the motion, as facts of a similar kind were often stated in debate, and assumed as true, without any official authentication. His opposition to the motion of the learned gentleman, on a former occasion, had proceeded from the unusual, and, as he conceived, not very prudent moment at which it was brought, forward.
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, January 25, 1821.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Lord Erskine
said, he held in his hand a petition from the burgh of Banff, in Scotland, praying that parliament would oppose the institution of any further proceedings against the queen, and endeavour to procure the restoration of her majesty to all her rights. He observed, that he could pledge himself for the petition being properly and respectfully worded. The noble and learned lord also presented petitions to the same effect from the incorporated trades of Dumfries, the incorporated trades of Arbroath, the town of Montrose, the burgh of Selkirk, the city of Aberdeen, New Deer, in the county of Aberdeen, and from some other places in Scotland; and, finally, the petition of the Lord Mayor and Common Council of the city of London in Common Council assembled.
The Earl of Darnley
rose, to present the petition of the county of Kent. His lordship made some observations on the manner in which sheriffs of counties were selected, and on the way in which they took upon themselves to refuse their assent to public meetings. In the present in-
105
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that the sheriffs were appointed, if he might use the expression, in so judicial away, that the influence of the Crown had nothing to do with it. In the first place, three gentlemen for each county were returned by the judges, upon their oaths, to the privy council sitting in the court of Exchequer, and afterwards, on the appointment, the first name of the three was invariably taken, unless sufficient reasons were alleged on behalf of the party to alter that course of nomination. There was, therefore, no ground for imputing that the sheriffs of counties were in any respect influenced by the Crown in the exercise of that discretion, with regard to calling county meetings, which undoubtedly belonged to them.
The Earl of Darnley,
in explanation, said, that he did not mean to impute that the influence of the Crown was exercised in the appointment of sheriffs, but merely to observe, that, under other circumstances, they might be made the instruments of the Crown to obstruct, very materially, the right of petitioning.
Earl Grosvenor
said, that, as the late conduct of sheriffs was before the House, he wished to say a few words on a most trifling instance of their partiality. He alluded to the conduct of that officer at the late meeting of the county of Chester, at which the sheriff took upon himself to determine in what terms an address from the county should be framed. An address called a loyal address was moved. He (lord G.)who attended as an humble individual, moved an amendment to that address, containing similar expressions of loyalty and attachment to the throne, but accompanied with expressions of disapprobation of ministers. The sheriff refused to receive the amendment. He decided that it was not relevant to the object of the meeting, and declared that he would not put it. The sheriff did not stop here; but afterwards took upon himself to assert, that the original address was carried; and refused, though repeatedly pressed, to grant the only means of
106
The Earl of Darnley
wished to call their lordships' attention to that part of the petition which prayed for the restoration of her majesty to all her rights. The House of Commons had already declared, that the proceedings against her majesty were derogatory from the dignity of the crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country. He hoped they would follow up this resolution in the only way in which it could be effectually followed up; by taking such measures as would tend to restore her majesty to all her rights, and, in the first place, would take steps to reverse that measure by which it was attempted to deprive her of them, namely, the erasure of her name from the Liturgy. The House might remember that, on a former occasion, he had declared his opinion that the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was the foundation of all the ulterior proceedings against the queen. He had witnessed with much satisfaction that men of all parties, forgetting private partialities in their love for their country, had condemned those proceedings. He would make one effort more to restore tranquillity to the country.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he had a petition to present from the county of Wilts. The meeting was convened by the sheriff on a requisition most respectably signed by persons of every class in the county. The petition strongly stated the loyalty of the petitioners, and their attachment to the constitution. These sentiments were also accompanied with a strong opinion on what had taken place
107
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that some of the petitioners appeared to petition in ignorance of the real nature of the question respecting which they prayed the House. There was no question now about restoration of rights. The object of the bill of Pains and Penalties was to deprive her majesty of all those privileges immunities and exemptions which appertained to her as queen consort; and that bill being thrown out, of course her majesty's rights remained as they were before, untouched and undiminished.
Lord Holland
said, that the noble lord might have made up his mind upon the question as to the right of the queen to have her name inserted in the Liturgy, that no such right existed, but undoubtedly there were men high in the law and eminent in station, who were of opinion, that the queen had a legal right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. It was, therefore, quite natural that the people, seeing that her majesty's name was excluded from the Liturgy, and witnessing besides, that her majesty was refused was palace, and that no establishment had hitherto been given to her, should petition for the interference of that House, to have her majesty restored to those rights which appertained to her as queen consort, and which had been enjoyed by all preceding queen consorts.
Lord Ellenborough
admitted, that the question respecting the insertion of the queen's name in the Liturgy was liable I to very considerable doubt and difficulty, and though he might have formed an opinion upon it, he was well aware that it was a question of great delicacy and difficulty. All he meant to say was, that the queen's rights as queen consort were not all affected.
The Earl of Carnarvon
rose to present the petition of the county of Hants. The meeting at which this petition was voted
108
The Duke of Wellington
supposed, that the noble earl had alluded to him, as one of those who had signed the counter-requisition. Now, he did not sign that counter-requisition, and the reason of his refusal to sign it was, that being lord-lieutenant of the county, and besides, a member of the government, he thought his signature, under these circumstances, would have been improper. He must say, however, that he entirely concurred with those who signed the counter-requisition, as to the impropriety of assembling the county. As an address had already been presented to his majesty, signed by 9,000 names, he considered the opinion of the county already expressed, and that it was not necessary to go through the farce of a county meeting. At the meeting which took place, only one side was allowed to be heard. The member for the county, whose view was different from the requisitionists, attended, and
109
The Earl of Carnarvon
admitted the propriety of the noble duke's reasons for not signing the counter requisition, but I he confessed, that he heard, with some dismay, a declaration by a member of the government, that a county meeting called for the purpose of addressing the king and petitioning parliament, was considered as a farce. He was afraid that it was a part of that system which ministers had long pursued, and which would tend to persuade the people, that it was in vain to expect from them a substitution of conciliation for threats and restraints. The noble duke might think that the loyalty of the county was sufficiently expressed by the first address; but was it not strange to say, because a loyal address had been secretly circulated and signed, that therefore there was to be no public county meeting? The declaration expressed the attachment of those who signed it to the constitution. The noble duke approved of that declaration; but he would be glad to know how far he conceived himself pledged to support that constitution; because if any thing was more essential than another to the preservation of the constitution, it was, that county meetings should be free and open. But it seemed that it was not this popular part of the constitution which it was the object of ministers and their friends to support. What sort of loyalty was that which was displayed in the declaration? and how was it got up? A sort of pastoral letter had been sent to every clergyman in the county, requesting that body to use their utmost exertions to obtain signatures. This was not the first time (but he hoped it would be the last) that men who ought to keep aloof from political contests had been thus employed. The deputy sheriff of the county signed the letters as secretary to the Pitt club; so that when the Pitt club had made their collection of signatures, their lordships were to be told, that to hold a county meeting was a farce. The noble duke had also stated, that the member for the county could not obtain a hearing. This assertion was not correct. There was nothing extraordinary in certain tokens of disapprobation being expressed on the address of a speaker in any assembly. It was what occurred in the other House of parliament, and even in this; and such expressions of feeling
110
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he subscribed most cordially to every word which had fallen from his noble friend. The noble duke had stated, that the counter-requisitionists conceived there was no necessity for calling the county together again. The complaint on the part of the inhabitants of the county, however, was, that they had not been called together at all. Who was it that set up the opinion, that the loyal declaration expressed entirely the sentiments of the county? It might be the counter-requisitionists, but he trusted not the noble duke. A certain declaration was privately circulated, of which no person who signed it had power to alter or modify a single syllable, any more than the clergyman who circulated it had power to alter any of the thirty-nine articles which they subscribed. Yet, according to the explanation of the counter-requisitionists, the sense of the county had been sufficiently taken in this private manner. For this reason, and because one of the members for the county had been prevented from being heard, the constitutional meeting of the county had been stigmatized as a farce. It was with astonishment that he heard this term of reproach applied to the exercise of one of the most valuable rights of the subject—the more valuable because it was exercised in the face of day, and gave every individual in the county the opportunity of canvassing freely and independently the state of public affairs. This right had not only been long exercised in tins country, but, was a right, the exercise of which was encouraged when the sentiments expected to be I expressed were agreeable to those in power. That kind of assembly, which was now called a farce was, a year ago, the only regular and constitutional mode through which the throne had been approached with addresses of congratulation. Did any of his majesty's ministers, then, call these meetings a farce? Such meetings would never be so stigmatized, when their proceedings accorded with their opinions and wishes.
The Duke of Wellington
said, he had not stated that the county had been called before, but had given it as his
111
Lord Holland
observed, that the noble duke had expressed, in the address, his attachment to the constitution; but what he had said in that House explained what he meant by his attachment to it. There was a distinction in the mode in which he wished the constitutional opinion of the people to be expressed. An address secretly got up and privately circulated, was a grave and commendable mode; but attachment to the constitution expressed at a public meeting was a farce. What displeased the noble duke was, that persons on one side could not obtain a hearing. But his noble friend had explained this. The meeting was public, and all parties might have come to it. It semed, however, that every thing was fair when the parties were secured by lock and key, and when no one who disapproved of their proceedings could get near them; but when public discussion was invited, and the doors thrown open to all persons both friendly and adverse, then the meeting was a farce. The declaration mentioned by the noble duke purported to express the opinion of the county; but as it was only the opinion of individuals, he could not admit it to be what the noble duke described it, but considered it a fraudulent attempt to misrepresent the opinion of the county. He did not say that county meetings were entirely without defects. There was nothing in the constitution of this or of any other country that might not be liable to objection.
112
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that his noble friend had been misunderstood. He never meant to treat with contempt county meetings, which he knew were a part of the ancient constitution of the country. What he objected to was, that when they were so assembled and so controlled by a mob, their proceedings must necessarily be a farce; such meetings were not meetings of freeholders. Undoubtedly, county meetings, if they could be conducted in practice according to their theoretic object, must be most useful. In that sense, he admitted, that no part of the constitution was more valuable; but they were liable to great abuse, and when not held in county hall, but in the open air,
113
Earl Grey
did not expect, after what had passed in that House, last session, on the subject of public meetings, to have heard any reflection cast on county meetings, especially as, when the measures for abridging the liberties of the people were under discussion, the noble lord contended, that county meetings called under the authority of the sheriff, would henceforth have greater weight. But, notwithstanding all that the noble earl had then said in support of county meetings, and the advantage of holding them under the authority of the sheriffs, some of those sheriffs refused to call meetings, and others conducted themselves with the grossest partiality when they were called. The noble earl had explained the manner in which sheriffs were appointed; but he was surprised to find, that he had not attempted to say any thing satisfactory on the discretion they assumed of refusing to call meetings. He should be sorry to attribute to a person of the noble duke's character a wish to depreciate any part of the constitution, though his words certainly had that tendency. The noble duke did not object to meetings which both parties called, and where there were opportunities for discussion. But was not the meeting in question legally called? Was not the requisition respectably signed? and was not the object legal? His noble friend had described the meeting as most respectable. The objection of the noble duke applied to a circumstance which was unavoidable. County meetings often did wrong in not patiently hearing
114
The Duke of Leinster
said, he believed his majesty's ministers were extremely fond
of coups de tháatre;
vi et armis,
The Earl of Blesinton
said, that the noble earl opposite had no objection to county meetings, where an opportunity was afforded, of hearing the arguments which might be urged on both sides, and I entering into a calm, fair and impartial
115
The Earl of Carnarvon
strongly reprobated the attempt which had been made to cast a reproach upon one of the most respectable meetings he had ever attended. He hoped the noble duke would learn to appreciate better the character of English meetings in general; and that he would not, without better information, attempt to degrade a respectable public meeting of an English county by designating it as a clamorous mob.
Lord Ellenborough
said, he had heard with regret the expression which the noble duke had made use of, because he was sure it would be taken advantage of on of doors. He, however, did not understand that expression in the sense in which it had been taken by other noble lords, or he would have agreed with them in the censure they had bestowed on it. In his opinion, the expression was not meant to apply to all county meetings, but only to those at which it was impossible any rational discussion could take place. It was with deep regret he felt himself compelled to say, that the county meetings which had lately been held deserved all that the noble duke had said of them. This was occasioned, not by the persons who attended those meetings, but by those who absented themselves from them. If the 9,000 persons who had signed the counter-declaration had attended the meeting, they would have had a majority, or at least they would have given a different complexion to the meeting. If the ancient practice were restored, county meetings would be very different from what they were at present. Addresses would then have greater weight than they have now, when they are agreed to after—and not at the meetings.
The Duke of Bedford
presented a petition from the county of Bedford, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name
116
Viscount Anson
presented a similar petition from the city of Litchfield. He had received a protest against it, which had been framed at a secret meeting: and he could not but express his regret at observing the names of nine clergymen, at the head of whom was the dean of Litchfield, subscribed to a protest, of which, the object was, to exclude her majesty from the prayers of the people. He was sorry to be compelled to say, that the conduct of the clergy throughout the country had exposed that body to merited reprobation. He had no hesitation in declaring, that the petition contained the real sentiments, and almost unanimous opinions of the inhabitants of the city of Litchfield.
The said petitions were ordered to lie on the table.
NAPLES—DECLARATION OF THE ALLIED SOVEREIGNS AT TROPPAU.]—
Earl Grey
rose, to call the attention of the noble lord opposite, to a subject connected with our foreign policy. He had been unsuccessful in his attempt to obtain answers to the questions which he had put to the noble lord on a former night, which led him to fear that he should obtain no information on the present occasion. The noble lord must be aware that a circular letter had lately been addressed to different continental states, and among others, to the senate of Hamburgh. It was in the following terms:—
117
118
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had not the least difficulty in answering the question of the noble earl. The paper to which he referred was, he believed, an incorrect copy of a real paper which did exist. However, he had no difficulty in stating, in the first place, that there were no treaties of the nature alluded to in that paper. In the next place, he was able to assure the noble earl, that the court of London was no party to any proceedings now in progress with reference to Naples. In consequence of a paper, similar to that referred to by the noble earl, a paper had been addressed by this government to the difterent powers of Europe, which he should have no objection to lay before the House. That paper would explain the whole policy pursued by this government with reference to the affairs of Naples. He repeated, that he had not the slightest objection to the production of that document, though he could wish, as a matter of convenience, that the noble earl would not move for it that evening.
Earl Grey
expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the answer of the noble earl. He certainly should not move for the production of the paper to-night, after what had fallen from the noble earl; but he hoped that it would be speedily laid before the House, and he confidently expected, from the answer of the noble earl, that that paper would contradict the inferences drawn by the courts of Peters-burgh, Berlin, and Vienna; and show, that they had no right whatever to count upon the co-operation or assistance of this government.
The Earl of Liverpool
had no difficulty in assuring the noble earl, that the paper he had referred to would give a complete contradiction to any inferences, calculating upon the assistance of this government. There, were some arrangements which prevented its immediate production; but he should be ready to lay it before the House in the course of the next week.
119
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, January 26, 1821.
THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS,]—
Mr. Speaker
reported the king's answer to the address as follows:
"Gentlemen,
"I receive with the highest satisfaction this dutiful and loyal address. The assurances which you give me of your affectionate attachment to my person and government, and of your cordial support in the discharge of those sacred duties which are imposed upon me for the protection and happiness of my people, afford me the surest pledge that I shall be enabled, under the favour of Divine Providence, effectually to preserve to my subjects those inestimable blessings which they have hitherto enjoyed under our invaluable constitution."
PETITIONS RELATIVETO THE QUEEN.]—
Mr. Wyvill
presented a petition signed by 1,700 inhabitants of the city of York, complaining of the conduct of ministers towards her majesty, and praying for the restoration of all her rights, and especially for the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. He took that opportunity of stating, that it was with considerable pain he learnt that the noble lord opposite, did not, of himself, intend to advise the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. He inferred from this conduct, that neither ministers nor his majesty were aware of the irritation which prevailed throughout the country on this subject. He must also say, that he was greatly surprised that ministers had no intention of instituting an investigation into the Milan commission. The country would assume from this conduct, and confidently assume as a fact, that there had been a conspiracy, and that ministers were parties to that conspiracy.
Mr. James
presented a petition from Carlisle, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and entreating that the House would no longer continue to support ministers, who had introduced and supported such unconstitutional measures. The petition was signed by more than 1,000 names, and it reprobated the bill of Pains and Penalties as a violation of the constitution and of the fundamental laws of the realm, and as
120
Mr. Denison
rose to present a petition from the parishes of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, and others, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It lamented that the late measures against her majesty should ever have been instituted. In the sentiments and prayers of the petitioners he concurred, being convinced, that a more impolitic, unwise, and unjust measure, than that of striking her majesty's name out of the Liturgy, could not have been devised; and being also convinced, that nothing could restore tranquillity to the country but the replacing of her majesty's name where it ought to be. On the motion, that the petition be printed,
Sir E. Knatchbull
expressed a hope that, on the score of economy, hon. gentlemen would not press the printing of every petition of this sort that might be presented. He therefore hoped the hon. member would not persevere in the motion he had made.
Mr. Denison
agreed with the hon. gentleman, that economy was desirable, but could not agree that the petition ought not to be printed. Those from whom it came, though in a humble situation, were as much entitled to have their sentiments made known to their fellow subjects as any other body of men could be.
Lord Milton
was glad to find the hon. member for Kent so alive to the necessity of observing the most rigid economy, and trusted the House and the country would regard it only as an earnest of the zeal with which, for the future, the hon. member would labour for the reduction of every useless expense and unnecessary office. Perhaps he would find, that the office of receiver-general of the land-tax was one which might be dispensed with, under the present circumstances of the country, and the business connected with it, performed through some other channel. Should a motion to this effect be made, he hoped the country would be favoured with the support of the hon. gentleman, who might perhaps be an important witness on this subject.
Mr. C. Dundas
presented a petition from the county of Berks. It complained that no inquiry had been made into the distresses of the country, but that parliament had been occupied for nanny months solely, with a needless prosecution against
121
Mr. Denison
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Godalming. It was most respectably signed. Its prayer was, for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy; and for such reform in that House as would give the people a free, fair, and full representation. He fully agreed in this prayer, though he was no advocate for the wild schemes of annual parliaments and universal suffrage.
Mr. W. Williams
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Lambeth. It was signed by more than 2,000 respectable inhabitants. It was the firm belief of the petitioners, that nothing could allay the irritation of the country but the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy and to all the rights belonging to a Queen consort. He cordially coincided with the petitioners, and he had placed that reliance on the candour and humanity of ministers, that as soon as they had been compelled to give up the prosecution they would have restored her majesty's name to the Liturgy. He still hoped
122
Sir Ronald Fergusson
presented three petitions—one from the magistrates and town council of Culross, the second from Burntisland, and the third from Kinghorn. One of the petitions stated, that all the evils of the country—our agricultural and commercial distresses, were owing to his majesty's ministers; and, therefore, prayed the House to withdraw its confidence and support from them. He heartily hoped, that the House might comply with this petition. All the petitions declared their abhorrence of the prosecutions against the Queen, and prayed for the restoration of her name to the Liturgy, and to all her rights as Queen consort.
Mr. Sykes
said, he had a petition to present on a subject somewhat different from the preceding petitions. It was from Cottingham; and complained of the great distress which afflicted all classes. The speech from the throne had been made to represent a state of things which existed not. Never yet had he seen one person outside of those doors who believed one word of it. Whatever ministers might believe themselves, or attempt to make others believe, sure he was, that so far as his experience extended, nine-tenths of the people joined in the belief, that without a change of ministers and measures, no satisfaction could be obtained for the people. Without an entire change of the system acted upon, the unhappy agitation which prevailed, and from which, the royal name, the royal family, and the best interests of the country had suffered, could not be allayed. For this reason, too, the petitioners prayed for the dismissal of ministers. On the first day of the session he had heard much of the folly and mischief of certain persons; but he would ask, whether there could be folly and mischief equal to the folly and mischief of those who had instituted the proceedings against the Queen? He should have thought that wisdom would have dictated very different conduct in point of prudence; he should have thought that wisdom would have dictated very different conduct on the ground of justice. The measures against the Queen had been conceived in mischief, nursed up in folly, and supported by perjury.
123
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he held in his hand some additional commentaries on the assertion of the noble lord opposite, that he was in possession of the confidence of the country. The first was a petition from the parish of St. George, Hanover-square. The mock loyalists had endeavoured to get up a mock-loyal petition in the same parish, and in ten days they had got 415 names. The petition which he held in his hand had not been ready for signature more than ten hours, and it had got as many names. If the subject did not require that it should be presented that night, it would have been signed by nearly as many thousands. It prayed for attention to the distresses of the country, for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and also for a reform in the representation. The second petition was from the bookbinders of London and Westminster. It prayed for the same objects. The third was from Langport, praying for the dismissal of ministers, and for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, it was signed by 1,000 names. The fourth was from Sidmouth, and signed by 450 individuals. No one could object to the loyalty of the people of Sidmouth, who, from unaccountable attachment to ministers, had refused to petition against them in the case of the Manchester business. A mock loyal address from this place had not so many names, although applications had been made for ten miles round. He had been entreated by the petitioners to urge the necessity of taking the prayers of the petitions into serious consideration. It would be a failure of courtesy to the noble lord, whose motion was fixed for that night, if he were to offer any observations now, upon the subject of the Liturgy. He must say, however, that the member for Guilford had taken a very erroneous view of the question, when he had said that he viewed it only as a legal question. If the exclusion of her majesty's name could be established as legally right, still the question would recur as a question of state necessity. Would it be endured that her majesty's name should be struck out of the Liturgy, upon evidence which had not made good the charge against her majesty, to the minds of those who had been trying the question? There was no inconsistency in connecting the two subjects, of the restoration of her majesty's rights and the reform of that House. If there had been an actual responsibility of ministers, they
124
Mr. Sergeant Onslow
said, the lion, member had imputed to him, expressions too absurd for any but an idiot to have used. If the right of excluding her majesty's name was legal, still there was the question of expediency to be considered. If the hon. gentleman chose to cite his words, he ought to have done it correctly.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had never supposed the learned gentleman to be an idiot. He was the last man in the world
125
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
presented two petitions, of a similar nature: the first, from the inhabitants of Reading, signed by 1,300 persons: the second, from the inhabitants of Tilehurst, tithing of Theale, and its vicinity. The hon. member begged leave to say, that the petitioners were devotedly attached to the constitution, and were most anxious to support the honour and dignity of the Crown. They had seen, with regret, the late proceedings against the Queen, carried on against the advice and recommendation of parliament—they had seen the charges against her majesty supported by the foulest and most corrupt perjury,—they had seen that the witnesses brought forward against her majesty were discharged servants, who had been bribed to give testimony against her. This was nothing less than corrupting the source of justice. The petitioners most solemnly prayed the House of Commons to withdraw their support from those ministers, who had, for such a length of time, abused the power entrusted to them,—that a stop should be put to any attempt to renew the proceedings against the Queen,—that the House of Commons would husband with strict economy the resources of the nation; and that every exertion should be made to inquire into, and alleviate, the distresses under which the country at present laboured. They prayed also, that every effort should be made to correct the abuses which existed in the representation of the people in parliament. He begged to remind the House of an observation which had been long since made, that unless a reform took place in parliament, no ministers could possibly manage the affairs of the country with honour to themselves, or advantage to the people, however well inclined they might be to do so.
Mr. Denman
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Nottingham, in which, they described the late proceedings against her majesty as having originated in a foul conspiracy, and expressed a hope, that the feelings so generally entertained amongst the people on this subject would be likewise found to animate that House. They deprecated any renewal of proceedings so
126
Mr. Birch
presented a petition from the corporation of Nottingham, praying, that no further proceedings should be instituted against the Queen—a prayer which, after what had been declared by the noble lord opposite, the hon. member was willing to consider as already complied with. He trusted that the worthy alderman (Heygate) who disapproved of the original exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, and yet professed himself to be against its restoration, would attend in his place that night, and find reason, in the course of the debate, to change his view of the question.
Mr. R. Martin
observed, that he approved much more of this petition than of that which had been presented by the Queen's Solicitor General. As counsel for the Queen the learned gentleman might naturally entertain a strong and honest prejudice in her favour; but before others allowed themselves to bring forward charges of conspiracy and perjury, they ought to be able to prove their allegations. He wished, therefore, to give notice, that if he should hear parties accused of having committed bribery and false swearing in order to calumniate and degrade the Queen, he would challenge them to put something in a course of proof, so as to give to the accused a legitimate mode of defending themselves. This might be easily done by moving, that all the papers relative to the late inquiry should be taken into consideration. [Cries of "Move, move."] Move what? what was he to move? It was for those who made the charges to substantiate them.
Mr. Denman
said, he was obliged to the hon. gentleman for the terms in which he had thought proper to allude to him, but he scarcely thought he stood in need of a defence or apology for presenting the petition which had called forth the hon. member's animadversions. He was not bound to justify, to its full extent, the language of the petition, of which not one word was his own; neither was he aware, that any charge was preferred against
127
Mr. Heathcote
said, he held in his hand a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Boston, similar in its general prayer to those which had been already received. In presenting it, he could not avoid expressing a hope that all those proceedings which had now so long, to the exclusion of every other subject, engaged the attention of parliament, might be brought speedily to an end. In their progress they had not been less detrimental to the dignity of the throne, than repugnant to the feelings of the people; and where so much must now be granted—and so little could be denied, a full restitution of the rights and privileges of Queen Consort appeared to him to be the most just and the most politic course.
Mr. Honywood
presented a petition from Margate, praying for the dismissal of ministers, and the restoration of the Queen to all her rights and dignities. Those who signed it were freeholders, and, in publicly meeting to express their sentiments on public events, were not conscious that they were acting "a farce," but imagined rather that they were engaged in the exercise of one of their most valuable liberties. He feared much, that if these petitions should be treated with neglect, the people would be confirmed in an opinion which they had long entertained, namely, that the House did not speak the sense, or represent the wishes of the country.
Lord Stanley
rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Chorley, in Lancashire, complaining of the unprecedented treatment of her majesty, and praying, not merely, that the Queen's name should be restored to the Liturgy, but also that her majesty should be invested, without further delay, in all the honours and dignities due to her exalted station. Such was the prayer of the petitioners, in the whole of which he cordially concurred; and he thought ministers would abandon their duty if they did not immediately accede to the wishes of the country, and give that advice to their sovereign which
128
Mr. Monck
presented a petition from the town of Wantage. The petitioners called the attention of parliament to the existing state of the agricultural classes; they also complained of the treatment experienced by the Queen, and stated, that nothing but the reinstatement of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, and her investiture in all the honours of her rank as Queen Consort, could allay the agitation which prevailed throughout the country. He heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition, and earnestly hoped, or rather wished—for hopes he had none—that sentiments like these, which were so honourable to the sense and feelings of the people, would not be lost upon his majesty's ministers. He earnestly wished that the voice of the people might not, as heretofore, be thwarted, and that parliament would not exhibit a determined spirit of opposition to the sentiments of the people at large.
Sir Robert Wilson
said, he held in his hand a petition, signed by 2,097 persons of that respectable class of artisans denominated the Spanish Morocco Leather-dressers [a laugh]. He did not know what there was in that to excite a laugh; it was true the petitioners were poor but they were honest, industrious, and loyal; they also paid heavy taxes, and had as much right to be heard in that House as the constituents of the representative of any borough in England. They were as well entitled to attention, when they approached that House with the expression of their sentiments upon a great national question, as any body of men whatever, and they were then more especially deserving of being heard when they held one uniform language with all their countrymen upon the important subject which occupied, at that moment, the attention of parliament. That language was strong, but it was just. They expressed their detestation of the odious proceedings against the Queen, and more particularly the act of omitting her name in the Liturgy while she was yet untried. This they called an outrage to decency and law, and insisted that it was evidently intended to brand her majesty with infamy in the first instance, that she might be compelled to remain in exile, or if she returned home, that the disgrace attached to her name might facilitate her condemnation at the bar of public opinion; and of both Houses of parliament as one
129
130
Mr. Rouse Boughton
presented a petition to the same effect from several clergymen of the established church, and several dissenting ministers of Evesham, deploring the measures which had been hitherto pursued against her majesty, and entreating, that her name might be forthwith restored to the Liturgy, and, that she should be invested with all the honours, dignities, and prerogatives, due to her station. He concurred with the petitioners in thinking that the act of striking the Queen's name out of the Liturgy was unwise, inexpedient, and unfair. The ministers ought, without delay, to retrace their steps. By no other mode of conduct could they allay the agitated state of public feeling.
The Marquis of Tavistock
rose to present the petition of the freeholders of the county of Bedford. It was, he said, agreed to at the first meeting held of that county for the last twenty-live years; and one more numerous, more respectable, more temperate, more loyal, and in every respect better conducted, had never been held in any county. It was conducted throughout in the true spirit of the constitution, and did honour to the county. The petition was signed by upwards of 2,400 freeholders and other respectable individuals. They complained, in very warm terms, of the treatment of the Queen; they reprobated the proceedings carried on against her majesty, from the beginning to the end; they were jealous of them, because they saw, that they shook the country and interrupted the public peace. Perhaps it might suit ministers to consider the Bedfordshire and other county meetings as a farce. It might suit men to apply that term to county meetings, who durst not themselves meet before the public, but who were obliged to skulk into holes and corners, from which they issued libels against the people of England. This was not the treatment which Englishmen deserved. Instead of having
131
Mr. Bernal
presented a petition from Rochester, signed by 2,500 persons. The petitioners, he observed, were sincerely attached to the king and to the genuine principles of the constitution; and had, in the exercise of an undoubted right, felt it to be their duty to express their disapprobation of the measures pursued by his majesty's ministers. They called on the House to use its influence in procuring the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy; they prayed, that it would institute a rigid inquiry into the recent proceedings against the Queen; and they besought the House no longer to place confidence in those ministers who had insulted their king and degraded their country. They also called on the House to inquire into the distressed state of the empire; occasioned as it was, by the conduct adopted by ministers—by their boundless profusion and extravagance, their opposition to the correction of abuses, and their abridgment of the rights of the people. While such men were in power, the petitioners conceived, that the prerogatives of the King, the rights of the Queen, and the liberties of the People were in danger. He entirely and sincerely—not at all as a party man, but from honest conviction—concurred in those sentiments. He did not wish to embarrass this or any government, when it was properly conducted; but when he saw proceedings instituted which were calculated to degrade the country in the eyes of the world, and thereby to lessen its consequence in the estimation of foreign states, it was, he conceived, high time that a change should be effected. At such a time as this, it was right that gentlemen should speak their sentiments freely, and not smother them under the veil of delicacy. he had also to present a second peti-
132
Mr. Jervoise
presented a similar petition from the county of Hants. He stated, that it was agreed to at a county meeting, which was most respectably attended, and that it was signed by 8,000 freeholders; who, while they opposed the unwise and dangerous acts of the present administration, were as much attached to the soundest principles of religion and loyalty as any men in the kingdom.
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, that having been one of the principal actors in this county farce he begged leave to say a few words respecting it. He used the term "farce" because he found, that county meetings were in future to be deemed farces, comedies, or perhaps, tragedies. He heard that county meetings had, in a most indecent, unconstitutional, and improper manner, been compared to mobs. In a short time, he supposed, all bodies would be looked upon as mobs, except battalions of infantry and squadrons of horse. He would venture to say, that he felt as much respect for military talents as any man in the country; but let such sentiments come from the most mighty mouths that could be, he would, in his place, protest against them, not only as disrespectful to parliament, but to the country at large. They were not now on the plains of Water-
133
Mr. Fleming
said, he could not support the sentiments contained in the petition presented by his hon. colleague, and felt himself called on, fn justice to the rank and property of the county of Hants, to declare, that many of the most wealthy and respectable freeholders were not present at that meeting.
134
Mr. Wellesley Pole
said, he hardly knew in what way he ought to treat the observations which had fallen from the hon. baronet on the other side. He had some doubts as to whether the hon. baronet's allusions fell within the orders of that House; but as he was not stopped by the Chair, it only remained for him to make a few observations on them. The hon. gentleman had used very hard words—[Cries of 'No,' and 'Yes']—were not sentiments such as he had expressed with respect to a noble person—
The Speaker
here interrupted the right hon. gentleman and reminded him, that he was out of order. The reason he had not interrupted the hon. baronet was, that he had not been able to collect, from what had fallen from him, the person to I whom he alluded.
Mr. Wellesley Pole
hoped the hon. I baronet, would do him the justice to allow, that he had not misconceived whom he had alluded to. He had made several: severe observations, and had entirely misrepresented what he supposed to have I been said on the occasion alluded to. If he knew the noble person to whom he had alluded, he would find, that there was not a man in that House, in the country, or in the world, who held in higher estimation than that noble person did, the liberties of the people of England, [a laugh, and cries of hear, hear !] This might extract a smile and a laugh front lawyers; it might excite cries of "hear, hear," from civilians; but it would not elicit a smile and a laugh from those who knew that noble lord—who acknowledged the advantages the country had derived from his talents, and were acquainted with his constitutional principles, which were not only duly appreciated in this island, but were perfectly understood all over the world. He admitted, that he ought not to have suffered the observations made on the other side of the House to have occasioned any warmth of feeling in expressing the few words with which he meant to trouble them. A to what the hon. baronet asserted, namely, that the noble lord had treated county meetings disrespectfully, he felt perfectly-convinced, that that noble person never had it in his contemplation to state, and never did state, any thing that was disrespectful of county meetings. He was confident, that that noble lord never uttered a word that could be considered disrespectful to the freeholders. What his noble
135
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, that until he came into that House, he knew not a syllable of the proceeding in question, and therefore the right hon. gentleman could not correctly state that he had alluded to any thing which occurred in the House of Lords. In fact, he only heard that the words were made use of by the noble person referred to, unaccompanied with any statement of the place in which they were uttered.
Mr. Baring
said, that the right hon. gentleman had undoubtedly misrepresented the Hampshire meeting.
Mr. W. Pole
said, he had not uttered a word about, that meeting. He had stated, that the noble lord spoke of a tumultous meeting; but lie had not mentioned where it was held.
Mr. Baring
said, it appeared to him; that the right hon. gentleman must have meant that meeting or none, and he felt himself called on to vindicate the character of the meeting from the injurious assertion which, it seemed, had been cast on it by other persons. He would not say one word about the expression made use of by a noble lord, in another place. He respected the noble person, and was perfectly sensible of the great obligations which the country owed to him. He never heard his name mentioned, or reflected on his character, without experiencing feelings of pride and satisfaction. He would not, therefore, censure him for any unguarded expression, utter-
136
Mr. Fleming
was sorry that any thing he should have said on the occasion in question was provoking. He thought the meeting was convened for public discussion, and what he had said he believed to have been perfectly fair.
Lord Belgrave
presented a petition from the city of Chester, which the noble lord
137
Sir T. Acland
presented a petition, numerously and respectably signed, to the number of 1,250 persons, from Dartmouth and its vicinity, deploring the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, as tending to occasion endless differences, and heart-burnings in society, regretting that the people, who were taught to pray for all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, were prevented from joining in prayer I for her majesty; and hoping, that the House would deliberate for the purpose of procuring the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and of securing her from further oppression.
Lord John Russell
observed, that as he and his colleague had been requested to support the prayer of the petition whenever it was presented, he now rose for the purpose of doing so; and he would say, that for his own part, he was prepared to vote for any measure which might be proposed, for the re-insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy. He could conceive, that many persons might be alarmed by the appearance of men armed with clubs and carrying stones, or by large and turbulent meetings, or by the circulation of seditious and blasphemous libels; but he could not conceive how any man could be alarmed by the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, especially as the peace of the country seemed to require it. The House would no doubt recollect what had been the conduct of ministers with regard to the property tax: they had retained it in their grasp as long as they could; but, after the House had expressed its opinion upon the impolicy of it, they had made a merit of giving it up to its wishes. He had therefore, no doubt, that if the House were to advise the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, ministers would
138
Mr. W. Smith
presented a petition from certain inhabitants of the city of Norwich, which he declared to be perfectly respectful and constitutional in all its language. The petition prayed for the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy, for the dismissal of ministers, and for a reform of the Commons House of parliament. It contained the uninfluenced sentiments of many inhabitants of Norwich, who were no less distinguished for their talent than for their integrity. It was signed by 4,500 individuals in a few days, over whose mind no interest or influence had been exercised by any person whatsoever.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]—
On the order of the day for going into a Committee of Supply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. Creevey
said, he would not detain the House, at any length, from the important question about to be brought forward, but begged to call their attention, for a few moments to the motion now made. This was the first stage of an annual parliamentary process, called a Committee of Supply; a process by which, once or twice every week, hundreds of thousands on hundreds of thousands, and millions on millions, of the public money, were voted in that House, in the presence of not more than a dozen persons, exclusively of the ministers of the Crown. He hoped, however, that things would now go on better. The public seemed to have taken a noble attitude; by their efforts, they had prevented her majesty from being overborne by superior power—they had prevented the laws and the constitution from being subverted by the ministers of the Crown. He trusted they would now turn their attention to the protection of their own property in that House He did not know whether it was true, that an illustrious individual had declared that a public meeting in this country was a farce. If it was true that such an expression had been used, he would say of it, that it was not a British sentiment, but must have been imported from Troppau; the royal politicians assembled at which place, no doubt, thought every thing a farce but their own plans of conquest and tyranny. A farce! If he wished for a farce, re-
139
l.
The House resolved itself in the said committee, in. which, the Chancellor of' the Exchequer moved, "that a supply be granted to his Majesty." The motion was agreed to, and the House resumed.
MOTION RESPECTING THE OMISSION
Lord Archibald Hamilton
rose to make his promised motion. He said, he was sure he had never risen in that House on any occasion when it was more necessary for him, than it was at present, to experience their candour and indulgence, both with reference to himself individually, and to the subject which he was about to bring under their consideration. It would certainly be superfluous on his part, after the numerous petitions which had that day been laid on the table, to insist either on the inherent importance of the question which the House were now called upon to discuss, or on the intense interest which the people at large took in that question. He hoped, that any deficiency on his part would be considered as made up by the number of petitions laid upon their table, of which there was not one, at all connected with the Queen's case, that did not
140
141
*
*
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
Mr. Charles Ellis
said, it was not his intention, when he came down to the House, to take any part in the debate of this night; but he was sure, the House would think with him, that the observations of his noble friend—if he might be permitted so to call him—with respect to the resignation of a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Canning) called for some remarks in reply. That he should have taken upon himself the task of vindicating the conduct of his right hon. friend required, he owned, some apology both to the I louse and to some of his own friends, who were far more able to execute the task. But he rose, rather to deprecate any such course, and to entreat the friends of his right hon. friend to exercise their forbearance, whatever charges or insinuation of charges might be made against him, by the noble lo*d, or by any other member. His right hon. friend, on the first agitation of this question, had taken the earliest opportunity of avowing to the House, his determination to take no part whatever in any proceedings against her majesty. From the moment that the hope of an amicable adjustment failed, his right hon. friend had abstained from all interference. He was absent from the country during the whole of the proceedings in the other House of parliament, and did not return till after the bill of Pains and Penalties had been withdrawn. On viewing the state of those proceedings on his return, he felt convinced, that the course which he had pursued before, was no longer compatible with the station he held, and there appeared to him no other alternative than to surrender his office. Having thus purchased the right of acting con-
154
155
Mr. Robinson,
in rising to reply to the speech with which the noble lord had introduced his motion, begged to say, in the first place, that it contained one sentiment with which he entirely concurred, That sentiment, the noble lord had expressed in plain terms, in the beginning of his speech, although he had thought proper to qualify it towards the conclusion: it was, that his Majesty's ministers, and they alone, ought in this case to be the responsible persons. The noble lord had intimated to the House, that ministers, in the advice which they gave to the Crown, had been actuated by motives which did not leave them the exercise of their own judgment. Whatever might have induced the noble lord to make the supposition, he (Mr. Robinson) could not consent to take any advantage from such an admission; for the advice was given by his majesty's ministers, and by the legality and expediency of that advice they were ready to stand or fall. When he considered the language in which the noble lord had characterized this act—when he heard it called an illegal proceeding—an insult to the sovereign—an injury and a disgrace to the country, and a measure for which the noble lord had no milder epithet than revolutionary—it would be base in ministers—it would be the height of meanness, not to avow their responsibility. Before he proceeded to make any observations on the motion of the noble lord, and on the arguments that had been used in support of it, he would advert to the circumstance which had led to the alleged offence. The noble lord had not argued at great length in support of the opinion which he had expressed as to the illegality of the measure; and he apprehended, that such an argument, if he himself were to enter into it, would not be very satisfactory to the House, or very likely to lead to a just conclusion. He said, however, that his majesty's ministers, neither at the time
156
157
158
Lord Archibald Hamilton
rose to explain. In answer to the right hon. gentleman, he begged to say, that he had used the word "revolutionary" without doubt, and he had used it advisedly. He also begged to be understood as applying it, not solely to this particular act of the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, but to the whole of the proceedings which had been had against the Queen.
Mr. Hobhouse,
being in possession of the House, began by observing, that if
159
160
onus probandi
161
162
Mr. Wetherell
and several other members having risen at the same time, the cry for that gentleman became general. He said, that he had been in hopes of hearing some grounds alleged by his majesty's ministers as those upon which the order in council had proceeded, by which the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy of the church had been directed. The right hon. gentleman who had spoken after the noble lord opposite, had gone into a variety of observations, the tendency of which was, the justification of that act upon the part of the ministers of the Crown. Without wishing to follow the right hon. gentleman through all the statements contained in his speech, he was quite prepared to state the reasons upon which he differed from him on this most important subject. The right hon. gentleman had critically argued, not so much the matter, as the form of the motion submitted by the noble lord. For his part, he thought that form was an extremely correct one. He thought the right hon. gentleman however, had stated, in a very candid manner, what was his own view of the question, and his own opinion upon its merits: and having himself possessed the means of frequently considering it, he would now state what was the result of that attention and inquiry which he had
163
164
consuetudines regni,
165
166
167
in facie ecclesiæ,
168
169
copia verborum
170
pro re nata
consuetudo regni?
171
consuetudo parliamenti.
jus coronæ.
172
173
consuetudo regni
femmeseule,
jus mariti,
174
175
176
actum est
177
arbitrio popularis auræ,
178
179
Dr. Dodson
said, that the real question
180
181
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, begged leave, in the first instance to address himself to the consistency of the House, and to remind them of what occurred late in the last session. He appealed to the recollection of every gentleman, whether the question of the Liturgy was not repeatedly under consideration; and whether it was not, for the last time in that session, discussed in conjunction with a motion for an address to her majesty. The legal right of the Queen to be named in the Liturgy, was then hardly lisped by those
182
183
Sir John Newport
deprecated the manner in which the king's name had been made use of in the course of the present discussion, for the purpose of influencing the minds of members of that House. To answer a legal argument by appeals to the personal feelings of any body of men in that House, gave the strongest reason to suppose, that the legal argument could not be met.—[Hear, from the Attorney General.] As it seemed to be the intention of the learned gentleman opposite to meet the argument, he would furnish him with one more subject for the exercise of his ingenuity in answering it. In the Act of Uniformity passed by the Irish parliament, two years after the act passed in this country, there was a clause which ran thus:—"In all prayers, litanies, and collects in the Common-prayer, wherein mention is made of the king, queen, royal family, lord lieutenant, or any other of the lawful authorities of the kingdom, the names and titles shall be altered and changed from time to time, as circumstances may require." These words were a plain comment, which served to explain the intent and meaning of that part of the act; and being so, it appeared to him, to be impossible to contend, that any authority was thereby given to leave out any of the parties so mentioned, or to make any alteration but that of the names. With respect to the proposal of bringing in a new act on the subject, it was for those to do so who thought, that the law as it now stood was inconclusive on the subject.
The Attorney General
confessed, that he rose to address the House under feel-
184
litera scripta
185
pro rege, et princi-
186
pibus suis.
copia verborum
187
188
189
Mr. Wetherell
explained. He had not contended, that the Queen Consort was entitled to the allegiance of the people. What he had said was, that from immemorial usage, the Queen was entitled to all those external symbols of respect and marks of homage that were paid to the king.
Sir James Mackintosh
assured the House, that it was with great reluctance he rose to address them at an hour when their patience must be nearly worn out, and upon topics which were not generally acceptable to that assembly; but having satisfied his own mind of the illegality of the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, he felt that he was bound, at every inconvenience, to deliver the opinion which he had formed upon reflection, and which he should carry with him to the grave. He was convinced, that the advice given by his majesty's ministers was a violation of the written and common law of the land; a subversion of the rules of justice, and an attack upon the principles of the British monarchy. He did not mean to go at any length into the arguments on the subject; his task was an easy one, after the able manner in which the question was treated by his learned friend the member for Oxford, whose arguments appeared to him the most conclusive, the most luminous, and the most satisfactory he had ever heard. His reasoning was unanswerable, and he should therefore, merely confine himself to a few observations on some points urged by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General. The arguments of his hon. and learned friend, and of the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade, were arguments,
ad hominem,
190
191
à vinculo matrimonii.
à vinculo malrimonii
à vinculo matrimonii
mensa et thoro;
sub silentio,
192
be
193
194
195
196
The Solicitor General
contended, that the motion went in substance to address the king for the re-insertion of the Queen's name in the book of Common-prayer, and it was for the House to consider whether it would assent to such a proposition. The noble mover had observed, that the country was in a state of ferment and irritation; and did he think, that this motion was likely to allay that ferment? He must, however, congratulate the House on the new lights which had burst in upon them, for certainly it was but a recent discovery on the part of gentlemen opposite, that the Queen had a legal right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. He begged leave, in support of this statement, to advert to the conduct of those gentlemen, who in June last, proposed to negociate for an equivalent. With respect to the legal question, it was not his intention to say much, as his learned friend, the Attorney General, had entered so extensively into that point. He would merely observe, that from all the references and precedents that had been used, as also from the transactions, during the reign of Henry 8th, and the provisions of the Act of Uniformity, it was manifestly clear, that the right of inserting the Queen's name in the Liturgy was vested in, and remained immediately, with, the sovereign for the time being. As
197
198
à vinculo matrimonii
199
Lord Millon
spoke to order. He said, it was quite beyond the bounds of debate for any member of that House to insinuate, that another member could not vote for a particular motion then under discussion, or which was likely to arise out of the discussion, without taking a part against the monarch and the monarchy itself. Such a declaration was contrary to the whole course of parliamentary proceedings; and such words were never used without being made the subject of animadversion and correction from the chair.
The Solicitor General
begged to explain. The present motion, he said, did not go the length upon which he had animadverted. He had only said, that if it were followed by another, of a particular nature, and that second motion carried into effect, which he was persuaded it could not, from the turn the present motion must take, that, in that event, he thought a particular consequence must follow. He disavowed imputing any motive to-any hon. member, or any injurious effect to the present motion, which he was persuaded would fail.
Lord Milton
again said, that for any hon. member to say, that any motion would lead to, another motion, which was an attack on the monarch and monarchy,
200
The Speaker
expressed his regret, that he had not accurately caught the words attributed to the hon. and learned gentleman. The right hon. gentleman then stated, what he inferred to be the effect of the expressions used, and drew a distinction between an effect prospectively imputed to be the result of a motion by way of argument, and a motive ascribed to an individual as intending to produce that result. The latter would be highly disorderly; the former in his opinion not so.
The Solicitor General
disavowed imputing improper motives to the noble lord who brought forward this motion.
Mr. Scarlett
observed, that the present question was one which mainly involved the stability of the present ministers, and they themselves had made it a question of that nature. At so late an hour, he did not wish to enter deeply into its consideration; but every man who valued principle, who valued the dignity of the throne and the maintenance of the constitution, was called upon to make a stand for their defence. The due administration of justice was concerned in this question; but confident declamation could neither alter its nature, nor detract from its importance. The present question involved the fate of ministers; but the president of the Board of Trade had met the charge against his colleagues by a vote of adjournment. This was a proof of the justice of their cause, of the manliness with which they dared to meet it! The world, however, would judge of this. Honest men of the present day would see it as it deserved to be regarded. Why did not ministers call on their majority to bear them through their appeal? Their confidence bespoke, that at least they had some colour of justice or mistaken policy on their side. In the hour of trial they were found to have neither. It was said, on a former occasion, that the time might arrive when discussion would come. That time was now come; and, to the great dissatisfaction, he believed, of all sides, the merits of the government were not to be discussed, nor the necessity of their measures met by any decisive measure. The Solicitor General had spoken very confidently; but confidence was not proof nor assertion always fact. The House of Commons was not, perhaps, the best tribunal to discuss legal topics;
201
202
ex parte
Lord Castlereagh
commenced by ob-
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he should not have thought of trespassing upon the patience of the House at that late hour, were it not for the speech of the noble lord, who had allowed expressions to fall from him which he could not allow to pass unanswered. He could have wished, for the sake of that noble lord, and still more for the sake of the country and of the illustrious lady whom the noble lord had done all in his power to vilify, that he had been allowed to be silent; but the whole of the noble lord's speech was designed to give new life to the fatal dissentions which were agitating the country, and to place the illustrious parties concerned, in a state of contention for an indefinite length of time. For the sake of casting new stigmas upon her majesty, and fixing upon her the charges ministers had abandoned in their evidence, he had not only infringed all bounds of decorum, but all forms of debate, and with the artful sedulousness of the penner of a paragraph for a party newspaper, had entered into a laboured analysis of the votes, in the Lords, to whose proceedings in ordinary cases a bare reference only was allowed. If at a time when not only justice, but all the forms which were the handmaids of justice, were violated for the one purpose of destroying the Queen (unless, indeed, he should add that of distracting the country), he might be allowed to follow so vicious and unparliamentary a precedent, he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble lord. He could shew, that of the illustrious individuals who composed the majorities and minorities, not one could possibly be influenced by the royal person who was the object of the prosecution; he could shew, that the royal person who, was the real prosecutor, was represented
213
The Speaker
interposed, on the ground that it was irregular to remark on the motives which had influenced members of the other house of parliament.
Mr. Brougham
remarked, that the noble lord had himself wandered into discussion of the motives of the peers, to which it was necessary that an answer should be given.
The Speaker
said, that the distinction as to the remarks made upon the other House of parliament was this:—At the end of every session, the journals of the House of Lords were communicated to the House of Commons, as the votes of the Commons were regularly communicated to the Lords. As soon as the journals of the Lords were so communicated, they became matter of historical record, and whatever appeared on the face of them, could be remarked upon. The noble lord had remarked upon the reasons which noble lords had given for their votes, which, as he understood, were professedly drawn from the protests which were of course found on the journals. If the noble lord had gone beyond this, as the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to have understood him, he (the Speaker) was remiss in not having checked the noble lord upon the same principle as he had checked the hon. and learned gentleman.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that he had argued, that the ministers had not made the bill a party question in the other House.
Mr. Brougham
continued.—If it was true, that the minister had not made this a party question, such a circumstance could not by any possibility appear on the face of the journals, but if such circumstances were so recorded, it would not be found on those journals or any where else, because it was notoriously and directly contrary to the fact. Never, not only in out own times, but if they recurred to
214
215
216
catch
zero
217
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that uninjured as he felt himself by the attack of the hon. and learned gentleman, he had no wish, rising unexpectedly, and at that late hour of the morning, unnecessarily to protract the contest. He would, however, tell that hon. and learned gentleman (never more ingenious than he had been that night, and never less convincing), that he was not vain enough to imagine, that the trap which had been alluded to was set by the noble mover, for so humble an individual as himself. But, at all events, be gave credit to the hon. and learned gentleman for having discovered at an
218
219
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Bury, viscount
Allen, J. H.
Byng, George
Althorp, viscount
Butterworth, Joseph
Anson, hon. G.
Buxton, T. F.
Anson, sir G.
Calcraft, John
Ashurst, W. H.
Calcraft, J. H.
Astell, William
Calvert, Charles
Aubrey, sir John
Calvert, Nicholas
Barham, Joseph F.
Carew, R. S.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Carter, John
Baring, Alexander
Cavendish, lord G.
Baring, Henry
Cavendish, Henry
Barrett, S. M.
Chaloner, Robert
Beaumont, T. W.
Clifford, captain
Belgrave, viscount
Clifton, viscount
Benett, John
Coffin, sir I.
Bennet, Hon. H. G.
Coke, T. W. jun.
Bentinck, lord W.
Colburne, N. R.
Benyon, Benjamin
Cole, sir Lowry
Bernal, Ralph
Concannon, Lucius
Birch, Joseph
Coussmaker, G.
Blake, sir F.
Creevey, Thomas
Boughey, sir J. F.
Crespigny, sir W.
Boughton, R.
Crompton, Samuel
Bright, Henry
Cripps, Joseph
Brougham, Henry
Curwen, J. C.
Browne, Dominick
Davenport, Davis
Burdett, sir F.
Davies, T. H.
220
Denison, William
Martin, John
Denman, Thomas
Milton, viscount
Dickinson, W.
Monck, J. B.
Dundas, hon. T.
Moore, Peter
Dundas, C.
Moore, Abraham
Ebrington, viscount
Mostyn, sir Thomas
Ellice, Edward
Newman, R. W.
Ellis, Hon. G. A.
Newport, rt hon. sir J.
Farquharson, A.
Nugent, lord
Farrand, Robert
O'Callaghan, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. C.
Onslow, Arthur
Fitzgerald, Lord W.
Ord, William
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Ossulston, lord
Fitzroy, lord C.
Palmer, Charles
Fitzroy, lord J.
Palmer, C. F.
Folkestone, viscount
Pares, Thomas
Gaskell, Benjamin
Paniell, sir Henry
Glenorchy, viscount
Peel, William
Gordon, Robert
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Graham, Sandford
Phillips, G. R.
Graham, J.
Phillips, George
Grant, J. P.
Pierce, Henry
Grant, G. M.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Powell, Edward W.
Griffith, J. W.
Power, Richard
Guise, Sir William
Powlett, hon. W.
Gurney, Hudson
Price, Robert
Gurney, R. H.
Prittie, hon. F. A.
Haldimand, W.
Pryse, Pryse
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Pym, Francis
Harbord, hon. E.
Ramsbottom, John
Heathcote, sir G.
Ramsden J. C.
Heathcote, G. J.
Ricardo, David
Heron, sir Robert
Rice, T. S.
Hill, lord A.
Rickford, William
Hobhouse, J. C
Ridley, sir M. W.
Holmes, sir L.
Robarts, A. W.
Honywood, W. P.
Robarts, G.
Hornby, Edmund
Robinson, sir George
Hughes, W. L.
Rowley, sir W.
Hume, Joseph
Rumbold, Charles
Hurst, Robert
Russell, lord John
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Russell, lord Wm.
James, W.
Russell, R. G.
Jervoise, G. P.
Scarlett, James
Kennedy, T. F.
Scott, James
Lamb, hon. W.
Scourfield, W. H.
Lambton, John G.
Scudamore, R. P.
Langton, J. H.
Sebright, sir John
Lawley, F.
Sefton, earl of
Leake, W.
Smith, hon. Robert
Legge, hon. H.
Smith, Samuel
Lemon, sir W.
Smith, Abel
Lennard,T. B.
Smith, John
Lester, B. Lester
Smith, George
Lloyd, J. M.
Smith, William
Lloyd, J. Jones
Stanley, lord
Lockhart, J. J.
Stuart, lord J.
Lushington, Stephen
Sykes, Daniel
Maberly, John
Talbot, R. W.
Maberly, W. L.
Tavistock, marquis of
Macdonald, J.
Taylor, M. A.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Taylor, C.
Madocks, W. H.
Tennyson, C.
Mahon, hon. S.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Marjoribanks, S.
Titchfield, marquis of
Marryatt, J.
Townshend, lord C.
221
Tulk, C. A.
Williams, T. P.
Tynte, C. K.
Williams, William
Vernon, G. V.
Wilson, sir Robert
Wall, C. B.
Winnington, sir T.
Warre, J. A.
Wood, alderman
Webbe, Edward
Wyvill, M.
Western, C. C.
TELLERS.
Wetherell, C.
Duncannon, viscount
Wharton, John
Hamilton, lord A.
Whitbread, W. H.
PAIRED OFF.
Whitbread, Samuel C.
Plumer, William
Whitmore, W. W.
Williams, Owen
Wilkins, Walter
White, Luke
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, January 31, 1821.
PETITIONS RELATIVETO THE QUEEN.]
Mr. Lambton
presented a petition from Durham signed by 3,340 inhabitants and agreed to at one of the most respectable meetings he had ever seen. The petitioners expressed their disgust at the late proceedings against her majesty. They also prayed for an inquiry into the proceedings of the Milan Commission. It was needless for him to say, that he gave his support to the contents of the petition.
Mr. Cumming
rose to present a similar petition from the lodge of Odd Fellows, No. 1, of Inverness, and No. 2, of Scotland.
The Speaker
begged to draw the attention of the House to this subject. A similar petition had been presented a few days since, but it was withdrawn. The question was not as to the wording of the petition, but as to the right of any society to present such petitions. He meant no objection to the society in question; but it was for the House to consider whether they were to receive petitions from societies unknown to the law. He was not aware, that there existed any precedent for receiving such petitions; but he, begged to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience, which would arise from such a regulation, however harmless the petition might be in itself. There were many such societies in this, and a much greater number in the sister kingdom. What, then, would be the feelings excited on receiving petitions from the Orange men, the Peep-of-day-boys, the White-boys, and the other slang names by which societies were designated? This, then, was the proper period for considering the question. The name of this society could not, of itself, give any offence to any party. He threw it out for the considera-
222
Sir John Newport
was decidedly against receiving the petition in its present form: he thought the admission of such a petition would be productive of calamitous consequences.
Sir W. De Crespigny
opposed the re ception of petitions from any lodges or societies not known to the law.
Mr. Calcraft
apprehended, that the reception of the petition might lead to a peecedent which, on other occasions, would be found highly inconvenient.
Mr. Abercromby
thought the subject worthy of mature consideration, as its determination might be the means of abridging the right of petition. It appeared to him, that this was merely a petition from private individuals who slated themselves to belong to a certain society. He did not wish to depreciate any opinion which had the sanction of the Chair, but he really thought, they ought not to decide hastily on this question.
The Speaker
observed, that the suggestion he had made to the House was not to decide the question. He merely called the attention of the House to the difficulty of the case, and therefore suggested the propriety of sanctioning the alteration he had recommended rather than involve the House in those inconveniences which he had indicated as the probable consequences of receiving the petition in its present shape.
Mr. Denman
observed upon the inconvenience of sending back a petition to a remote part of the kingdom for the purpose of being re-modelled, during which time the measure against which it petitioned might be passed, and thus the object of the petitioners be defeated.
Ordered to lie on the table.
PETITIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.]
Mr. Wyvill
presented thirty-two petitions from the City of York, praying for parliamentary reform. The petitioners were under an erroneous in a pression, that an act of Charles the second made it illegal to attach more than 20 signatures to a petition for parliamentary reform, and therefore it was, that such a number of petitions had been presented. They prayed, for a restoration of trienmial parliaments,
223
Mr. Hobhouse
took that opportunity to ask, at what period the hon. member for Durham intended bringing forward his motion on the subject of parliamentary reform, which he had been induced to postpone last Session.
Mr. Lambton
said, that he last year postponed his motion from a feeling, that in the then state of the country, the subject was not likely to meet with that calm and serious discussion which it required. For the same reason, he now gave notice, that he would, on the 10th of April, bring his motion, as, by that time, he trusted the question might be introduced with the best hope of success which it was ever likely to have in that House.
Mr. Grenfell
entreated the indulgence of the House whilst he submitted to their notice a few observations connected with the subject then before them. From the first clay that he had had the honour of a seat in parliament, now nearly twenty years ago, he had uniformly opposed every motion of a general undefined nature for parliamentary reform. He had done so because it was his conscientious belief, that, whatever blemishes might appear to exist in theory in our representative system, in practice it worked beneficially for the country, and secured to it as many advantages as were enjoyed in any other country in Europe. With those impressions, and he might say, with those convictions, on his mind, he had never consented to put at risk, for any theoretical benefits, that constitution which con-
224
Mr. Philips
observed, that the avowal which his hon. friend, had made of his change of opinion on the vital question of reform, was exactly what he should have expected from his well-known candour. The vote to which the House had come on Saturday last, had made more reformers than any other within his knowledge; Mr. Burke had said, that the spirit and
225
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he saw the vote of the other night in a very different point of view from that in which the lion, members had seen it who preceded him. So far from its being in direct contravention of public opinion it was a powerful expression of the public wishes on that subject. He begged, that he might not be misrepresented in what he had just said. He knew well in what manner the feeling of the country had been excited on the question; but if he were to be asked what was the wish of the country upon it, he would say, that it was, that the matter should be put entirely at rest, without any further persecution of her majesty, but with a strict care, at the same time, that her majesty should not triumph over any other party. In the vote which had been given on a former night, gentlemen had not looked so much at the justice or injustice of the particular question then before them, as to the point to which it was directed; and it was impossible to deny, that those who had voted for it had wished to use it as a means for turning out the present ministers and putting others into their places. Now, he
226
Mr. Baring
was surprised at hearing hon. gentlemen inform the House, that the reason why they voted against the motion of his noble friend on a late occasion was, not that they thought, that ministers had acted rightly, but, that they thought, that no other set of men were to be found worthy of public confidence. Now, he, who was an humble individual, and without any inclination or pretensions to become a minister, would beg leave to ask them, what justification they had found in that averment, either for the votes which they had given, or for the administration which they had upheld? It was impossible not to perceive the shock which the loyalists, and even the ultra-loyalists, in all parts of the country, had received from the late unparalleled proceedings of ministers against the Queen; and surely they ought to be considered reprehensible for the manner in which they had impaired the attachment of the people to their constitution and their laws. Besides, it was a calumny upon the country to say—Though I cannot support the present ministers, yet I will keep them in their places for this and for no other reason—that I know of none who could fill them better."—He concurred in what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Penryn, regarding the necessity of some reform in parliament. He, too, had once a strong feeling against reform, but, he was now convinced, that if the House did not, in the course of the session, express some opinion in sympathy with that of the people, as to the degrading character of the late persecution of her majesty, it would do more to condemn the manner in which the House of Commons, as at present constituted, was formed, than all the speeches which had been delivered by all the demagogues from the beginning of time. He concluded by reminding those members who opposed all motions for improving the present system of representation, that it was their
227
Sir R. Wilson
concurred with the hon. member for Yorkshire, in thinking, that the wish of the country was, that the question of the Queen should be set at rest for ever, and that there should be no triumph over another party; But in saying this, he could not help observing, that the hon. member had presumed resistance in another party; for if there were no resistance, there could be no triumph. Now, he believed, that there was no resistance in the quarter to which allusion had been made; and he called upon the noble lord opposite and his colleagues to declare, whether the non-restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy was or was not, he would not merely say ministerially, but personally, their own act. He was sure, that the noble lord, undeterred by any obloquy that might befal the advisers of the measure, would say, that it was ministers who had advised it, and would confess, that the act of reinstating her majesty's name in the Liturgy—an act fervently prayed for by millions—would have been, nay actually was performed, had it not been for their interference. He therefore wished to remind gentlemen, when they were opposing the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, that they were not respecting the feelings of a certain quarter, but the feelings of men who had shown themselves perfectly incapable to manage the interests of a great and powerful nation.
Mr. Butterworth
said, he had voted the other night for the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, and his reason for so doing was, that she had been prayed for as princess of Wales, and he considered, that her name, when she became Queen, had been omitted unconstitutionally and without trial. He had treated the question as an abstract one, without reference to the guilt or innocence of her majesty.
Sir Francis Blake
commented on the charges of disloyalty which had been brought against the people for their conduct during the late prosecution of the Queen; and said, that to degrade the king by insulting his Queen was now considered the best proof of loyalty. The present was styled the age of revolution; and he should not be surprised if ministers had adopted their recent proceed-
228
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
disclaimed the motives on which the hon. member for Yorkshire had said, that he and his friends had acted. He was clearly of opinion, that the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy was an illegal act, and under that conviction he had given his vote.
Ordered to lie on the table.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Sir George Anson
presented a petition from Litchfield, praying, that there might be no further proceedings against her majesty, and that her name might be restored to the Liturgy.
Mr. Vernon
said, that this was a petition signed by a number of respectable persons. As to the first point, whatever had been the conduct of his majesty's ministers on this subject was not now the question; they had already pledged themselves not to institute any further hostile proceedings, and so far the prayer of the petition was answered. As to the second, he could assert, without having any intention of overturning the present government, that from the first day that he heard of the order in council, by virtue of which the name was erased, he was adverse to it. But, that having been once done, the consideration of the subject was placed upon different grounds, and he agreed with parliament on the subject. For his own part, he could wish that the law had been more clearly defined, and would suggest, as the better mode of getting rid of the difficulties connected with the subject, that an address should be presented to the throne, praying, that measures might be taken to give permanent insertion in the prayers to the names of all the royal family.
Lord Nugent
presented a petition from Aylesbury, which had been agreed to unanimously, at one of the most respectable and numerous public meetings which ever took place there. The petition, besides praying for the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, and the restoration of her rights, complained of the existing distresses of the country', and prayed for parliamentary reform, retrenchment of expenditure, and an effective reduction
229
Mr. Denman
presented a petition from Sutton Ashfield, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. He thought, if those various petitions were seriously considered, instead of being merely left to the officer of the House, who was nearly exhausted by the labour of reading them, they would produce a considerable impression, even on the minds of those members who were most adverse to the cause of her majesty. With respect to the striking the Queen's name out of the Liturgy, he took precisely the same view that had been taken by his learned friend (Mr. Wetherell) on a former evening. He considered that measure as a most gross and irreparable injury to her majesty, because it was prejudging her cause, and inflicting punishment before any offence was substantiated. He also was of opinion, that it was most injurious to the character of the high tribunal before which her majesty was to be tried; because many of those who constituted her judges could not come unbiassed to the trial, they having previously, by sanctioning the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, expressed an opinion on her conduct. But, above all, he considered, that, in a constitutional point of view, it tended to injure the monarch of these realms; because, standing in the situation of husband to this illustrious and unfortunate female, it was impossible, looking to the persecution which she had undergone, but that imputations would be cast on him, however unjustifiable they might be. Ministers had, indeed, on every occasion, stated, that all the responsibility of those measures rested on them. Why did they so frequently make this statement? No man could doubt that they were the responsible parties. When he heard this ostentatious parade of responsibility, it appeared to him, that it arose merely from an indulgence in the unjustifiable hope, that, by constantly recurring to the topic, they would lead individuals to believe,
230
Mr. Denman
said, he had to present another petition from the Amicable Society of Nottingham; the prayer of which was similar to that of the petition that had just been laid on the table. The petitioners farther prayed the House, if ministers so far forgot their duty as to persist in the proceedings against the Queen, that they would withhold the supplies of the year, until her majesty was restored to that situation to which her birth, her marriage, and the wishes of the people of England entitled her.
Mr. Hume
also presented a similar petition from the Incorporation of weavers of Leith. He understood, this petition had been forwarded to the hon. member for Edinburgh, who had refused to present it. No doubt the hon. member could satisfactorily explain this circumstance. For himself, he could conceive nothing more culpable than the refusal of any honourable member to present to the House, a petition, not improper in itself, from his constituents.
231
Mr. W. Dundas
said, he had felt no wish to refuse the mere presentation of the petition alluded to. But, in the application made to him, two different points were stated:—first, he was asked to present the petition; and secondly, he was called on, to give it all the support in his power. His sentiments were not in unison with those contained in the petition; and therefore if he had presented it, the petitioners, might have turned round and said, "If we knew, that you would have opposed the prayer of the petition, we would have placed it in other hands." He had presented many petitions which contained matter not congenial with his own opinions; but it would be too much to expect that he should also support them.
Mr. Hume
begged to read the applications which had been made to the right hon. gentleman to present the petition, and his answer, and then to leave the House to judge how far the explanation was satisfactory. The application was, as the right hon. gentleman had observed, two-fold. The first part requested, that he would present the petition as early as possible; the second, that the corporation would consider itself honoured if he would favour the petition with his support. Such was the application. The answer was this, "I cannot present the petition you have sent me." Then came a full stop; after which, the letter proceeded, "Should any proposition be made for the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy, I shall certainly oppose it." And this was the whole of the letter. He left it, therefore, to the House to judge, whether the former was not a direct and unconditional refusal to present the petition.
Mr. W. Dundas
also expressed his willingness to leave it to the House to judge upon the subject; and repeated, that his object had been to give the petitioners an opportunity of choosing a warmer advocate.
Lord Milton
confessed, that when the right hon. member made his first speech, he thought he had not been dealt fairly by. In that speech, he merely stated, that he had informed the petitioners, that he could not support their petition, and that he had explained the reasons which induced him to give them the opportunity of choosing another member to present it. But then came the unfortunate letter; which was totally at variance with the
232
Sir. R. Fergusson
presented a similar petition from Kirkcaldy. Adverting to the sentiments of the people of Scotland, he observed, that if ministers placed any reliance on the opinions of the county meetings of Scotland in their favour, they were much deceived. Contrasting the character and numbers of the opposite petitions from Edinburgh, he observed, that the first, which was in favour of government and was framed in secret, lay for five or six weeks on the council table in that city, and was signed by only about 1,000 persons. Then came the open meeting of a different description, the petition from which was in three weeks signed by above 17,000 persons. The same thing took place in Glasgow, where a petition in favour of the Queen, was signed by 18,000 persons. He was persuaded, that if the feelings of the people of Scotland on the subject were fairly represented, it would appear that 99 out of 100 disapproved of the conduct of ministers with respect to her majesty. The petition which he held in his hand, prayed, that her majesty might be restored to all her rights. Like the other Scotch petitions, it said nothing about the Liturgy, for he thanked God, there were no such trammels on divine worship in Scotland as in this country! Every man there was allowed to pray to God in his own way; and in his opinion, the spontaneous prayer of an honest man, in whatever rank of life, was more valuable than any prayer which the noble lord and his colleagues could frame in their cabinet.
The Lord Advocate
could not allow the statement of the gallant general to go forth without contradiction. So far as county meetings had expressed themselves they were decidedly in favour of the con-
233
Mr. Kennedy
, with all his respect for the learned lord, could not sit still and hear him calumniate his country. He positively denied, that the county meetings in Scotland represented the whole property of the country. A very great part of the property in Scotland was not represented at all. The middle classes—the strength of every nation—were not represented in Scotland. They were now, however, roused to a determination to obtain their rights. No people could deserve better to enjoy them; and he trusted, that in the course of a few years, they would obtain a fair representation. In the county meetings alluded to by the noble lord, many held the right of voting—lawyers and others—without being possessed of any property at all. With respect to the two petitions from Edinburgh, they most forcibly illustrated the state of the public opinion in that city; and as to the statement, that individuals had repeatedly signed their names to one of those petitions, he had no faith whatever in it.
Lord Binning
maintained, that the county meetings in Scotland, constituted as they were, did represent the opinions of the country. He did not deny, that in Scotland as in England, there was a great impression in favour of her majesty, among certain classes of the people, but, when the gallant general talked of 99 out of 100 entertaining those sentiments, it was a very great exaggeration. His learned friend had stated the nature of the Edinburgh petition. The meeting was called in the theatre, and several ingenious individuals, well known over the whole country, addressed the audience from the stage. The petition then agreed to was
234
Mr. J. P. Grant
observed, that the meeting at Edinburgh, had assembled in the theatre because no other room would have been sufficient for their accommodation; and even as it was, above 3,000 persons were unable to obtain an entrance. As to the signatures to the petition, they were accompanied with the place of abode of the individual; so that if any such practice had been resorted to, as that alleged by the learned lord, it might easily be detected. The other address had been got up in secret, the promoters of it not daring to face a public meeting of the inhabitants. It lay on the table of the council-chamber for several weeks, and, after every possible effort, it received only l,600 signatures. The population of Edinburgh was about 110,000. The petition complaining of ministers, particularly with reference to their conduct towards her majesty, had 17,000 signatures. He would leave the House to judge, what were the real sentiments of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. In the most remote corners of Scotland, where political discussion had never before taken place, a strong feeling had manifested itself on this subject; and, as to county meetings, the learned lord had greatly overstated the fact. He (Mr. Grant) had attended the meeting of the county in which he resided. So far was it from comprehending the property of the county, that, of only thirty-three gentlemen who were present, but fifteen possessed a single acre of land in the county; and, on casting up their rentals, he found that they did not average a thousand pounds a-year a-piece.
Mr. Abercromby
expressed his astonishment at the signal indiscretion of the learned lord, in maintaining, that the county meetings in Scotland expressed; the sense of the people of property in Scotland. This was by no means the case. In one of the largest counties, there were only two or three hundred persons called freeholders, who had a right to vote; and many of them (like himself in two counties) had not a single acre of land. In a small book, which might be bought for 2
s
d
235
Sir G. Warrender
declared, that the great mass of the persons of landed property in Scotland, were decidedly friendly to ministers. He allowed, that among those classes of the people least informed on the subject, there was a strong feeling in favour of her majesty. Knowing, however, the good sense of his countrymen, be had no doubt, that they would soon come back to their senses; and he trusted the people of England would follow their example.
Mr. Brougham
observed, that some persons seemed to be under a great delusion on this subject, and to consider that all who in their addresses to his majesty had not expressed themselves hostile to the proceedings against her Majesty, were in favour of those proceedings, which was any thing but the fact. He had yet to see an address in which those proceeding were favourably spoken of. The hon. baronet had said, that the people of this country would return to their senses, and, that the people of Scotland were about to take the lead in that return. It was not to be endured, that the people should be told, that all ranks, from the highest to the lowest, were mad. Such was not the respectful and conciliatory manner in which the people of a great nation ought to be treated. If they really were out of their senses, that was not the most effectual way to bring them back to a sane mind.
Mr. Forbes
said, that the petition presented from Aberdeen had not been respectably signed, and that the names of a number of boys and persons of no consideration had been affixed to it.
Mr. Hume
knew, that such an assertion had been made, but, from the best inquiry he could make, he believed there was no foundation for that statement.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he would state it as a fact, that at every county meeting that had been held, even the party calling the meeting were loud in the declaration, that they did not mean to say one word in favour of ministers.
Sir R. Wilson
presented a similar petition from the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark. Having attended that meeting, lie could vouch for its respectability. The proceedings of that meeting had received the sanction of many who had never before
236
Mr. Calvert
supported the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability of the inhabitants who had signed it.
The several petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
PROVISION FOR THE QUEEN—COMMUNICATION
—Lord Castlereagh having moved the order of the day, for going into a committee of the whole House, on so much of the king's Speech, as regards a Provision for the Queen,
Mr. Brougham
rose, and said, that he had received her majesty's commands to present to the House the following message:—
237
On the motion, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. Western
said, that even if no communication had been made from the Queen, he should still have felt bound to resist the motion of the noble lord. He, for one, on this day, would not consent to take a single step towards granting any supply: nothing but a change of measures, and a full explanation on the part of ministers, could induce him to comply with the proposition, that the Speaker should leave the chair. In the first place, he would say, that he thought it was the duty of the House not to grant a farthing of the public money, in the present state of the country, until a complete and comprehensive inquiry had been instituted into the expenditure, with a view to extensive reductions, in some degree commensurate with the extensive and universal distresses of the times. He submitted, with confidence, that when all classes were suffering to an extent without precedent, the House ought to set on foot some measure of general and effectual economy. He was acting consistently with a regard for the constitution, and conformably to his duty as a member of the House, in endeavouring to guard the purse of the public. He would not now press this subject farther, but he was convinced, that it was the feeling of the country at large, that the parliament ought to direct its attention, in the first instance, to the adoption of some measures, that would lead to a reduction of the general public expenditure. He, for one, would not advance one step till some plan of that nature were proposed. He would now address himself to the question of the vote which the House was about to give; and he entreated the attention of honourable members to the situation in which they stood. One of his majesty's ministers had avowed his intention of moving that night for a grant to her majesty; but the House would recollect, that the noble lord, when he gave that notice, had most unjustly taken occasion to say, that
238
Lord Castlereagh
said, he should first address himself to the preliminary obser-
239
her
her
Mr. Wetherell
rose to order. He said, that when, on the other night, after an argument of a legal nature which he had
240
The Speaker
said, the learned member should state the point on which he rose to order.
Mr. Wetherell
said the point was this:—When the Attorney-General had on a former night attributed to him—
The Speaker
said, the learned gentleman would feel that it was not necessary to the statement of a point of order to recapitulate a former debate.
Mr. Wetherell
said, the noble lord had attributed to him the expression, that the subjects of the King owed allegiance to the Queen also. He appealed to the recollection of the House, whether, when that expression had been attributed to-him on a former occasion, he had not risen to deny it.
The Speaker
said, that it was disorderly to refer to a former debate, he did not conceive, that the noble lord had referred to any particular member. But, if allusion was made to a former debate, which too frequently happened, and if misrepresentations arose, it was more regular and convenient to make it a matter of explanation than of order.
Mr. Wetherell
said, he grounded his appeal to the House on the noble lord's-having attributed to him expressions in a former debate which he had never uttered ["no, no!"].
Mr. Hume
to order, said, they had a right to know whether the noble lord meant what he said, or knew what he did mean ["Order! Chair!"].
The Speaker
said, he was sure the House would think he was wanting in his duty if he did not interpose. Allowance was, of course, to be made for any slip in debate; but nothing could be more disorderly than to put it hypothetically, whether an honourable member meant what he said.
Mr. Hume
said, he conceived the noble lord to have been disorderly, in imputing to her majesty, that she had been travelling into unconstitutional errors, and that she claimed the allegiance of the people as her subjects.
The Speaker
said, the hon. member would, he thought, perceive that this was rather a matter for correction than a question of order.
Lord Castlereagh
proceeded. The hon. and learned gentleman would have found if he had been allowed to proceed, that he was not out of order. With respect to
241
242
243
Mr. Tierney
rose to order. The assertion that the gentlemen on his side of the House agitated and inflamed the country, merely for the sake of getting into place, could not, by possibility, be orderly.
The Speaker
said, he was waiting for the conclusion of the noble lord's sentence, to inform him, that it was not in order to speak of any hon. member's affecting to deplore the distresses of the country.
Lord Castlereagh
assured the hon. member for Essex, that he had not used the word to give him pain; than which nothing could be further from his intention, nor less consistent with the respect he entertained for him. He was most reluctantly impelled to pursue the course of argument in which he had indulged; for he never could allow the House and the country to be misled as to the nature of the proceedings against the Queen, in the manner that had been attempted by the gentlemen opposite. The withdrawal of the bill, he was ready to admit, was an end to the question of guilt and innocence, in-as-far as it was determined to originate no new proceedings. But his noble friend, in another place (the earl of Liverpool), in taking that step, was not to be considered
244
Mr. Tierney
said, that after the observations which had been made in the course of his speech, by the noble lord who had just sat down, he felt it incumbent to offer a few words. Indeed, he would acknowledge, that on no former occasion had he ever felt so desirous to address the House. He had taken the liberty of calling the noble lord to order when he said, that all the objection which had originated on the opposition side of the House was intended or calculated to disturb the quiet of the country; and he should the rather address himself to the noble lord now, because the noble lord seemed on these occasions to have some personal quarrel with him and to attack him, as a person at all times willing to disturb and embarrass the operations of ministers, in his eagerness to obtain place himself, and to expel the noble lord and his colleagues from it. Now, he would not stoop to the meanness and little deception of saying, that he was not ambitious. He had always held those persons cheap who affected to despise proper and honourable rewards, which the possession of office conferred on him whose talents were dedicated to the performance of its duties; and not less so, those who thought, that the acceptance of office necessarily implied a violation of political integrity and connexions. For himself, he knew of no bond by which power could be gained, no connexion by which success could be ensured, but the
245
246
247
248
249
250
l
251
252
Lord Castlereugh
. —I threw out no aspersions against the Queen.
Mr. Tierney
. —What! did the noble lord mean to say, that the omission of her name was no aspersion on her character? Was the manner in which he had treated the proceedings and their result no aspersion? Or did the noble lord think, to advert to another part of his speech, that the course he was adopting was of a nature to tranquillize the public mind? The noble lord seemed to think that 50,000
l
253
l
l
254
Mr. Bathurst
said, that the right hon. gentleman had excluded from his consideration the most material part of the speech from the throne which affected the Queen, and which stated the provision formerly made for her, to have expired—and of course made it necessary, that another
255
256
257
Lord Folkestone
said, he could not refrain from taking that opportunity of addressing a few words to the House. He entreated the House, if it had any regard for its own character, and the estimation in which it must stand in the opinion of the people, to pause even at the last hour before they proceeded in this business. No man had deplored and deprecated these proceedings more than himself—from their very commencement—from the time that the message, accompanied by the green bag, first came down to the House. He foresaw the mischievous consequences which would inevitably result from them, and every day's experience had confirmed the opinion which he first entertained—that the longer they were continued the greater calamities were likely to ensue. He would go no further back than to the speech of the noble lord opposite, and he would then ask the House whether, from the tone and temper of that speech, it were possible that the discussion of this subject could go on without infinite calamity to the country? If, at this fourth day of the session, the noble lord could exhibit so much intemperate and angry feeling, what had the House to expect, after a few more discussions, but an exhibition of feelings still more inflamed and exasperated? If the noble lord, with all that command of temper which he usually possessed, could still charge his right honourable friend with the design of disturbing the tranquillity of the country, what, lie would repeat, had the House to expect from protracted discussion? It was an extraordinary spectacle to see a minister of the Crown coming down to the House to move for an allowance to the Queen, and taking that opportunity of throwing out sarcasms against her majesty, charging her with an attempt to establish a separate authority in the state, and to exact allegiance from the people; accusing her, in fact, of an offence very little short of high treason. Was this a fit exhibition on the part of a minister of the Crown? The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had talked of the admission of her majesty's name to the Liturgy as a matter of favour to her majesty. Now, he knew of no favour asked for her majesty on his side of the House; they asked only for those rights to which she was entitled, and those dignities which became her station. But if favour were
258
l
259
260
l
l
261
Mr. J. Browne
said, the noble lord who spoke last and the right hon. gentleman had charged his noble friend with expressing an opinion as to the guilt of her majesty. Now, he had certainly not understood his noble friend to express any opinion on the subject. His noble friend had endeavoured to keep the question of guilt or innocence as much as possible out of the view of the House, lint even if his noble friend had expressed such an opinion, he saw no reason why the noble lord opposite should be offended, or why he (Mr. Browne) should not be equally offended, when the noble lord, talked of the innocence of one, against whom u bill of divorce and degradation had been read a second time, after an elaborate defence, which some thought a most triumphant, and others a most weak and inconclusive defence? And had he not a right to feel equally indignant at hearing the noble lord talk of the innocence of one who, as far as the inquiry went, had been declared guilty of nearly the highest offence known to the laws of the land? Such was the person to whom the House was now called upon to pay the same marks of respect, in point of allowance, as had been paid to our late virtuous queen Charlotte. He confessed, that a host of feelings were roused in Ins breast, when this contrast was unavoidably brought to his mind between one of the best and most virtuous queens consort that ever lived, and one who, to say no more, was suspected of not being quite so good. The noble lord opposite had dwelt much upon what was due to economy, and certainly this was the time for practising it. He should therefore be glad to vote for a smaller sum; for, in his opinion, as the Queen was not to have a palace, and the other appurtenances belonging to a Queen Consort, he thought the provision was greater than was necessary for her expences; and there was reason to apprehend, that the overflowings of their bounty might be diverted into very different channels from those to which it was intended to be applied.
Mr. W. Lamb
wished the question had not been brought forward. It would be exceedingly difficult, he thought, for his majesty's ministers to justify the course
262
263
Mr. Brougham
said, the subject had been so amply and so ably discussed, and the speech of the noble lord had been so fully answered by his right hon. friend, that he would not have said a single word, but have left the House to pursue its own course, had it not been for one or two observations which had fallen from his hon. friend who had last spoken. He could not sit silent when those observations were made. But he must urge, on the part of her majesty, that she had been not only virtually acquitted, but acquitted in every sense of the word, and that a most perverse judgment on her cause had appeared in more parts of the House than one, and just now had been pronounced from a quarter where he least suspected it. He would remind his hon. friend of the purport of his remarks, and he would ask him, whether he had dealt fairly by the Queen and allowed her common justice? At the commencement and during the whole course of the proceedings against her majesty, every thing was wrong that she did, and every thing was right that was done against her. At the commencement of the trial—at the different stages, whether she claimed the rights of justice, or whether, at its conclusion she required those privileges, which its commencement had furnished grounds for denying—all met with the disapprobation of his hon. friend. When, after her acquittal, mat-
264
265
266
Mr. Bright
said, that in his opinion, it was the duty of the House to proceed into the committee, and to grant that sum which should be thought proper, leaving to the Queen to receive it or not. They would thus say to the Queen, "We have made liberal provision for your majesty; we have ordered it to be paid over into the exchequer; and whether you receive it or not, there it remains at your disposal." The hon. gentleman Said, that he would give no opinion upon the proceedings against the Queen; but he thought it the duty of every gentleman who had a sug-
267
Mr. Martin
, of Gal way, reprobated the intemperate conduct of the hon. member for Essex, and others who had spoken in the debate. He wondered how they could keep the natural "Ruby in their cheek, while his was blanched with fear." Do gentlemen mean what they express, when they say, they will not vote the supply until her majesty's name shall be inserted in the Liturgy? These puny politicians propose in desperation, what an opposition, resting on high character and splendid talents, never, when in their highest and most "palmy state," ventured to contemplate. More—what they had the good sense, even in the height of the American war to disclaim. What! disband the army, the navy, break faith with all the public creditors, because seven or eight ministers do not advise his majesty to insert the name of the Queen in the Liturgy! It was monstrous, to suspend all the functions of the state to gratify the Queen in an idle punctilio.—It is said, her majesty is dishonoured, and subscribes to her own infamy, if she shall relinquish this demand of being prayed for. Let us examine this proposition a little in detail. The Queen's name might be inserted in the prayers of the church and yet be guilty, and excluded and yet be innocent. The Queen having no power to compel the king and council to insert her name in the Liturgy, its not being there can never supply an argument to her enemies, out of which to extract a charge of guilt. Her majesty, and her majesty's adherents, have done all in their power to effect that object, but have not been able to induce the king in council to assent to their demand. Suppose both parties committed on this point of the Liturgy—which ouaht to give way? He had proved, he thought, that in this instance her majesty, the Queen, could do so without even an implied supposition of guilt.—But ought the Crown to be advised by the most pusillanimous counsellors, to vary the determination advisedly come to on the subject? To induce this retraction of purpose and of conduct on the part of the Crown, ministers were denounced as guilty conspirators, attainting the honour of the Queen. They were denounced as such, and their impeachment clamorously demanded by the orators on the other side, and, for these courtesies, and in token
268
The question of adjournment was then put and negatived. The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Lord Castlereagh
stated to the committee, that after the length of the previous discussion, he should feel it his duty to state what he had to propose, hi as short a compass as possible. He considered the question now before the committee, as one perfectly independent of the question of the guilt or innocence of the Queen, and confined solely to the consideration of the quantum of provision suited to her rank and station in the country. He apprehended, that in this view, parliament would feel disposed to treat it as a measure, not of economy, but of liberality, befitting her majesty's rank and family. At the same time, he also apprehended, that the measure must be looked at in reference to her majesty's situation as a Queen Consort—separated for a long time from her husband—a separation so justly admitted by the hon. and learned gentleman, one of her majesty's advisers, to have been recognised by the late sovereign. Her case was therefore different from that of a queen con-
269
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Stuart Wortley
observed, that in what he should say respecting the conduct of her majesty, he confined himself solely to what had taken place since her majesty's arrival in this country. It was with diffidence he disagreed with the noble lord in the amount of the sum proposed for her majesty's use; but there were some circumstances in the conduct of her majesty which made him think, that so large a sum ought not to be granted. He did not view this as a question of mere economy, nor did he speak
270
Lord John Russell
expressed his surprise, that any person of common feelings of generosity could have brought himself to reproach her majesty, irritated as she was by so many provocations, for any language she might have been compelled to use in the progress of the severe and bitter trial to which she had been exposed. There was, however, a precedent for the conduct pursued by the hon. member for Yorkshire, and also for the language used by a worthy alderman on a recent occasion; and that precedent he found in the time of Henry 8th. In that reign, the sycophants of the court were anxious to add whatever weight belonged to them to the charges already brought against queen Catharine, and, among others she was accused, by cardinal Wolsey, of having conciliated the affections of the people; one accusation, to that effect, was actually drawn up against her
271
Alderman C Smith
deprecated the language of the answers which the Queen had returned to the addresses.
Mr. Hume
rose to reply to the observation of the hon. member for Yorkshire, amidst cries of question! and considerable coughing. Silence being partially restored, the hon. member said, that some quotations which had been used on a recent occasion, as from the letter and answers of the Queen, were grossly inaccurate. The hon. alderman and others who had alluded to those extracts, had taken them most unfairly [Hear, hear, and continued coughing]. The hon. member said, that notwithstanding this indisposition to hear the truth, he would go on, and if hon. gentlemen were impatient, he should feel it his duty to read the whole of the answers, in order to show, that the quotations were incorrect. He admitted, that the language in some of her majesty's answers was strong, but it was possible to put an improper construction even upon the holy scriptures,
272
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he should be very sorry to misquote, but the impression on his mind was, that the answers of her majesty to many of the addresses were very nearly if not quite seditious. He should, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, move, when the House resumed, an address to the king, praying, that a copy of her majesty's letter might be laid before them. The House would then be able to form a judgment, whether the charge made was without foundation or not.
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, said, he was concerned to hear the Queen's answers to her numerous addressers vindicated. Some of those answers were written, it was said, under provocation, and when much irritation existed in her majesty's mind. He granted it was to a certain degree, and up to a certain time, an excuse; but it was not after the abandonment of the bill in the Lords. What apology could be offered for the studious canvass made by the Queen for the suffrage of the army and navy, and for the abortive attempts made to cause them to mutiny? All this he charged to the traitorous advisers of her majesty. These were her supposed friends, and yet these were to be consigned to ignominious death if they failed to subvert the throne and monarchy. Was it the worthy alderman that advised the Queen to demand the pardon of an unfortunate woman convicted of selling forged notes? If these mischievous advisers wished to save the
273
Lord Milton
rose, to entreat, that his hon. friend would forbear from carrying into effect the notice which he had given. The difference which had taken place between that hon. member and the member for Montrose was too slight to render such a measure necessary; particularly when it must be the inclination, as it certainly was the duty, of the House, to heal rather than to inflame.
Mr. S. Wortley
concurred with his noble friend as to the propriety of adopting healing measures only, and with that view was willing to forego his intention.
Lord Stanley
rose, merely to ask a question of the noble lord opposite. If he had correctly understood the intention of the noble lord, it was, that her majesty should be placed, putting aside every thing that had taken place, in the same situation in which the demise of the Crown would have placed her. In the event, however, of the demise of the Crown, the Queen, he apprehended, would have been entitled to a palace, or would have had some mansion assigned to her; such, at least, had been the case with the late Queen. In the proposition of the noble lord, however, there had been no grant of a palace or mansion, nor any mention of procuring one.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that by the treaty of marriage between her majesty and the present king, then prince of Wales, her majesty became entitled, upon the demise of the Crown, to 50,000
l
Mr. Holme Sumner
thought it impossible to contemplate the provision intended for her majesty previous to her marriage, as that by which the House should be regulated after what had lately passed
274
275
l
l
Dr. Lushington
thought it matter of regret, that the bill of Pains and Penalties had not passed from the House of Lords to an assembly where it might have been discussed with all that temper, moderation, humanity, and justice, which had so conspicuously adorned the speech of the hon. member for Surrey. That hon. member was the first man in that House who had presumed to utter—who had dared to declare—that the Queen had been proved and found guilty of adultery. The hon. member for Surrey had not followed the wise example of the noble lord opposite, who had prudently abstained from comment on the subject; but, not having been called upon to judge the cause—having heard, in all probability, the evidence but imperfectly—having, perhaps, merely read the evidence without seeing the witnesses—the honourable member came forward, uncalled, unasked, to declare her majesty, in his firm, conviction, guilty. Really when he looked at the whole train of proceeding, and thought of the opinion which the hon. member had pronounced, he did think, that the Queen might have met a fairer trial from
276
l
l
277
Mr. Alderman Wood
trusted, that there was not a single member who would rashly give credit to the charges which the hon. member for Surrey had so boldly urged against her majesty, and all of which were destitute of foundation. He called upon that hon. member to come forward, and to mention any one bill of her majesty's that was unpaid. The hon. member had stated, that none of her majesty's bills were paid, and had insinuated, that the money which she had received to pay them had been expended in promoting the most wicked purposes. Now, if the House were to call for an account of every farthing expended by her majesty, he would undertake to say, that they would find it expended in such a manner as would give universal satisfaction. The bills of all her tradesmen were paid monthly. It was true, that such had not been the case immediately after her arrival. The expenses of her journey had made her in want of money; and her first quarter's allowance was in great part con-
278
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that he had spoken from general rumour, and that as the hon. alderman was not an accredited agent of her majesty, he must still continue under his former impression.
Mr. Brougham
said, that the language used by the hon. member for Surrey was the occasion of his addressing the House again that evening. The hon. member had objected to the worthy alderman's explanation, because he was not an accredited agent of her majesty. This was the usual trick with gentlemen on the other side of the House. They talked of her majesty as if she were an independent sovereign, not as' if she were only like themselves—a mere subject. They looked upon her legal advisers as responsible for her conduct. Now, he would inform them, as he had had occasion to inform them before, that her majesty was responsible for her own conduct. She had, it was true, her legal advisers; and he and his hon. colleagues, as to matters of law, were, if he might use a figure of speech, her responsible advisers. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more correct than the manner in which the worthy alderman had just come forward. As' for himself, though he had been in situations where he was likely to hear of such rumours as had been adopted as facts by the hon. member for Surrey, he must say, that he had never heard of them from any thing like creditable authority, until the present evening. The worthy alderman asserted, that there was no truth in them, and he, for one, believed his assertion. As to the law expenses, of which it might be expected that he should know something, he would merely say, that they were submitted to as strict an audit as any other species of public accounts. The sums to defray
279
l
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that if the learned gentleman could declare, after inquiry to-morrow, that every bill had been paid off, he would readily give up his opinion, and be most happy to hear the statement. As for the worthy alderman's assurance, he could not think it more certain than the rumour which had reached him.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that he did not want any credit from the hon. gentleman, but he was sure the House would believe him, when he told them, that the book was regularly shewn to him by her majesty's steward, and that every article was paid for monthly.
Lord Nugent
said, that ever since he had the honour of a seat in the House, it had been considered as part of its courtesy, that when any gentleman stated a circumstance as a fact within his own personal knowledge, he should be free from any positive contradiction, especially on such loose grounds as those assumed by the hon. member for Surrey. He thought, that an apology was due to the worthy alderman.
Mr. H. Stumner
stated, that if the worthy alderman had made a declaration regarding what had fallen within his own knowledge, he should have given implicit credence to him. But it appeared, that the steward had merely shown the books to him, and the books only contained an account of what was paid. The worthy alderman therefore, could not know how much remained unpaid.
Mr. S. Wortley
expressed his regret, that the hon. member for Surrey had brought forward such charges as he had done, on no better authority than mere rumour. He had obtained all that he wished in a manifestation of the feelings of the House, and, if called upon to
280
Mr. Western
wished to know, why this provision should not be made out of the Civil List, instead of being made an additional burden on the people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the treasury had no more power of converting the Civil List from the purposes to which it was appropriated, than they had of converting to other uses any parliamentary grant.
Mr. Lennard
regretted, that the gentlemen who professed themselves so anxious to save the public money, had not reminded the House, that this was the first time, that a separate allowance had been asked for a Queen Consort. Till the present time, the queen had been always considered part of the royal household, and all the expenses incident to the situation of a queen consort had been paid out of the Civil List. He did not wish to curtail the Crown of any thing-essential to its honour or its splendor, but he begged leave to remark, that the splendor of the Crown and the honour of the Crown were not always synonymous terms. The Crown was in possession of the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall, of the 4½ per cent duties, of the droits of Admiralty; and it would have been more consistent with those large professions of economy so often heard from ministers, if they had applied some of these sources of revenue to the support of the Queen; or at least, if they had given up the droits to the use of the public.
The original motion was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 1, 1821.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Sir G. Robinson
, before he presented a petition from Northampton, thought it requisite to make a few observations upon the manner in which it had been got up. The parties sent a requisition to the mayor, desiring him to call a public meeting of its inhabitants, to take into consideration the late proceedings against her majesty. The mayor refused to do so. The requisitionists in consequence issued a hand-bill calling such a meeting, and at that meeting the petition which he had to present, and which was signed by 1,600 persons, was adopted. He had presented to his majesty, at the levee, an address to a simi-
281
Mr. Lambton
presented a petition to the same effect from the town of Yarm. The gentleman who had put the petition into his hands had informed him, that with the exception of the postmaster and one or two individuals who lived upon the taxes, all the inhabitants of the town had concurred in the object of the petition; and he was informed, that if time had been allowed, every inhabitant of the town would have signed it, with the exceptions which he had before made.
Mr. Beaumont
, in presenting a similar petition from the county of Northumberland, trusted, that he might be allowed to say a few words regarding it, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances under which the meeting at which it was adopted had been convened. A requisition had been presented to the High Sheriff, signed by gentlemen of very large landed property in the county, desiring him to call a public meeting. To that requisition he had given a positive refusal, without assigning any reason for so doing. The requisitionists, in consequence, called a meeting on their own authority—and at that meeting agreed to this petition. The petitioners regarded the appointment of the Milan commission, and all the proceedings adopted under it, as deeply affecting the character of the British government; and with this opinion he entirely concurred. They likewise prayed, that a suitable provision should be made for her majesty, and that her name should be reinserted in the Liturgy, conceiving her entitled to all the dignities belonging to one filling her exalted station, and not convicted of any offence by which she had forfeited them.
Sir M. W. Ridley
assured the House of the respectability of the individuals by whom this petition was subscribed. Many of them were persons of the greatest weight both from property and character. With regard to their prayer, its object had his hearty approbation. It was, indeed,
282
Mr. Bennet
was desirous of offering a few remarks on the petition now before the House, chiefly in relation to the conduct of the high sheriff of Northumberland in refusing to call a county meeting. He was astonished, that any person filling such an office should have ventured upon a weak or frivolous or no pretext at all, to decline assembling the county, after a requisition so signed. The property of the requisitionists, did not amount to less than 200,000
l
283
Mr. Robert Price
presented a similar petition from the borough of Leominster, in the county of Hereford. The sentiments expressed in the petition were, he believed, generally entertained in the county which he had the honour to represent. The late vote of the House, the most extraordinary to which he could have imagined it possible for a House of Commons to come, was, he believed, in direct opposition to the sentiments of nine-tenths of the whole community.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
CIRCULAR DESPATCH TO HIS MAJESTY'S
Sir Robert Wilson
, understanding, that there was no objection to his motion, moved for a copy of the circular despatch to his majesty's missions at foreign courts, dated from the Foreign Office, 19th January, 1821. The motion was agreed to, and, on the following day, was presented to the House by lord Castlereagh. The following is a copy of the said despatch:
Circular Despatch to His Majesty's Missions at Foreign Courts
Foreign Office Jan. 19, 1821.
SIR,—I should not have felt it necessary to have made any communication to you, in the present state of the discussions begun at Troppau and transferred to Laybach, had it not been for a circular communication which has been addressed to the courts of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, to their several missions,
284
It has become, therefore, necessary to inform you, that the king has felt himself obliged to decline becoming a party to the measures in question.
These measures embrace two distinct objects:—1st. The establishment of certain general principles for the regulation of the future political conduct of the allies in the cases therein described;—Sndly. The proposed mode of dealing, under these principles, with the existing affairs of Naples.
The system of measures proposed under the former head, if to be reciprocally acted upon, would be in direct repugnance to the fundamental laws of this country. But even if this decisive objection did not exist, the British government would nevertheless regard tile principles on which these measures rest, to be such as could not be safely admitted as a system of international law. They are of opinion, that their adoption would inevitably sanction, and, in the hands of less beneficent monarchs, might hereafter lead to a much more frequent and extensive interference in the internal transactions of states, than, they are persuaded, is intended by the august parties from whom they proceed, or can be reconcileable either with the general interest, or with the efficient authority and dignity of independent sovereigns. They do not regard the alliance as entitled, under existing treaties, to assume, in their character as allies, any such general powers, nor do they conceive, that such extraordinary powers could be assumed, in virtue of any fresh diplomatic transaction among the allied courts, without their either attributing to themselves a supremacy incompatible with the rights of other states, or, if to be acquired through the special accession of such states, without introducing a federative system in Europe, not only unwieldy and ineffectual to its object, but leading to many most serious inconveniences.
With respect to the particular case of Naples, the British government, at the very earliest moment, did not hesitate to express their strong disapprobation of the mode and circumstances under which that revolution was understood to have been effected; but they, at the same time, expressly declared to the several allied courts, that they should not consider themselves as either called upon, or justified, to advise an interference on the part of this country; they fully admitted, however, that other European states, and especially Austria and the Italian powers, might feel themselves differently circumstanced; and they professed, that it was not their purpose to prejudge the question as it might affect them, or to interfere with the course which such states
285
Upon these principles the conduct of his majesty's government with regard to the Neapolitan question has been, from the first moment, uniformly regulated, and copies of the successive instructions sent to the British authorities at Naples for their guidance, have been from time to time transmitted for the information of the allied governments.
With regard to the expectation which is expressed in the circular above alluded to, of the assent of the courts of London and Paris to the more general measures proposed for their adoption, founded, as it is alleged, upon existing treaties: in justification of its own consistency and good faith, the British government, in withholding such assent, must protest against any such interpretation being put upon the treaties in question, as is therein assumed.
They have never understood these treaties to impose any such obligations; and they have, on various occasions, both in parliament and in their intercourse with the allied governments, distinctly maintained the negative of such a proposition. That they have acted with all possible explicitness upon this subject, would at once appear from reference to the deliberations at Paris, in 1815, previous to the conclusion of the treaty of alliance, at Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818, and subsequently, in certain discussions which took place in the course of the last year.
After having removed the misconception to which the passage of the circular in question, if passed over in silence, might give countenance; and having stated, in general terms, without however entering into the argument, the dissent of his majesty's government from the general principle upon which the circular in question is founded, it should be clearly understood, that no government can be more prepared than the British government is, to uphold the right of any state or states to interfere where their own immediate security or essential interests are seriously endangered by the internal transactions of another state. But, as they regard the assumption of such right as only to be justified by the strongest necessity, and to be limited and regulated thereby, they cannot admit, that this right can receive a general and indiscriminate application to all revolutionary movements without reference to their immediate bearing upon some particular state or states, or be made prospectively the basis of an alliance. They regard its exercise as an exception to general principles, of the greatest value and importance, and as one that only properly grows out of the circumstances of the special case: but they at the same time consider, that exceptions of this
286
As it appears, that certain of the ministers of the three courts have already communicated this circular despatch to the courts to which they are accredited, I leave it to your discretion to make a corresponding communication on the part of your government, regulating your language in conformity to the principles laid down in the present despatch. You will take care, however, in making such communication, to do justice, in the name of your government, to the purity of intention, which has no doubt actuated these august courts in the adoption of the course of measures which they are pursuing. The difference of sentiment which prevails between them and the court of London on this matter, you may declare, can make no alteration what ever in the cordiality and harmony of the alliance on any other subject, or abate their common zeal in giving the most complete effect to all their existing engagements, I am, &c. (Signed) CASTLEREAGH.
BANK NOTES.]
Mr. Grenfell
begged leave to ask the chancellor of the Exchequer, when the country might expect the issue of the Bank Notes on the new plan to prevent imitation? The convictions which had taken place within the last six months for the crime of forgery, and the still increasing practice of the falsification of bank notes, made it quite necessary, that the public should be informed when they were to expect relief from so enormous an evil. He wished, therefore, to ascertain what was the precise time fixed, after so many delays, for satisfying, upon this point, the expectation of the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was aware of the great importance of adopting, as speedily as possible, some plan for diminishing the facility with which bank notes were at present forged. The House would, at the same time see, that it was equally important to avoid any premature or inefficient measure, the introduction of which could only serve to aggravate the existing evils. Although the plan was certainly not brought to a completion, he had the satisfaction to state, that considerable progress had been made—a progress, however, which did not enable him to answer the hon. gentleman's question as to the exact period when the new notes would be ready for circulation.
Mr. Grenfell
said, he certainly did un-
287
Mr. Davies Gilbert
declared, that every facility and encouragement had been afforded to the most able artists; but it ought not to be forgotten, that what one artist could execute another might at least imitate. It was nevertheless hoped, that with the aid of powerful machinery and a succession of varied improvements, a great degree of success might be attained. He had never been so sanguine as to calculate on complete success; but one plan which promised to be very efficacious was now under consideration, although it had not, perhaps, reached the last stage of improvement. He concurred in thinking, that the evil of some further delay must be less than that of taking any step prematurely.
Mr. Bennet
admitted the impossibility of obtaining from one artist, that which another could not imitate. He was willing to allow, that a note might be made more difficult to imitate than the present one, which indeed afforded peculiar facilities to the forger. But he would caution the House against entertaining the erroneous idea, that any note could be made, which it was impossible to imitate. He implored the House to remember, that as long as the present notes remained in circulation, the bank held the power of life and death in their hands.
Mr. D. Gilbert
agreed, that it was not possible to make a bank note which should be absolutely inimitable, but trusted, that from the ingenuity of the plan now adopting, from the powerful machinery which it would require, and the other resources not within the means of ordinary forgers, it would be as difficult to imitate the notes thus manufactured, as it would be to imitate the coin of the realm, when executed in the most able style.
Mr. Curwen
said, he had lately seen the model of a note intended for the use of a country bank, which he did not believe could be forged by any degree of art, and was of opinion, that the bank deserved much blame for not having encouraged the framer of it.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
288
OF AN ADDRESS PUBLISHED IN THE LONDON GAZETTE.]
Sir John Newport
observed, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given, he had now to bring under the consideration of the House what appeared to him a manifest and flagrant breach of those privileges which had been established, not for the benefit and protection of the House alone, but for those whom they represented. Instead of complaining at once, as he should have been justified in doing in such a case, he had given notice of His intention, in order to enable the parties to offer the best explanation in their power. The attack came from a quarter where it could hardly have been anticipated—it was made by persons in a respectable station of life, and, what was more singular, had received the marked approbation of his majesty's ministers. He was induced to call the attention of the House to it, because its tendency was, to embarrass and impair that freedom of speech by which they were entitled to discuss every public question without comment or censure, unless within those walls, and which had always been deemed one of their most valuable privileges. The members of that House had a right to deliver their sentiments without any reference to the approbation or censure of other persons. He could not so well express this principle as in the emphatic words of a declaration framed in that House by very eminent men, on the 3rd of May, 1810. [Here the right hon. baronet read the declaration alluded to.] The libel in question purported to to have been laid before the Crown, and was promulgated in the London Gazette on the 2nd of January last. It was headed by these words:—"The following address was presented to his majesty, who was pleased to receive it very graciously." Now, when the House should hear of what the address consisted, it would be of opinion, he conceived, that it was impossible the address could have been so communicated and received. He was sure, that the sovereign had been too carefully instructed in the principles of the constitution, to approve of any attack upon those who had made such remarks in the discussion of a public question as were suggested to them by the exercise of their parliamentary duty. If an impropriety was committed by any hon. member, it was for the House itself, through the Chair, to animadvert upon
289
290
Lord Castlereagh
said, that what the right hon. baronet had stated to the House went to the form and not to the substance of the case. He did not object to the paper generally, but to certain passages that were contained in it; because there were many parts of that address against which no complaint could possibly be made. His motion, therefore, went rather to the condemnation of particular passages, than to the disapproval of the publication entirely. He hoped, that the right
291
292
à fortiori
293
294
295
contre-projet
Mr. Scarlett
said, he would not have troubled the House with any observations on this occasion, if it had not been for what had fallen from the noble lord. He had very ingenuously put forward as the offender in this case, the unhappy Moderator who signed the address. That individual might be a very respectable person; and if it had been with him, that the selection of the address for publication had rested, the subject would, perhaps, have been unworthy of being brought before the House; but what gave a sting to this address was, that it found its way into the Gazette, a publication, under the immediate sanction of administration, and was stated to have been most graciously received by the Crown, One of the most important parts of the constitution of the House of Commons was, that the influence of his majesty's name, or the knowledge of his opinion, should have no effect in guiding their decisions; and for any man to state to his majesty any part of the debates of that House, and much more to characterize them, was highly unconstitutional. If there could be a greater breach of privilege than this, it was, that a minister of the Crown publicly stated
296
297
Mr. Bathurst
said, that the publication of the address arose entirely from inadvertence, and as soon as possible an apology was made for inserting it in the Gazette. The right hon. baronet should, injustice, have quoted the latter part of his (Mr. B's) speech on the first night of the session. He then stated, that the address appeared merely through inadvertence, and without the sanction of his majesty's ministers On the ground of the circumstance having been occasioned by inadvertence, and on that ground alone, he conceived the House ought to pass it over.
Sir J. Newport
assured the right hon. gentleman, that the noise which prevailed on the night he alluded to, was so great as to prevent him from hearing the whole of his explanation. Perhaps an entry to the following effect would meet the wishes of his learned friend:—After stating the paper to contain a breach of privilege, it might be added, "And it having been stated to the House, on the part of the secretary of state for the home department, that the paper was considered by him to be reprehensible, and that it got into the Gazette by mistake, it does not appear,
298
Lord Castlereagh
suggested, that the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow, in order to give the right hon. baronet an opportunity to adopt a proper form of words.
Mr. Gordon
observed, that it ought to be recollected, that the insertion of the address in the Gazette was not the only mischief. It had thence been copied in to the country papers, so that the people at large were induced to believe, that the sentiments which it contained, had been graciously received by his majesty. He was the last man to think of visiting, with severe punishment, any carsasms such as those in question; but, when the gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to exercise, to their extent, all the privileges of the Crown, it was necessary to provide an adequate counteraction by the firm maintenance of the privileges of that House.
The debate was then adjourned to to-morrow.
REVENUE ACCOUNTS.]
Mr. Maberly
rose, in consequence of the notice he had given, to move for certain papers relative to the Revenue. The subject which he was about to bring under the consideration of the House, was one of primary importance;—it was a subject closely interwoven with the prosperity of the country; and by a due attention to which, they could alone hope to alleviate the distresses of the people. The papers he meant to move for were seven. He should call for the production, not only of the amount of revenues for the current but the past year, and also for an account of the management of the public expenditure and a variety of other papers connected with the financial state of the country. To the amount of the expenses of collecting the revenue he should particularly call the attention of the House. The expenditure was enormous beyond all calculation. In the year 1792, the expenditure was 7,800,000
l
l
299
l
bonâ fide
l
l
l
300
l
l
l
l
301
l
s
d
l
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he saw no objection to the production of the accounts moved for by the hon. gentleman or to the inquiries which he seemed disposed to connect with these documents. As there would be other opportunities of considering this subject, it was unnecessary for him now to anticipate discussion, by entering into any explanation in detail; he should therefore reserve his observations until the accounts were regularly before the House. He might however, take the present opportunity of announcing, that the whole ex-
302
Sir John Newport
said, he was in hopes, that the right hon. gentleman would have noticed some prospect of improving the net produce of the revenue, by a considerable diminution in the enormous expense of collecting it, upon which, most properly, great stress had been laid. He lamented the price of collection in Ireland, in particular, where the enormous increase of taxation, instead of being attended by a comparative reduction in the rate of
303
Mr. Grenfell
considered the House and the country much indebted to his hon. friend, for moving for the production of these papers at so early a period of the session. He was happy to hear the right lion, gentleman say, that he should not require any more loans. The right hon. gentleman did not say, whether or not it was
304
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
305
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his desire rather to wait for regular opportunities to discuss these important subjects, than to enter upon a premature and imperfect exposition of them in the shape of answering questions. He would, however, reply shortly to one or two points. With respect to the increase of expense in the collection of the Irish revenue, it was apparent and not real. It arose simply from the practice of bringing the whole forward as a charge on the public, instead of, as heretofore, laying it on the fees of merchants. Now, to the principal question put to him by the hon. gentleman, he had distinctly to state, that the public debt would not be increased by any means or in any way whatever this year. No stock whatever would be created, and what was outstanding at present, was, he affirmed, no more than was consistent with the public conveniency and service. The subject of the Sinking Fund had been often discussed; and he continued to be of the same opinion he had ever been upon it. He held, that it was far wiser to persevere in the present system which was well and practically understood, than to unsettle, under the name of simplification, the whole method with which public accountants were conversant. When the time came, that the Sinking Fund rose above what might be considered a sufficient sum for the gradual reduction of the national debt, then it might be desirable to adopt, with the surplus, the simplification now contended for; but, till that period arrived, he preferred going on in a known way; for so long as our revenue was fluctuating, which from its nature it must always be, there must, under whatever form it appeared, be an annual excess or diminution, liable to all the objections urged against the present system, at whatever sum the Sinking Fund was fixed. As to the deficiency in the Consolidated Fund, he still entertained the hope he had expressed, that it might be got over by the progress of the revenue. At all events, he could not be persuaded by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grenfell), that it would be wiser to leave the public money in the hands of the Bank for its advantage, than to borrow from that body at a low rate of interest, while government received a larger interest for its own fund. The saving to the country in this respect
306
Mr. Maberly
said, he was perfectly aware, that during the last quarter of the year 1819, 500,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Baring
could not imagine any
307
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
wished to state the grounds upon which he had expressed a confident expectation of improvement in the revenue. During the latter half of the last year the revenue had improved above any half-year which he ever remembered; and consequently, as the last half-year was so productive, there was every reason to believe, that the revenue would continue to improve. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, on the propriety of a simplification of the public accounts, that might certainly be in some degree to be wished; but the House ought also to be aware of the great evils that must ensue from an alteration in all the old forms. Such a measure would render them perplexed and unintelligible, and the whole for a century past must be new-modelled, to enable them to draw a comparison between any past year and that in which they were. He preferred going on in the way which use and experience had rendered clear and applicable to the general service.
Mr. Philips
inquired, whether the national business was to be impeded, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got a complicated system of accounts? For his own part, he knew many persons who were fully competent to understand
308
The motion for the several accounts was then agreed to.
PROVISION FOR THE QUEEN.]
The report of the committee on the Provision for the Queen was brought up. On the motion, that the resolution be agreed to,
Mr. Holme Sumner
said, that in pursuance of what had fallen from him last night, he should now propose, that the sum of 30,000
l
l
309
l
l
l
Mr. Brougham
said, that the House would immediately perceive, that he did not rise to oppose the amendment. Whether the sum were 50,000
l
l
l
l
310
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that he did not often trouble the House, but upon this occasion, which was no common one, when a large sum of money was to be voted for the use of the Queen, representing, as he did, a large and respectable portion of the community, he could not refrain from offering his sentiment. Although the question of guilt had not been tried in that House, it had been decided elsewhere; and he had a right to express his opinion regarding the testimony received in another place. He knew, that it was not regular to refer more minutely to what had already passed, but he could put his hand upon his heart and say, as a representative of the British people, that from the evidence taken elsewhere, and from the whole complexion of the case, he was satisfied that the Queen was guilty of the charges brought against her. Neither the taunts of power within, nor the clamour of the people without doors, should deter him from so asserting. He would apologize if he felt he was proceeding one step beyond the line of mode ration. On a question of this kind, where the feelings of the country were agitated from one end of the kingdom to the other, he could not help participating in those feelings. As a representative of the people, when a large sum was proposed to be voted to the Queen, he had a right to oppose it and to support a reduction of the grant. He was in favour of a smaller sum; because he did not like the mode in which the public money already placed in the hands of the Queen had been disposed of, and he knew not what the consequences might be of putting so large a grant in the power of such an individual. He had
311
Mr. Curwen
reprobated the manner in which the hon. baronet had introduced topics, founded upon rumours which he had heard out of doors, and in which there probably was not one tittle of truth. Her majesty had been all her life subjected to these base and malignant calumnies—these scandalous attempts to destroy her consequence and respectability in this country. As to the amount of provision for her majesty, anxious as he was on all occasions to save the public money, he thought it should be settled upon the same liberal scale as allowances to other branches of the royal family. Justice demanded that the Queen should be provided for with the same liberality as the rest of the royal family. No part of the country was suffering more severely than the part which he represented; but he should be ill-received among his constituents on his return, if he consented to this miserable retrenchment, intended as a punishment upon a Queen who had been acquitted. Was she to be concluded guilty when those who ought to have brought her before another tribunal did not dare to proceed? With respect to the message of her majesty to that House, he inclined to attribute it rather to her advisers than to her majesty herself. The resolution which it expressed was one in which he should be sorry that she should persevere. There was in it a magnanimity that met
312
Mr. Western
contended, that if, after what had passed, any man were allowed in that House to say, that the Queen was guilty, it was a place where every principle of law and justice, was disregarded! on every principle of law and justice the Queen stood precisely in the situation as if no charge had ever been exhibited against her; and if members were still to assert, that she was guilty, it would have been far better that the inquiry should have proceeded. Ministers had abandoned their bill because they could not prove its accusation; but, if every man was still at liberty to charge her majesty with the full commission of the crime, that abandonment might be looked upon but as an artifice to inflict a never-dying stigma, without a particle of evidence to support it.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that the proposition before the House was, to vote a provision for the Queen, under existing circumstances, and he knew not how he was to give his vote without at the same time giving his opinion of the conduct of the Queen.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
rose to express his admiration of the zeal of the hon. gentlemen opposite in the cause of economy, and his hope that they would continue in that spirit, and exercise it impartially. Those honourable members expressed their indignation at the gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House who were willing to grant so large a sum as 50,000
l
l
313
l
Mr. H. Sumner
said, he had objected to the grant of a large sum on the ground of the seditious tendency of her majesty's answers to the addresses she had received, and not on the ground, that her guilt had been established. He had explicitly said, that there was no ground of charge against her majesty, on account of the proceedings in the other House; but that on account of her answers to the addresses, and her message of yesterday, it would not be safe to place so large a sum of money at her disposal.
Mr. Sykes
said, he would detail the motive for the vote which he had last night given, and which he should again give. He entirely concurred with respect to the allowance to be granted to her majesty, with the view of the noble lord (Castlereagh). The noble lord had stated, very distinctly, why 50,000
l
314
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that he could not sit still when statements were made which he had it in his power to contradict. He had now to ask the hon. member, who had declared his belief that her majesty's bills to her tradesmen were not paid, whether, in answer to his challenge of yesterday, he was ready to produce any one demand of that kind? He would pause for a moment for a reply.—As the hon. member for Surrey would give no answer, he should proceed. They now saw what the reports of the hon. member were worth. They had heard other insinuations arising out of reports from the hon. member for Somersetshire, who alleged, that money had been sent to an individual at Paris, who was said to have been living in a style of splendor at Paris. Now he challenged that hon. member to produce one proof, that one shilling had been sent to that individual; he challenged him also to shew what, if true, was easily proved, that Bergami was living in the style which had been spoken of. He was in Paris at the call of the gentlemen who were her majesty's law advisers, ready to be produced as an evidence if It was thought necessary. He was at Paris solely for that purpose; and if the House had dared to have goue
315
"her
her
316
Lord Lowther
said, he only rose to say a few words in corroboration of what had been stated by the hon. baronet as to the style and manner of Bergami's living at Paris. He happened to be there for a few weeks during the stay of Bergami, who had been pointed out to him in an equipage as splendid as that of any person in that capital. In the quarter of the city in which he lived, he believed there was no person who supported a larger establishment. As to the amount of his funds, and whence he got them, or whether he paid for his establishment, those were matters of which he knew nothing; he could only speak as to his manner of living. It appeared to him, however, that the Queen had a right to spend her money as she pleased, either abroad or in this country: and therefore he should say nothing further on the subject.
Mr. Brougham
said, he could distinctly state, that it was solely by his directions, with the concurrence of his learned colleagues, that Bergami had been brought to Paris. That person being resident on his farm in Italy, was brought to Paris in order to be in readiness, in case the bill should have come down to that House, and her majesty's counsel should have found it necessary to call him as a witness. That he asserted to be the fact. He had himself given the directions. As to that individual's scale of expense while living at Paris, he knew nothing; but this he knew, that if he spent a considerable sum of money in consequence of being called as a witness for the Queen, he was not the only person, either for or against the bill, who had incurred a considerable ex pence.
Lord Castlereagh
, in referring to the questions of the worthy alderman, said, that when the worthy alderman challenged him to produce the written copies of her majesty's answers the worthy alderman should have recollected, that he was not in the service or confidence of her majesty, and that therefore the worthy alderman was holding out a challenge which it was impossible that he should accept. He was, however, quite willing to allow, that the part of the publication to which he referred was more laughable than serious, and that the rhodomontade of talking of her subjects was merely despicable when compared with the more dangerous parts. The worthy alderman now denied the authenticity of those addresses; but he
317
Mr. Gipps
said, it was a pity, if Bergami could have been produced in the Commons, that he was not produced in the Lords. Her majesty's answers on her arrival, such as those from Dover and Canterbury, were fair tests of her majesty's sentiments; but more unfavourable inferences were to be drawn from those which she had afterwards delivered, and with which she had completely identified herself. As to the question of the Liturgy, he referred to the address of the House to queen Anne, in 1702, thanking her for her zeal for the protestant succession displayed in her inserting the name of the electress Sophia of Hanover in the Liturgy. After this could it be maintained, that the Crown was not authorised to omit as well as to introduce the name of that princess? And yet the House had returned thanks for that introduction. He conceived that that act of the House completely justified the present proceeding.
318
Mr. Denman
said, it was impossible, standing in the relation which he did towards the illustrious person who was the object of it, for him to give an opinion on the proposed grant; though he was conscious that in so doing he abandoned, in part, his duty to his constituents, who were anxious, in common with the whole country, that the more liberal vote should be supported. He felt it impossible, however, to hear the language which had been uttered on the other side, without drawing attention to it. He deemed it requisite to apologise to the House for approaching this subject with a degree of feeling which was excited by previous reflection on the conduct pursued towards her majesty from the beginning of the proceedings, in doors and out of doors, by the king's government and by their friends, which formed a series of persecution which he believed to be perfectly unparalleled in the history of the civilized world. That a majority of the peers came to a certain vote was true; that her majesty was convicted by any such vote he denied. The withdrawing of the bill was conclusive in favour of the Queen; because it was evident, that it was not withdrawn from any favourable feeling towards her, on the part of her accusers. It could only have been withdrawn because its patrons were satisfied, that they could not carry it, and that though they might triumph in the Lords, they could not succeed in the Commons. If prudential motives entered into the determination of the accusers, they deserved praise, but the accused should have the benefit of their determination. Pie had a right to consider the peers who came to a vote on that question, in their individual, not in their legislative capacity, and subject to have their opinions canvassed as mere individuals, for no law had been founded on their vote. Supposing then, that the bill had passed the House of Lords, and had come down to the Commons—and had been proceeded on in the temper which some gentlemen now evinced, could they have given an unbiassed judgment then—if now, when the bill had been thrown out, such illiberal opinions were founded on a rejected proceeding? He contended, that no member of that House had a right to found an opinion of the Queen's guilt on the result of that trial. Did they come now to argue the case over again, as on a motion for a new trial? He vowed to God, that he never expected to be called on to argue it again. Did they wish to argue
319
320
321
Mr. Wilmot
said; he did not think it proper on the present occasion to discuss the guilt or innocence of the Queen, as proved by the proceedings in the Lords, but at the same time, he claimed the right of qualifying his vote by his conviction, or of forming his conviction from what had entered his mind, without referring to the particular sources of it. He thought, however, that since the proceedings of the Lords were at an end the ministers had acted quite correctly in giving the Queen the whole of her legal rights, according to their ideas of them. He considered the insertion of her name in the Liturgy as a matter of grace and favour; and as such he had refused it his
322
Sir T. D. Acland
said, that beyond the grounds upon which many gentlemen intended to support the original proposition, there was one additional reason for his concurring with it. That one reason was, that it was so worded, as that it neither imputed guilt nor asserted innocence. As the vote now stood, any new arrangements which might be hereafter made for her majesty would leave it
in statu quo
l
Mr. Forbes
said, that many reasons, had hitherto induced him to support the smaller, rather than the larger sum; but on further consideration, he had thought
323
Mr. Brougham
said, that he could not allow such a gross perversion of the words of his learned friend to pass unnoticed, as the House had just heard. But this misinterpretation had appeared heretofore, although it was more gross and perverted than any individual who was candid, could make of the words of any man. The fact was, that his learned friend had no such meaning in the words which he had used, as that which was imputed to him. But he was quite satisfied, that the last speaker had only repeated that, which the colouring of others had suggested to his mind, without any intention to misrepresent.
Mr. Forbes
said, it was generally believed, that the words had been used. They had not been denied. In what sense they were used he could not take upon himself to say.
Sir Francis Blake
said, he had been made to assert the other night that, ministers intended to promote a revolution. What he had said was, that this was the age of revolutions, and he should not wonder if ministers produced one. There was a wide difference between an act intentionally committed, and that which was the effect of blindness. He did not think ministers would promote one intentionally, for the best of all reasons—self-preservation; it being obvious, that they would be the first sufferers by such an event. With regard to the sums proposed, instead of a smaller he should have been inclined to move a larger sum for her majesty, had not the situation of the country induced him to suspend his intention. The explanation given by a worthy alderman, that her majesty paid her bills every month, was an example well worthy of imitation in other quarters.
324
The question, "that 50,000
l
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 2, 1821
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Sir Robert Wilson
presented a petition from the Coopers of London, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It was signed, he said, by 1,300 persons. They prayed also, that inquiry might be made into the Milan commission, and that ministers might be dismissed. With respect to the Milan commission, he looked upon it as an illegal establishment, a sort of agency-board for carrying on the business of a conspiracy against her majesty. This appeared evident from the the witnesses they procured, who were utterly unworthy of credit, and whose evidence was improbable, or rather impossible. They appeared never to have made any inquiry as to the credibility of the witnesses, or the truth of their statements, but shewed the utmost remissness in this and every other respect. Their only object seemed to have been to collect what evidence they could against her majesty, whether true or false. He had it upon the honour of the Austrian ambassador to the court of Naples, that every thing stated by the witnesses respecting her majesty's conduct at the court of Naples was wholly false. If there was no charge against the commissioners, it would be only fair, on the part of ministers, to give them an opportunity of defending themselves, by allowing some inquiry to be gone into. He condemned, in severe terms, the manner in which her majesty was treated by many hon. gentlemen in that House, who used such language as left her no alternative but to demand another trial, for the purpose of vindicating herself against those aspersions.
Lord Sefton
presented a similar petition from Liverpool. It was signed, he said, by 10,000 inhabitants. He could vouch for the respectability of many of the names. They prayed, that the question concerning the Queen should be agitated no longer, that she might be restored to all her rights and dignities, that inquiry should be made into the outrages at Manchester, the taxes diminished, and the people admitted to a larger share in the legislature than they at present enjoyed.
325
Mr. Creevey
said, that he was ready-to give his support to every part of the petition. The first thing the petitioners prayed for was, that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy. Upon a former occasion, before the inquiry had been gone into, he supported, upon grounds of justice and policy, the propriety of restoring her majesty's name. If it was important then, it was much more important now, when the exclusion amounted in fact to punishment, for a crime of which she had been acquitted, livery man was interested in opposing the species of law laid down by the noble lord opposite, who maintained, that as the bill of Pains and Penalties had undergone a third reading, and had then been only withdrawn, her majesty was in fact morally convicted, and only technically acquitted. This was a strange kind of law, which it was the interest and duty of every man in the country to oppose. If a third reading was sufficient to prove guilt, why should not a second, or even a first reading, have the same effect?—It would be much better not to carry it to a third reading; for then all the filth, the trouble, and expense of the evidence would have been spared. This new law of the noble lord's was the old story of "Acquitted Felons," a phrase of which he believed his late friend Mr. Windham was the author. The conduct pursued towards the Queen was worse. "Acquitted felons" supposed a trial; but her majesty's name was erased from the Liturgy without trial or inquiry; and though acquitted, they still heard, night after night, the most gross aspersions thrown upon her in that House. This would be unfair and unjust, even towards a female of the lowest class in society, who had been once acquitted. This country knew of no such law as that of the noble lord. The law here was, guilty or not guilty—by the finding of a jury. Her majesty was attacked for refusing to accept any provision till her name was restored to the Liturgy. How was it possible, that she could agree to accept it under such circumstances? She acted in this as became a person determined to support her honour, and character. He trusted, that in this generous; nation there would be found spirit enough to protect the unfortunate and illustrious lady, if she should persist in her refusal, from suffering the pain and degradation of indigence. If ministers should continue in their resolu-
326
exparte
327
l
l
Mr. Gladstone
said, that the freemen of Liverpool were more numerous than the hon. gentleman represented. They exceeded 5000, and no such influence as that alluded to existed in the corporation. Their influence was pretty much the same us that of other gentlemen in the town of wealth and respectability. The corporation, he believed, discharged their duties most conscientiously. All the business under their direction was done by contract; which must have the effect of lessening their influence at elections, if they should be disposed to employ it. He was not personally acquainted with many of those whose names were signed to the petition. He was not inclined to dispute the character and respectability of some; but then he must say that he had opportunities of knowing the sentiments entertained by many gentlemen and merchants of Liverpool of great wealth mid character who did not approve of this petition, but approved of the measures of government. Much was said of the hole-and-corner addresses agreed upon by some gentlemen; but, under the circumstances there was perhaps no other way of expressing their opinion. The party from whom this petition proceeded, applied to the principal magistrate to call a meeting, which was accordingly done. A proposition was made for an address of loyalty to the Crown, but those who were willing to support it, were put down by clamour.
Mr. Creevey
said, that in 1812, when he was a candidate for Liverpool, not more than 2,400 had polled. If the circumstances attending the meeting were properly represented to him, the hon.
328
Mr. Gladstone
said, it was a mistake to say, that the late meeting was called by the mayor, it was brought about by a number of individuals, who assembled for the purpose, and placed a Mr. Fletcher in the chair. The persons with whom he (Mr. G.) acted, withdrew when they saw with whom the measure originated.
Mr. John Smith
said, he held in his hand a petition, to which he begged to call the most serious attention of the House. It was the petition of the merchants, bankers and traders of the city of London, and was signed by 5,000 persons. He did not mean to say, that the petitioners were, from the accident of possessing property, entitled to more consideration than persons who were poor. But, inasmuch as property gave an opportunity of education and the exercise of talent, he felt himself authorised to say, that there never had been presented, at any period, a petition from a class of persons superior to those by whom that petition had been voted. The first prayer of the petitioners was one to which the House must most readily lend its ears. They prayed, that parliament would, in its wisdom, adopt the necessary measures to allay the agitation which prevailed in the public mind. There were three or four points in this petition, upon which he would offer a few observations. The petitioners said, and said truly, that they entertained the strongest feelings of attachment to the Crown and to the constitution; and further, that even at this period of distress and agitation, they knew the great body of the people to be actuated by the strongest feelings of loyalty. They felt also, that no violence or disaffection existed, against which the present laws did not provide a sufficient remedy. They, at the same time, expressed their regret, that the late proceedings against the Queen had been instituted; proceedings which the House itself had declared to be derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country. He fully concurred in the reasons urged by
329
330
331
Sir W. Curtis
expressed his full concurrence with the hon. gentleman in many of his observations, and agreed also in the correctness of some parts of the statement which he had made, relative to what took place at the meeting from which this petition proceeded. The meeting had been very properly called on a requisition most honourably signed, containing the names of men of the highest character, as well as of the greatest property. He was, however, compelled to differ from his hon. friend in one respect. His honourable friend had said, that the declaration agreed to at the London Tavern could only be regarded as that of the individuals by whom it was subscribed, and that it did not record the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London. Now, although he was disposed to allow the respectability and opulence of those who called the public meeting, he would assert, that the declaration was signed by persons of as much property and honour, to the fullest extent. He did not know why, because one party thought fit to hold a public meeting, it should quarrel with another, that adopted a different mode of declaring its opinions. The declaration of the latter was certainly mild and moderate enough; no loyal man could dissent from it; it was indeed but a-milk and-water kind of production. No other mode, however, was presented of testifying his attachment to the throne, and be thought, it was a time, when that attachment, and a determination to support the throne, ought to be declared. He denied, that he ever did any thing in a hole or corner: whatever he did, he wished the world to know. The declaration originated in a peaceable and quiet meeting, and he for one, thought it might serve to cheer up his majesty, if at such a time they passed a resolution
332
Mr. Astell
begged to defend himself from the charge of inconsistency. When a-year and; a-half ago he had assisted at a private meeting of the merchants and bankers of London, the country was then in a different state. If new lights
333
Lord Milton
was sure, that the House had heard, with the greatest regret from the hon. baronet, that henceforth it would be in vain to expect to ascertain the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London, from any public meeting at which they were assembled. This was the more painful, as the sentiments of such a body were in themselves highly important; and as it was always of importance, that the House should have an opportunity of knowing the sentiments of their constituents. The hon. baronet had said, that he had signed the declaration, although he thought it did not go far enough, and because he thought, his majesty ought to be cheered up. When, however, the hon. baronet coupled with that sentiment an approbation of the measures of ministers, he expressed two opinions completely distinct from each other; because, if there was any one proposition more evident than another, it was, that the measures which had been adopted by his majesty's
334
Mr. Wells
observed, that he had signed the declaration, because he thought it a proper occasion for expressing Ins loyal and dutiful attachment to the Crown. He believed it would be seen, from the signatures attached to it, that this was the persuasion of many most respectable and honourable men. The declaration which had been so much commented on was fairly and openly agreed to, and was publicly signed. There was nothing in the character of the meeting at which the declaration was proposed, that could authorize the hon. member who presented the petition to call it a clandestine transaction. The declaration was intended to express the sentiments of the gentlemen whose names were affixed to it, and did not profess to speak the opinion of any others. The doors of the House in which the meeting was held were open to every one. No porter was stationed at them to challenge the entrance of any individual. With respect to the other meeting, it was called for twelve o'clock. He went to the place appointed before that hour, and found that it was impossible to get in. The lives of individuals appeared to him to be in danger; and, from his advanced age, he did not think it advisable to attempt to procure a situation in the body of the hall. Under these circumstances, he considered the last meeting as the truly exclusive meeting, and was convinced, that the petition did not express the sentiments and feelings of the merchants and bankers of London.
Mr. Alderman Wood
could assure the House, that the presence of the hon. baronet had been the only cause of the tumult in question. Half an hour before the business began, the hon. baronet took a foremost seat on the hustings, and showed himself off in great style, bowing to all his friends, and telling them he wa6 very glad to see them. In all city meetings there was a little noise; but the hon. baronet had himself allowed, that the resolutions had been carried by a majority of three to one. The petition was read by the Lord Mayor himself, and in putting the question he did all in his power to be heard in so large an assembly, by holding up the petition and calling out, "This is the petition." He would venture to assert, that the majority) in favour of the petition was five to one. The hon. member who had just sat down
335
Mr. Baring
said, that having been present at this meeting, he felt himself called on to state to the House his impression of the facts as they occurred; and he must say, that a more unworthy combination never existed any where, for the purpose of preventing individuals from being heard, than he witnessed on that occasion—that combination, too, being formed by some of the most respectable persons in the city of London. The only way in which their conduct could be accounted for, had been let out by the hon. baronet in the course of his speech; namely, that public meetings were to be treated as a mere farce. He had learned from many persons, that the business of the meeting was obstructed by those very friends who, in the excess of their zeal, even prevented the hon. baronet himself from being heard. They had sent regular circulars to every part of the city, in order to collect together persons who would disturb the meeting; and every possible means was resorted to for the purpose of preventing the merchants and bankers from assembling publicly to speak their sentiments. He totally disagreed from the hon. baronet as to the general conduct that was observable at meetings of the merchants of London. No meetings were ever held, at which a greater degree of decorum prevailed. The hon. baronet might have seen some instances of a different kind, but they very rarely occurred. But for the combination, or conspiracy, to which he had adverted—this last meeting would like others, have passed off quietly and decorously. The hon. baronet asked, "what was the harm of this loyal decla-
336
337
Mr. Wilson
could not exactly agree either with the hon. baronet or with the hon. member for Taunton. He denied the declaration of the former, that the hon. mover of the resolution was distinctly heard. He denied the assertion of the latter, that the tumult was the result of any combination or conspiracy. He did not believe one word of such a charge, and was convinced that it was utterly unfounded. The Declaration had not been put forth as the declaration of the merchants and bankers of the city of London, but only as the "undersigned" merchants, &c. He admitted, that in the earlier placards that distinction had by mistake not been made; but the error was unintentional, and was corrected as soon as it was discovered. He wondered, that those honourable gentlemen who had charged the individuals signing the declaration with being influenced by any but the most open and honourable motives, had not, on reading their names, felt a kind ness and respect which would have in-
338
Mr. G. Philips
declared, that he had never witnessed more disorderly and disgraceful conduct than on the occasion in question. The exclusive loyalists and lovers of order were shouting, hissing, and adopting every other means of creating a tumult. He heard the conversation of some of those who were near him, and it ran on the impossibility of deliberation at a public meeting, and on the probability that that would be the last public meeting of the kind in the metropolis, and on similar topics. There was every appearance of a combination to create disorder. The hon. baronet's appearance was a signal for disorder; and he was not heard himself, in consequence of the noise which his friends made. He was surprised to hear the hon. baronet express a doubt whether the resolutions were carried. He was quite satisfied, that they were carried, by a majority of three to two. Ordered to lie on the table to be printed.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
The debate was resumed on the motion, "That the paper, intituled, the dutiful and loyal address of the Presbytery of Langholme, in the county of Dumfries, which was published in the London Gazette of the 2nd January last, contains passages in manifest breach of the essential privileges of this House of Parliament." The motion was agreed to,
nem. con.
339
SUPPLY—BANK OF IRELAND.]
On the motion for going into a committeee of Supply,
Mr. Grenfell
wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the Secretary for Ireland, whether he was prepared to give any information as to the conduct of the Bank of Ireland, who, he understood, had refused to receive the coin of the realm as deposits? He was at a loss to comprehend on what grounds the Bank of Ireland did this. In local districts, bankers might do it with a view to discountenance the circulation of any thing but their own notes. Whatever the ground might be, it was necessary for the Government of the country to take some notice of it, as it contravened the intention of the government of the country with respect to the currency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was not enabled to give any information on this subject. The hon. member would be aware, that no one could refuse to receive the coin of the realm in payment. He did not know what difference there could be between payments and deposits. He was rather surprised at the statement, as bankers never refused money.
Sir J. Newport
said, there was all the difference in the world between payment, which was the discharge of a legal obligation, and deposit, which was the intrusting of money voluntarily received, to be accounted for. Of course, the Bank of Ireland could not refuse money in payment, but in deposit they might. Since the union of the Treasuries of the two countries, it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not of the Secretary for Ireland, to be prepared with information on these subjects. It was the more important, that this separation should be attended to, as there was nothing more mischievous to the finances of Ireland than the interference of the castle government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was no part of his official duty to take cognizance of the internal concerns, either of the Bank of Ireland or that of England. Those bodies were responsible to the laws, not to a minister. He had of course often occasion to correspond with both those banks.
Sir H. Parnell
said, the Bank of Ireland had not the power to refuse payment in sovereigns, but they refused to discount for those merchants who paid their bills in
340
Mr. Irving
said, the report, that the Bank of Ireland bad refused the current coin of the realm as deposit had excited his surprise. The present situation of Ireland was, that there was no circulation but that supplied by the Bank of Ireland. He could easily believe, that it might be inconsistent with the private interests of the Bank of Ireland to issue their notes upon deposits of gold; but he thought the bank, when it considered the situation, of Ireland, were bound to take a more enlarged view of the question. He certainly disapproved of the conduct which had been pursued by the Bank of Ireland towards those who imported and paid in gold coin. He would take that opportunity of putting a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the issues of Exchequer bills under the late act. If he was rightly informed, the commissioner under that act felt so restrained by the terms of the enactment, that, great as was the pressure in Ireland, the country had been almost entirely shut out from the advantages intended by the legislature. In the drawing up of that bill there had been the most culpable neglect.
Mr. Baring
contended, that government were bound to watch over the proceedings of the Bank of Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had indeed said, that it was a private corporation, over which the law, not the government, had
341
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he would take an early opportunity to communicate with the Bank of Ireland. It was difficult to conceive on what principle that bank could have refused to accept of gold coin. With a view to preparing for cash payments, nothing could be more acceptable than deposits in gold, for which the bank might issue their paper. The extent of issues by the commissioners under the late act, had certainly fallen short of the intention of the legislature, and did not exceed 100,000
l
Mr. Ricardo
observed, that paper in Ireland having become at a premium above the price of gold coin, persons had been under the necessity of incurring the expense of conveying gold coin to
342
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Sir George Warrender
addressed the committee on the subject of the supplies for the Navy for the present year. He stated, that a considerable diminution in the naval expenditure had taken place, partly in consequence of the reduction of 1,000 seamen, and partly owing to the diminished price of provisions. This diminution, however, was not intended to affect the exertions which were making in the cause of humanity and of science in this branch of the administration of public affairs. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That 22,000 men be employed for the Sea Service, for 13 lunar months, from 1st. Jan. 1821, including 8,000 royal marines."
Mr. Creevey
said, it was his intention to oppose the vote proposed by the hon. baronet, as it was his fixed determination not to vote for a single farthing of the public money, before the estimates of the service for which it was to be employed, were laid upon the table.
Sir. G. Warrender
said, that the hon. member, had mistaken the nature of his motion. It was not at all connected with the general estimates of the navy, which were always in the hands of members at least a fortnight before the resolutions founded on them were moved. The votes proposed in the early part of the session always related to the fleet afloat, and had no connection with either the raising or reducing the existing strength of the navy. The votes which he held in his hand related
343
Mr. Creevey
said, that this having been the practice of the House from time immemorial was the reason of all their distresses. It was time, that they should change their manners. He then moved, that the committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again. In this manner he should treat every resolution proposed in any Committee of Supply in which the estimates of the money were not before the House.
Mr. Hume
stated, the great objections he entertained to the reduction of the naval force of the country, and the augmentation of the military. The increase of the corps of marines to the amount of 8,000 never could obtain his consent at a time when our military establishment was so great as it was. Still less could he countenance the reduction of our whole naval force down to the number of 14,000 seamen only. What means could they employ to man a fleet of any magnitude in case of emergency, if they went on annually decreasing this valuable body of men? It was most injurious to the interests of the navy. He would never consent to vote any money for this service, until he saw a disposition to reduce the useless and extravagant civil establishments. Before he voted any money, he must see if it was intended to reduce the number of commissioners of dock-yards and other place3 where they were equally unnecessary.
Sir G. Warrender
trusted the House would not be led away by the opinion of the hon. gentleman on the subject of the increase of marines, when they knew, that it was the opinion of all persons connected with the navy, and he believed of all the gentlemen on the other side, except the hon. member himself, that it was of the greatest advantage to the public service to increase the corps of Royal Marines.
Mr. Bennet
would not enter into the merits of the increase of marines. That would be a good question when the estimates came before the House. But he would not consent to vote a single shil-
344
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his surprise at the course which hon. gentlemen opposite thought fit to take. There scarcely was an instance in which the course of public business was attempted to be obstructed by such means. Let gentlemen refer to the journals for years back, and they would find, that, from time immemorial, the practice of parliament had been, to grant these preliminary notes without the estimates.
Mr. Marryat
said, that the question appeared to him to be, whether the naval forces of the country at present in actual employment were to be maintained or not. The supply now asked was for men actually in service. According to all former practice, of parliament they were bound to vote for the maintenance of the seamen in actual service.
Mr. Bennet
explained, that he would willingly consent to a vote for the maintenance of those seamen for a month. But it was demanded, in this vote, for a whole year, and it was to that he objected, before the House possessed the means of judging how far it might be expedient or necessary to keep up this force.
Sir G. Clerk
could not suppress the surprise which he had felt at the different arguments which had been advanced by those who were adverse to the original motion. The argument of the mover of the amendment had gone principally upon the ground of economy, and the non-production of the navy estimates; but the hon. member for Montrose, so far from proceeding on a similar ground, seemed disposed to complain, that a sufficient number of seamen were not voted and consequently, that a greater expense was not incurred. After the present vote was disposed of, the question would then come before the House as to the sum necessary for the provisions and the wages of that number of men. It would readily occur to them, that from the great
345
Mr. Hume
contended, that no difference existed between his own argument and those of his friends. The hon. gentleman near him had called for the production of the navy estimates; the hon. member for Shrewsbury had done the same, and he (Mr. Hume) had also pursued the same course of argument in wishing to see how far the reduction in the civil establishments corresponded with the one now proposed. When he was told, that the present motion should pass as a matter of course, he would tell the House, that that would be the case, if the supply required was to pay off the expenses of the last year. But the motion was an anticipating measure, and referred to the ensuing year. He contended that our sailors had been neglected. We had ships enough, and marines could easily be procured, but we had not seamen enough even to form the germ of an armament.
Admiral Harvey
expressed his opinion of the great use of a marine force. On that subject he concurred in what had been said by the hon. mover of the resolution, and he believed it to be true, that such was the opinion of most officers in the service, To prepare a proper corps of marines required great care and attention; for it was preposterous to suppose, that a marine could do his duty unless he had previously been accustomed to proper discipline. It would be well for the House to consider, that the navy had now arrived to a great extent, and that a corresponding increase of marine force ought of course to take place.
Sir G. Cockburn
expressed his regret, that more professional men were not present. Had they been present the House would be satisfied, that the number of marines voted was not larger than required. It ought to be considered, that sailors were provided by the commercial navy of the country. It was true, that a disinclination existed to serve in the navy when a merchant service was open; but still, when merchant vessels could not be obtained, sailors would readily enter into the navy. Now it had been found, that the service of 1,000 men could be dispensed with, and he, in common with his colleagues, had felt it his duty to recommend a measure by which the public expenditure had been, lessened. If the
346
Sir F. Ommaney
entirely concurred in the propriety of keeping up an adequate corps of marines.
Mr. Tremayne
was anxious to take that opportunity, before the estimates were produced, of impressing upon government, the necessity of turning their attention to the civil establishments of the navy, which he thought were capable of great reduction.
Sir G. Warrender
was happy to be able to state, that a considerable reduction was contemplated in the civil establishment. He could not suffer that occasion to pass without again referring to the misapprehension under which the hon. gentleman opposite laboured. He was well aware, that that gentleman had no intention to misrepresent facts, but he could not avoid complaining of his want of accuracy, because the unavoidable inference which would be drawn by the public would be, that the House neglected the interests of the navy. Every one knew, that our armaments were supplied from our commercial navy, and that at no former period was that source so plentiful. It was that reason to which the economy prevalent in that branch of the service was to be attributed. He believed, if any circumstances should occur to require extraordinary exertions, that in a very short time a fleet of 20 sail of the line might be manned chiefly from the source which he had mentioned. The case was different with respect to marines. All the naval officers in the House knew the use of that body of men, and they knew also, that an effective corps was not raised without much difficulty.
Mr. Hurst
said, that the House had scarcely ever come to a vote on the subject, without a regret being expressed, that more marines were not raised. He thought them a most useful and necessary body. They had always distinguished themselves in every war; and he highly approved of the augmentation.
Mr. Forbes
complained of the reductions which had been made of the naval force of the country, and the comparative neglect with which that branch of the
347
Sir G. Warrender
said, that so far from the sailors being thrown on the country at the peace, 35,000 of them were pensioned, and l,175 midshipmen had been promoted as a just reward for their services after a long war.
Mr. Gladstone
was able to state, as a ship-owner, that in his opinion there was at present no want of seamen. No rise had taken place in the rate of wages, and that he conceived to be the best test that there was no scarcity of sailors. He was decidedly of opinion, that our commercial navy was at present greater than it had been at any former period. The trade to the Brazils had opened a new avenue for commerce, and the private trade to India was greater than it had ever been before.
Dr. Lushington
thought, that the committee had swerved widely from the question at issue. His hon. friend had objected to the vote on the ground that he had no estimate to direct his judgment, and in the propriety of that objection he fully concurred. The hon. baronet had said, that for many years it had been the practice to vote a sum for the expenses of a certain number of seamen on the word; of a lord of the Admiralty; and, if so, he thought it a practice "more honoured in the breach than the observance." It was certainly advisable, that some better mode should be adopted, and that the representatives of the people should be put in possession of a greater stock of knowledge before they came to a vote. There was another subject connected with the present vote which he could not pass over in silence. It was grievous to reflect, that the government, in the event of a war, would have to man the navy through the medium of impressment—would have
348
Sir. G. Cockburn
said, that all were agreed as to the evils of impressment, and that it should not be resorted to but under the pressure of an overruling necessity. To reduce that necessity, the Admiralty had done all that was in its power; for, with the assistance of that House, pensions had been granted to 35,000 seamen upon the condition of their return to the service when called upon. But, if more men should be required, and the seamen engaged in the commercial service would not voluntarily enter into our ships of war, they must betaken; for, otherwise, what would become of our fleets? Those fleets were necessary for the protection of commerce, and therefore there was a pretty good understanding between commercial men and the Admiralty upon the subject. With regard to the allegation, that many seamen were seen nearly starving in the streets of London upon the termination of the war, he was convinced it would be more correct to say, that many were seen starving in seamen's jackets; for the fact
349
Dr. Lushington
disclaimed the intention of arraigning any set of men for acting upon an old practice. But he hoped, that as we were likely to have many years of peace, that an endeavour would be made to devise some plan for getting rid of a practice so abhorrent to humanity.
Mr. Creevey
replied. He said, that the question before the committee was, to vote 22,000 men, including 8,000 marines, for the service of the current year. Now if that number was voted, it would be necessary to provide food and raiment for them. He therefore wished to do nothing in the dark, and asked for the papers which would explain the necessity of having so many men, and the mode in which the money to be granted would be expended. But, it was said, that this was a novel proceeding, and ought not to meet with the concurrence of the committee. New or old practice, it was one which, as the House of Commons distributed the public money, it ought to put into effect. If the hon. members opposite would not agree to his amendment, he should feel it his duty to divide the committee on every resolution proposed to it relative to the vote of seamen. Strangers were ordered to withdraw. Not less than five divisions took place on the separate resolutions for the vote of seamen; for victualling them; for clothing them; for the wear and tear of the ships, and to supply the necessary ordnance for their use. The number of members who voted on each division, was—For the amendment on each resolution, 11; Against it 41: Majority, 30.
The House having resumed,
Mr. Creevey
said, he had remarked on a former occasion, that if a real farce were wanted, recommend him to a committee of supply! He had to inform the Speaker, that during his absence from the chair, the committee had, within the last 20 minutes, voted away sums to the amount of 1,900,000
l
350
Mr. Bathurst
said, that he had been at a loss, until that moment, to know upon what ground the hon. member had been occupying the time of the House for the last hour. The plan which he had adopted was not new, for about twenty years ago, two members of that House were in the constant practice of making similar motions.
Mr. Bennet
thought it useless for the hon. member to speak when so few members were present, and therefore moved, that the House be counted.
The Speaker
counted the House and the number of members present being only 26, the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 5, 1821.
PETITION FROM BIRMINGHAM—DECLINE
Earl Grey
rose, to present a petition from the merchants, manufacturers, and traders of Birmingham. This petition had been agreed to at a meeting held in August last. The meeting was most numerous and respectable. He was sorry to find, that the statements it contained were completely at variance with those which had been conveyed to parliament from authority, and which had, on the first day of the session, been re-asserted by the noble earl opposite, relative to the improved state of manufactures and the general prospects of amelioration. To that general improvement Birmingham certainly was an exception. The petition stated, that the master manufacturers of Birmingham could not employ their workmen for more than three or four days in the week, and that the wages not
351
352
353
s
s
s
354
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he could have no objection to the referring of the petition to the committee, for the re-appointment of which the noble marquis had given notice, or to any mode in which the subject could be fairly brought under discussion. But what he more particularly rose to notice was, a misapprehension which the noble earl had made respecting a paragraph in the Speech delivered from the throne, on the opening of the session. The noble earl had conceived, that the paragraph was so worded as to imply, that a general improvement had taken place throughout the whole country. This certainly was not the case; the words of the Speech were—"that a considerable improvement has taken place within the last half-year, in several of the most important branches of our commerce and manufactures." After-Wards, referring to the state of the country, it was stated "that in many of the manufacturing districts the distresses which prevailed at the commencement of the last session have greatly abated." There was not, therefore, in the wording of the Speech—and he was equally confident in what he had stated on the first day of the session—any assertion of a general improvement throughout the country, nor had he ever maintained, that very considerable distress did not affect the agricultural and manufacturing interests. With regard to Birmingham arid the surrounding districts, he was aware, that, from whatever cause it might pre-
355
356
The Marquis of Lansdown
thought himself bound to notice the character of this petition. From the debt which the country owed to the industry of the district from which it came, and the great
357
358
359
360
Lord Calthorpe
could state, from his personal knowledge, that the individuals who had signed the present petition were incapable of putting their names to any facts of which they did not know the reality. He could not help hoping, as far as the foreign trade was concerned, that the committee which sat last year, and which was about to be revived, would secure to the country all attainable advantages. He was therefore glad that the noble earl who had presented the petition had not moved for a new committee, which might have the effect of distracting the labours of the old. Yet he felt desirous, that some committee of the nature proposed by the petitioners should be appointed in that or the other House. He hoped, that the public wish, expressed by numberless petitions, would induce ministers to sanction the appointment of such a committee to investigate the causes of the existing distress, or at least to afford an opportunity of ascertaining what were the circumstances which affected agriculture.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 5, 1821.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Mr. Gooch
begged to ask the noble lord opposite, whether it was intended to bring for-
361
Lord Castlereagh
assured his hon. friend, that he did not under-rate the importance of the subject, relative to which he had put this question. His hon. friend's question, however, was similar to one that had already been put, and to which he had answered, that it was not the intention of his majesty's ministers to bring forward any specific motion on the subject. As he had then stated, it appeared to him, that the distresses did not arise from the state of the law, in which case a specific remedy might easily be provided. At the same time, if it appeared, that it would be more grateful to the minds of the country and to the House, to institute an inquiry into the cause of the evils, he would cheerfully give it his cordial support. He should, however, feel it his duty, before the inquiry was gone into, to make himself clearly understood, as otherwise much injury might be done to the country from their going into the committee with a misunderstanding of each other's intentions and views, it would be most requisite, that the country should understand, that there did not exist any reasonable expectation of being able to provide a remedy for evils, which were dependent on cause beyond the control of the legislature. When the motion for a committee was made, he should explain his own views on the subject, and the guards with which he should desire to go into the committee.
Mr. Gooch
said, that after the answer of the noble lord, he should feel it to be his duty to bring the matter before the House at an early period.
CONDUCT OF MINISTERS RELATIVE
The Marquis of Tavistock
said, he rose in pursuance of his notice and of the wishes of many of his friends, to move a resolution expressive of the sense of that House, on the measures which had lately emanated from his majesty's government. Never had he felt so much the want of powers to embody his sentiments in language, and his perfect incapacity to do common justice to the subject which he had presumed to bring under the consideration of the House. It was, however, fortunate for him, that the discussions which that subject had already undergone in the House and throughout the country,
362
363
364
l
365
l
366
367
368
"That it appears to this House, that his majesty's ministers, in advising the measures which have led to the late proceedings against her majesty the Queen, were not justified by any political expediency or necessity; and that their conduct throughout the whole of those proceedings has been productive of consequences derogatory from the honour of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country."
Mr. Lambton
said, he rose to second the motion—not only because he concurred in the sentiments so ably, so feelingly, and so eloquently expressed by his noble friend, but, because he thought it necessary, after what had taken place, to pursue measures of an entirely different character, by which alone the present ferment could be allayed, and those constitutional principles restored which had been violated by the noble lord in the very commencement, of those proceedings. The knowledge he had of his noble friend's independent principles—the knowledge he had of his hereditary love of freedom—would induce him to second any proposition made to the House by his noble friend, without stating his own sentiments' on the subject—secure, as he must always feel, that in following the course pursued by his noble friend, he never would be in danger of doing any thing injurious-
369
*
*
370
*
l
*
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
Mr. Bathurst
said, that neither he nor his colleagues could complain of the manner in which both the noble mover and the hon. seconder of the resolution had brought forward their attack upon the measures of his majesty's ministers. It was quite clear, that the object of the present motion was;—first, the removal of ministers, and then, as a necessary consequence, a reform in parliament. He must lament, that, in the invidious task which he had undertaken, he must necessarily discuss topics from which otherwise he should most anxiously refrain. He could assure the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that in defending the recent conduct of ministers, he had no intention of justifying it by any rule of comparison with any thing that had been done on a former occasion; for the circumstances might be totally different, and, as had been well said, one act of injustice (if there was one) could not justify the committal of a second. With reference to the conduct of her majesty, as it had been related by persons of respectability who had visited the continent, and which had been represented to have been carried to the utmost possible length of impropriety—was that a matter so unimportant as not to be worth the attention of government? Could any thing be more proper when such accounts were transmitted to this country, than to institute an inquiry into their nature—always supposing such inquiry to be properly conducted? [Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.] He knew that the bulk of the people entertained a different opinion upon this question from that entertained by the higher classes of the community, whose means and opportunities enabled them to form a more accurate judgment upon facts. The Milan commission was composed of persons of great honour, and who were utterly free from any bias or motive which could unduly influence their opinion. Had this commission declared, that there was no foundation for the accusation, then of course it would have fallen to the ground; but when, on the contrary, it disclosed such a mass of information as, in any private case, would imperatively call for further investigation, he must contend, that ministers were bound to submit the case for ulterior inquiry. When her majesty declared her intention of coming to this country, as if there was no charge to be made against her, and assumed the
381
382
383
384
Mr. Whitmore
expressed a hope, that the House would with patience hear the first observations of a member, who was alone induced, by the importance of the subject then under consideration, to offer
385
386
ultimum remedium et pessimum
387
388
Mr. Bankes
began by complimenting the hon. member who had just sat down, both upon the matter and the manner of what he had delivered to the House. All parties must agree with him in thinking that nothing was more desirable than an union of interests. He had avoided taking a part in these unfortunate discussions; he had viewed them with disgust, and almost with shame. When he recollected the embarrasments of the country, the burdens it had to sustain, the extent of the agricultural distresses, coupled with a glance at the pending proceedings in the south of Europe, he could not help saying that it was matter of vexation and almost of shame, to think that this wise and understanding people should be dragged into these discussions to the neglect of matters of higher and
389
390
391
parapresbeia
392
393
394
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he was called on by the extraordinary speech of the hon. member to offer a few words. The hon. member had, indeed, said little on the motion, of which he told them he disapproved; but whatever he did say upon it, after having made that declaration, was in its support; for he very candidly staled, that in the proceedings, which it went to condemn, he could not agree, as to either their beginning, conduct, or termination. Yet he had given a vote in contradiction to that sentiment, and opposed the resolution by his practice, while he upheld it by his observations. He would not en-
395
396
397
Lord Castlereagh
rose to order. He wished to ask whether it was parliamentary to say that a majority of that House, on any question had declared war against the people of England?
The Speaker.
There can be but one opinion upon the words used by the hon. and learned gentleman;—and I am certain that the hon. and learned gentleman himself will admit that the words are most disorderly.
Sir J. Mackintosh
resumed. He bowed with the greatest deference to the opinion of the chair, but this was the first time, in his recollection, when any member was called to order for words which he had already explained. Uninfluenced, then, by what had just occurred, he would say, that a majority of that House, in hostility to the declared wishes of the people of England, was an evil; and that that evil would be increased if a greater number of members were of the same opinion with the majority; and still worse, if there were none left who could agree with the sentiments of the people. But the hon. gentleman had given the best possible answer to one part of his argument, with respect to the attendance of gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House at public meetings. He had spoken of incendiaries. Why, should the hon. gentleman say that all public meetings were to be left to the influence or direction of
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
Mr. Peel
said, that, having been absent on every former occasion on which this subject was before the House, and having now heard the particularly severe terms which the hon. and learned gentleman had applied to the last decision of that House, he felt himself called upon to justify the vote he should give. Having been prevented from attending when the last decision of the House had been given,; and having intended, if he could haves, been present, to take that line which had I been so severely animadverted on, he would first state the grounds on which he concurred with that majority of whom the hon. and learned gentleman had said, in the warmth and heat of debate, that they had declared war against the people. The words had been satisfactorily explained-by
405
406
407
408
409
410
ex-parte
ex-parte
411
412
413
Lord Nugent
observed, that aware of the great influence of ministers in that House, it was easy to anticipate the fate of his noble friend's motion. With that view before him, he still looked with one feeling of melancholy satisfaction to the motion, inasmuch as it would enable the people to perceive, by the division, who were, and who were not, their faithful representatives. After the language he had heard uttered in that House against her majesty—language which would not have been tolerated, which would not have been dared to be used, in speaking of any other woman in the country who enjoyed the protection of a husband, a father, or a brother, he could not allow himself to give a silent vote, but must declare on his honour, his full belief of the Queen's being innocent of every charge against her as supported by the evidence. He said supported by the evidence, for he had no other means than the evidence produced, of forming an opinion. There was one part of the charge against ministers to which no gentleman on the other side attempted to reply: namely, why this opportunity of discussing the subject was delayed so long; why parliament was not sooner assembled for the purpose? During the last session a gallant friend of his (Sir R. Fergusson) proposed an inquiry into the Milan commission. The noble lord opposite said, that was not the time, but pledged himself that it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity. The noble lord also said, that in the event of the charges not being substantiated, her majesty should be restored to all her privileges undiminished. How had those
414
415
Lord Milton
said, he apprehended that the right hon. the member for the university of Oxford had failed in establishing a case for the ministers. That right hon. gentleman had warned the House not to regard the public opinion, as it was adverse to the character of those whom he supported; but to justify his warning, the right hon. gentleman had described another authority, which he thought proper to call public opinion. It would be, however, for the common sense and candour of parliament and the country to form an estimate upon the comparison of the right horn gentleman, between the secretly managed effusions of private meetings, and the open unqualified declarations, petitions, and addresses of the, numerous public meetings which had taken place throughout the country.
416
417
418
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, that as the scrutiny to which the conduct of members had been subjected throughout all the discussions relating to the Queen, though abundantly minute, had been by no means proportionally accurate, and as he had voted on the recent occasions with that majority whose conduct was so severely impeached, he ventured to address the House, for the first time, in explanation of the reasons which would determine his present vote. Upon any question which had been personal to the Queen, he should have been unwilling to take an active part against her; but, when the motion was not against the Queen b\it against the government—when her friends were advancing from defensive to offensive warfare—[Interruption from the Opposition].—This was the first time he had troubled the House, and as he understood, that some indulgence was usual under such circumstances, he should presume to construe those demonstrations as friendly. He had been about to observe, that the present question being free from those difficulties which belonged to such as were personal to the Queen, an opinion might be expressed without any thing invidious to that illustrious person. With respect then to the exclusion from the Liturgy, it had not been magnified into so severe a hardship by the Queen herself, who at first seemed comparatively indifferent about it, but by certain distinguished persons in Opposition. They, before she herself took the objection, had suggested and propagated this promising topic of complaint: and the spark had then been formed into a flame by the formidable ventilation of the anti-ministerial press. [The hon. gentleman was again interrupted by the disapprobation of some members opposite, of which he complained, as being not less ungenerous on a first address, than it was derogatory on all other occasions.]
419
sine qua non,
sine qua non.
sine qua non
sine qua non
sine quâ non
420
421
ex-parte
The debate was then, upon the motion of Mr. Bennet, adjourned till to-morrow,
422
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 6, 1821.
WATER-WORKS—SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Mr. Fremantle
rose for the purpose of moving, that a select committee be appointed to consider the state of the supply of water to the metropolis. In 1810, the circumstances arose which had rendered it necessary to bring this subject before the notice of parliament. Up to that period, the metropolis had been supplied with water by three or four trading companies—the New River, the Chelsea, the Thames, and one or two minor companies. At that time it was stated to the House, that this was a monopoly, and, in consequence it was broken down. It was likewise held, that new companies would be able to afford the same supply of water at a less rate than the old ones, which were at that time stated to be insolvent, and consequently unable to diminish the rate at which they supplied water, which was at an average of 27 shillings for each house. The result of these statements was, that a company, calling itself the West Middlesex company, was incorporated to supply, not the metropolis, but the vicinity of the metropolis with water. Not finding the lucrative results which they expected, they came a short time afterwards to the House for an amended bill; to enable them to extend their supply to a part of the metropolis, and obtained it. In 1811, the Grand Junction company was incorporated for a similar purpose; and as the House was impressed with a conviction, that the competition of these companies would produce results beneficial to the public, they did not take even the usual precautions in incorporating them. It fixed no rate as a maximum beyond which they were not to go; all that was said in their charters was, that they should fix a reasonable rate; but they were left to judge of the reasonableness of that rate themselves. No sooner were these charters procured, than the streets were broken up by the different companies for the purpose of laying pipes; and every House was besieged for the purpose of obtaining custom. In the course of three or four years the expense of the contest convinced the parties engaged in it, that if they continued it much longer they must all be ruined; and the consequence of this conviction
423
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that he would afford every assistance in his power in furtherance of the object of the motion.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that with great deference to his hon. friend, he could not agree in all the statements he had made. Another opportunity would occur, when he should state the real facts of the supply of water, and the House could then judge whether the steps which he (Mr. T.) had taken on that subject were those which, if they had been sanctioned by the other House of Parliament, would or would not have given to the public every advantage which could have been desired. The plain question was,
424
l
l
maximum
maximum
Mr. Alderman Brydges
spoke in behalf of the Water Companies, shewed that some of them had made little or no profit, and wished the Committee to be an open one.
Mr. Wilmot
thought it would be for those who went into the committee, merely to enquire into the means of doing justice between the parties. For himself, he did not see the advantages which an open committee would have over a select one.
425
The motion was then agreed to, and a Committee appointed.
FOREIGN TRADE.]
Mr. Wallace
said, he rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of foreign trade." The subject was brought forward thus early in the session, in order that the labours of the committee might be laid before the House as early as possible, so that any suggestions that emanated from it might be speedily considered, and acted on, if approved of by parliament. He knew the subject could not have been placed in better hands than in those of the hon. member (Mr. Baring), who, in the last session, had so ably stated his opinions on this important question; but, it was deemed advisable, that a member of the government should introduce it, because ministers wished to prove to the House and the country, that the consent which had been given, on the part of government, to the formation of a committee of this nature, was not a forced or reluctant consent. They were anxious to show, that they felt the deep importance of the subject, and that they were willing to give every facility in their power to its consideration. He would not, in moving for a committee, go over those reasons and arguments which on a former occasion had been so ably urged, to show the necessity of an alteration in the existing system. There was, undoubtedly, great distress in the country. A part of that distress, which was said to be within the reach of the House, and to which legislative provision might be applied, was, he felt happy to say, in some degree abated, though not entirely removed. Some of the most important branches of our manufactures had been considerably improved; and it gave him pleasure to state, that the cotton-manufacturers in England and Scotland were generally employed. The same might, he believed, be stated of the woollen-manufactures. There were other manufactures, however, in a situation of very great, and, he feared, increased depression. But, they were returning to a state of things, which in the end, would, he doubted not, prove most favourable to the country. The different branches of manufactures were so intimately linked together, that the distress of one must necessarily affect others. Now, if this were the fact, it was rational to conclude, that those branches which
426
427
Mr. Curwen
was convinced, that any improvement in the condition of the commerce and manufactures of the country must proceed from an improvement in the condition of our agriculture, now in a state of such severe depression.
Mr. Baring
observed, that it was unquestionably most desirable to examine how it happened, that in the sixth year of peace not any amendment had evinced itself in the condition of the country. Our agriculturists, our manufacturers, and our commercial men, all expressed to the House the uneasy state in which they felt themselves, and the distress which they suffered. To enter into the causes and the most advisable remedies for that distress, would be, to go into a question of
428
Sir John Newport
thought it desirable, that both Houses should act together in the mode of inquiry, and decide as promptly as possible upon one common course. Nothing was more fatal to any branch of trade than to be kept lingering in a state of uncertainty.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
SLAVE TRADE.]
Mr. W. Smith
said, it was now nearly fourteen years since this country had declared the crime, disgrace, and shame which attached to the African Slave Trade. No sooner had that desirable object been attained, than we turned to the other powers of Europe, and endeavoured to procure from them the same determination. In the peace of 1815, the exertions of the noble lord opposite, procured the abolition by the united voices of almost all nations. He was happy to say, that the noble lord, in employing his able exertions in the cause, had been supported by one of the greatest sovereigns in Europe, the emperor of Russia. He also had to mention a noble duke, to whom the country was so deeply indebted, as being among the most strenuous in accomplishing this great object. And for that alone, besides his other high services in the field, the country owed him everlasting gratitude. At the period to which he had alluded, every power in Europe was assembled at the congress of Vienna; and there they agreed in declaring, that the Slave Trade was contrary to all the principles of humanity and of morality. How, then, came it to pass that a period of five years had elapsed, and these powers had afforded no cooperation for carrying their declaration into effect? It therefore appeared, that we had only prevailed upon them to agree to the abolition in word, and that they were not disposed actively to co-operate with us in deed. Denmark had indeed done so, and America had done so. America had not only done that, but by an
429
Mr. Wilberforce
acquiesced in every thing which his hon. friend had stated.
Lord Castlereagh
assured the hon. member, that every effort of the government had been directed to the subject of the present motion. It was most satisfactory to him, that parliament should, from time to time, take up the consideration of this important question.
The motion was agreed to.
CONDUCT OF MINISTERS RELATIVE
The Debate on the motion, "That it appears to this House, that his "majesty's ministers, in advising the "measures which have led to the late "proceedings againgst her majesty the "Queen, were not justified by any "political expediency or necessity, and "that their conduct throughout the whole "of those proceedings has been productive "of consequences derogatory from the "honour of the Crown, and injurious to "the best interests of the country," being resumed,
Sir Robert Wilson
rose. He said, he could assure the House, that it was not his intention to detain them by any lengthened arguments; but he felt it to be his duty to communicate some important information which he possessed, relative to the discussion before the House. As far as he understood the arguments of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) who had spoken first in opposition to the motion, he had not attempted to justify the conduct of ministers, but had rather expressed a wish,
430
end,
431
432
433
434
435
—"drawn her breath
"Where nature sickened and each gale was death."
436
Mr. Huskisson,
after stating his reason for now breaking through the practice of a long parliamentary life, by troubling the House on a general question like the present, proceeded to advert to some of the topics already introduced in the course of the debate. In the first place, he must observe, that what had fallen from the hon. member for Corfe-castle, had been grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted; his hon. friend had not disapproved of the beginning, middle, and end of the proceedings against the Queen; he had only gone to the extent of saying, that he was not completely satisfied on the subject, adding, that if the matter were to be commenced again, he did not know, if he had been a minister, how he could act otherwise. Next, with regard to what the same hon. gentleman had remarked on the subject of the peace of 1815, that peace did answer the description he had given of it. At least, some valuable acquisitions were made by this country, and an exalted notion had been raised among the nations of the world as to her character, vigour, and resources. Such was his (Mr. H.' s) opinion; and it was not to be altered by an incident occurring in the sixth year of peace, which no wisdom could have foreseen or prevented, and by which, he trusted, the tranquillity of Europe could
437
438
439
440
441
442
en musse
443
Mr. Bennet
observed, that whatever the merits of the question might be, and however unwilling he was to draw upon the attention of the House, which the honourable gentleman had for the last half hour so agreeably enlivened, he could not omit the duty of putting his opinion upon record on this great occasion. He believed he could anticipate the result of the vote of that night; but as he was one of those who were likely to share in the ruin which the measures of ministers and the votes of their majorities, were bringing on the country, he was justified in endeavouring to avert that ruin, or at least in entering his protest against the perseverance in a line of policy which must be attended with such dreadful results. He did not intend to follow the right hon. member who had spoken last, through the course of his speech. He would rather make some observations on the speech of the right hon. gentleman who held the double office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and president of the board of Control. And here he could not but remark, that every gentleman on the opposite side, with the exception of the ministers themselves, had carefully excluded all approbation of the conduct of his majesty's ministers. The right hon. member for Oxford was quite disinclined to approve of the conduct of administration in the main question. The right honourable gentleman, indeed, who followed the seconder, stated, that his majesty's ministers had received ample information relative to the conduct of the Queen from persons of rank and fortune. Now, he would be glad to know who those persons were? The noble lord opposite had stated last year, that the bill of Pains and Penalties would be supported by persons of credit and character; but they had since seen who those creditable persons were. He would wish to know, whether they were the same respectable authorities of rank and fortune to whom the right hon. gentleman alluded. It was strange that not one person of that description was produced at the bar of the House of Lords, to give a plausible character to that collection of gossip, scandalous detail; and falsehood, which, on the precious information that ministers
444
445
446
447
448
Mr. Wellesley Pole
said, it was not his intention to detain the House long; but, as a member of his majesty's government, he could not sit silent under the charges which, on this and on the last night, had been brought forward against the administration. He felt himself obliged to the noble lord who had brought forward this motion, and to the hon. member who seconded it, for the distinct and candid avowal of their object. Upon a former occasion some doubt might be entertained upon the subject, but it was now fairly avowed, that the great purpose for which this motion was brought forward, was, to effect the dismissal of his majesty's ministers. As to the motion itself, it was a secondary consideration, it was merely a vehicle chosen to produce the desired change, and undoubtedly it was well chosen; because, it would carry with it a stronger force than any other that could have been selected. But the noble lord and the hon. member were not doing any thing new upon this occasion—they were only doing that which they had been doing ever since the present administration had been formed. There was scarcely one of the efficient acts of administration for the last ten years, which the hon. gentlemen opposite had not opposed, and for which they would not have been quite as ready to pass a vote of censure upon ministers, as they were upon the present occasion. It was important that the House should bear this in mind; because, when gentlemen so loudly exclaimed that the conduct of ministers for the last six months deserved all the censure it was now endeavoured to heap on their heads, it was but fair to ask, whether those gentlemen ever en-
449
whole
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
Sir Francis Burdett
said, he meant to address his observations to the general question now before the House, although he might find it necessary to advert occasionally to what he would not call the argument, but the sort of rhapsody which they had just heard from the right hon. gentleman. That, indeed, had little or no reference to the question before the House; and whether it were true or not, that the Whigs had, according to the right hon. gentleman, acted in this or that manner, upon this or that occasion, must; now be a matter almost indifferent even to the Whigs themselves. But the right hon. gentleman was singularly unfortunate in his allusions to former periods, and in rendering his inferences from them applicable to present circumstances. He had thought proper to go back to a time beyond the memory of them all—to the early stage of Mr. Fox's political career; and had quoted an opinion then pronounced by that eminent statesman. It was very possible that Mr. Fox, with little or no experience of the conduct of that House, should have, nearly half a century ago, expressed his belief that it did represent the feelings of the country—
459
460
461
Castra, ubi nulla potentia.
462
proh pudor!
463
The Speaker
suggested to the hon. baronet that his warmth was obviously carrying him beyond the limits of parliamentary order.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he should never hesitate to bow to the authority of the Chair on a point of order, and should feel grateful to any member who interrupted him when he was transgressing the bounds of parliamentary debate. All that he meant was, that if charges of a heinous nature were preferred by a public officer against an exalted person, and that person a lady—a lady, too, so unfortunate, that her offences, if she had committed any, ought to find compassion, if not excuse—where the case was such that no one appeared as a complaining party, and where the sole ground of the prosecution was a real or pretended state necessity—that under such circumstances, it did not become a public officer to betray an eagerness to convict, but rather under the dictation of gentlemanlike feelings to show a spirit of indulgence, and to extenuate instead of exaggerating a supposed offence. There was no necessity for going into a long nauseous detail. Had one single material fact been proved, the rest might have been spared, and ought to have been spared, in a prosecution avowedly instituted
pro bono publico.
464
465
466
467
468
The Attorney General
said, it was not his intention to have troubled the House during the present debate, but he hoped the House would feel, after the personal observations of the hon. baronet, that no apology was due from him. The hon. baronet had commenced his speech with two complaints. In the first place, the hon. baronet charged his right hon. friend, near him, with a violation of the decorum of the language of debate; but he would appeal to the House whether the hon. baronet had not more violently violated that decorum in the observations which he had made. He appealed to the House whether the observations of the hon. baronet, as applied to himself, kept within the line prescribed by the hon. baronet to other members. The hon. baronet had next said, that the right hon. gentleman had done any thing rather than apply his observations to the topics of this debate; but he would appeal to the House, whether the hon. baronet had done any thing but irregularly and irrelevantly apply his observations to other topics. In the first place, the hon. baronet had alluded to a speech made by him (the attorney-general,) in another place, and in the next he had alluded to an argument used two days ago in the King's Bench, in a cause to which the hon. baronet was n party. Such was the con-
469
ipse dixit
470
471
Mr. Tierney
said, he felt that he could not altogether be silent, as repeated allusions had been made to his opinions and declarations. The motion of his noble friend was stated, by the supporters of ministers, to be brought forward for the purpose of turning them out. Now, he could assure the House, that he did not support the proposed censure on ministers with that object, though he should be glad if it lead to that result. The proceedings on which the House was to decide
472
473
474
475
l.
l.
476
477
478
479
480
l.
481
482
483
484
485
486
Lord Castlereagh
said, he would proceed to state the true question now before the House, and, in doing so, he would confine his argument, as closely as circumstances would permit, to that object. He would say, that the speech of the right hon. gentleman was a fair and manly speech for him to deliver. He had reasoned the question fairly, between that and the other side of the House; or rather, he had placed the vote which the House was asked that night to give on such principles as it might be clearly argued on. He felt indebted to the noble mover, and the honourable seconder, for having so candidly stated the grounds on which they brought forward this charge. They had done honour to themselves personally, and they had also extricated their party from that course which he thought extremely unbecoming in them; they had extricated them from those milk and water motions which had been so often resorted to; they had extricated them from the disgrace in which the party was involving itself by such proceedings, and he trusted he should not be found that night to be the individual who was disposed to shrink from the manly appeal which the noble lord and the hon. mem-
487
488
489
l.
490
491
l.
l.
492
sine qua non
493
494
495
savans
496
497
Mr. Brougham
requested the favourable attention of the house, not so much because he was in some degree personally concerned in what had passed, as because he had still to discharge the remainder of an anxious duty to her Majesty, rendered infinitely more painful and burdensome by the tone and matter of the speech of the noble lord. It was mighty well for the hon. member for Corfe-castle to assert, that the time was now come when he might offer his promised explanation; and it was very easy for the commissioner of woods and forests to repeat the taunt, and to allege as a reason for compliance the conclusion of all inquiries regarding the Queen. He would appeal to the House, after what had occurred, whether there was any appearance that those inquiries had terminated. Had all intention further to molest the Queen been finally and completely abandoned? Did the speeches within the last few days, even the most moderate and guarded of them, give any such indication? The attorney-general, to excuse himself, had taken upon himself to re-assert what he had asserted elsewhere. The member for Surrey, backed by the member for Somerset, and supported by a noble but voluntary witness, the member for Westmorland, had even introduced charges unheard-of until long after the acquittal of her majesty, and had accused her, not only of maintaining a correspondence with Bergami, but of transmitting to him large sums of the public money to support him in a guilty splendor. If he had shut his ears to all matters of mere rumour, and his eyes to the statement of the motive assigned by the member for Liverpool for quitting office, namely, his reluctance to become a prosecutor of his Queen—if he had refused to look at the systematic attempts to malign and defame her majesty, not only in that part of the public press known to be under the control of the responsible advisers of the
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
The question being put, the House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 324: Majority against the motion, 146.—Adjourned at half-after six in the morning.
List of the Majority—and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Acland, sir Thomas
Broadhead, T. H.
A'Court, E. H.
Browne, rt. hon. D.
Alexander, J.
Browne, J.
Alexander, J. D.
Browne, P.
Ancram, lord
Brownlow, C.
Apsley, lord
Brudenell, lord
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Bruce, Robert
Ashurst, W.
Burgh, sir Ulysses
Astley, J. D.
Burrell, Sir C.
Balfour, John
Burrell, Walter
Bankes, Henry
Buxton, J. J.
Bankes George
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Barne, M.
Calvert, John
Bastard, captain
Cartwright, R.
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Castlereagh, lord
Bathurst, hon. S.
Cawthorne, J. F.
Beckett, right hon. J.
Cecil, lord T.
Bective, earl of
Chaplin, C.
Bentinck, lord F.
Cheere, E.M.
Beresford, lord G.
Chetwynd, G.
Beresford, sir John
Chichester, A.
Blair, J. H.
Cherry, G. H.
Blair, J.
Childe, W. L.
Blake, Robert
Cholmeley, Sir M.
Boswell, A.
Clerk, Sir. G.
Bradshaw, R. H.
Clive, lord
Brydges, alderman
Clive, Henry
Brogden, J.
Cockburn, sir G,
508
Cockerell, sir C.
Fremantle, W.
Cocks, hon. J, S.
Fynes, H.
Cocks, hon. John
Gascoyne, Isaac
Cole, sir Chr.
Gifford, sir Robert
Colthurst, sir W.
Gilbert, D. G.
Collett, E.J.
Gipps, G.
Congreve, sir W.
Gladstone, John
Cooper, R. P.
Gooch, T. S.
Copley, sir John
Gordon, hon. W.
Corbett, P.
Goulburn, Henry
Courtenay, T. P.
Graham, sir J.
Courtenay, W.
Grant, A. C.
Cranbourne, lord
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Crawley, Samuel
Grant, F.
Cripps, J.
Grant, G. M.
Croker, J. W.
Graves, lord
Crosby, J.
Grosvenor, Drax
Cuff; J.
Grossett, W..
Cumming, G.
Grossett, J.
Curtis, Sir William
Hamilton, H.
Curteis, J. H.
Handley, H.
Curzon, hon. Robert
Hardinge, sir H.
Cust, hon. E.
Hart, general
Cust, hon. P.
Hartopp, G.
Cust, hon. W.
Harvey, C.
Cotterell, sir S. G.
Harvey, sir E.
Daly, J.
Heygate, alderman
Dalrymple, A.
Hill, sir G.
Dawkins, J.
Hodson, J. A.
Dawkins, H.
Holford, G. P.
Dawson, Massey
Holmes, W.
Deerhurst, lord
Hope, sir A.
Divett, Thomas
Horrocks, S.
Dodson, D.
Hotham, lord
Domville, sir C.
Holdsworth, T.
Douglas, W. K.
Hulse, sir C.
Douglas, John
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Doveton, G.
Innes, sir H.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Innes, John
Downie, Robert
Irving, John
Drake, W. T.
Jenkinson, hon. C,
Dunalley, Lord
Jolliffe, H.
Dugdale, D.
Keck, G. A. L.
Duncombe, C.
Kerr, D.
Duncombe, W.
Kingsborough, lord
Dundas, rt hon. W.
Kinnersley, W.
Dunlop, J.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Egerton, W.
Knox, hon. Thomas
Elliot, hon. W.
Lascelles, William
Ellis, C. Rose
Legge, hon. H.
Ellis, Thomas
Lennox, lord G.
Ellison, C.
Leslie, C. P.
Estcourt, T. G.
Lester, B. L.
Evelyn, L.
Lewis, T. F.
Fairlie, sir W. C.
Lewis, W.
Fane, John
Lethbridge, sir T.
Fane, Vere
Lindsay, lord
Fane, Thomas
Lindsay, hon. H.
Fellowes, W. H.
Littleton, Edward
Fetherstone, sir G.
Lloyd, S. J.
Finch, G.
Lockhart, W. E.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Long, right hon. C.
Fleming, doctor
Loraine, lord
Fleming, John
Lowther, lord
Forbes, lord
Lowther, hon. H. C.
Forbes, C.
Lowther, John
Fox, G. L.
Lowther, hon. H.
509
Lucy, G.
Scourfield, W.
Luttrell, H.
Scott, hon. John
Luttrell, J.
Scott, C.
Lygon, hon. H. B
Seymour, Hugh
Macdonald, R. G.
Seymour, Horace
Mackenzie, Thomas
Shaw, Robert
Macnaghten, A.
Sheldon, R.
Manners, lord C.
Shiffner, sir G.
Manners, lord R.
Sibthorpe, D. W.
Mansfield, John
Smith, Christopher
Marjoribanks, S. S.
Sneyd, N.
Maxwell, J. W.
Somerset, lord G,
Marryat, J.
Somerset, lord E.
Martin, Richard
Somerville, sir M.
Martin, sir T. B.
Southeron, F.
Mills, C.
Staunton, sir G.
Mitchell, John
Stewart, hon. J. H. K.
Money, W. T.
Stewart, A.
Monteith, H.
Stewart, W.
Montgomery, J.
Strathaven, lord
Miles, P. I.
Strutt, colonel
Morgan, sir C.
St. Paul, sir H.
Morgan, G.
Stopford, lord
Morland, sir S. B.
Summer, G. Hohhne
Mountcharles, lord
Suttie, sir J.
Munday, captain
Swann, Henry
Musgrave, sir P.
Taylor, sir H.
Nightingale, sir M.
Temple, earl
Nicholl, sir John
Thynne, lord John
Nolan, M.
Townshend, hon. H.
Ommaney, sir F.
Tremayne, J. H.
O'Neil, hon. J.
Trench, F. W.
Onslow, A.
Tulk, C. A.
Owen, sir John
Twiss, H.
Paget, sir C.
Upton, Hon. A.
Paget, hon. B.
Uxbridge, earl of
Pakenham, hon. H.
Valletort, lord
Palk, sir L.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Palmerston, lord
Vernon, George
Pechell, sir Thomas
Villiers, rt. hon. J.
Peel, right hon. R.
Vivian, sir H.
Pellew, hon. P.
Walker, J.
Pennant, G. D.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Percy, hon. W. H.
Walpole, lord
Phillimore, doctor
Ward, R.
Phipps, hon. E.
Warrender, sir G.
Pitt, J.
Warren, C.
Pitt, W. M.
Wells, John
Pollington, lord
Wemyss, L.
Pole, sir P.
Westenra, hon. H.
Pole, rt. hon. W. W.
Whitmore, Thomas
Pollen, sir John
Wigram, sir R.
Powell, sir J. K.
Wigram, W.
Powell, E,
Wilberforce, W.
Prendergast, M.
Wilbraham, E. B.
Penruddock,—
Wildman, J. B.
Pringle, sir W.
Williams, Robert
Ray, sir W.
Wilmot, Robert
Rayne, Jonathan
Wilson, Thomas
Rice, hon. G.
Wodehouse, hon. J.
Rickett, C. M.
Wodehouse, Edward
Robertson, A.
Wood, Thomas
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Worcester, lord
Rocksavage, lord
Wortley, S.
Rogers, E.
Wrottesley, H.
Russell, J. W.
Wyndham, W.
Ryder, rt. hon. Rd.
Wynn, C. W.
510
Wilson, sir H. W,
Bouverie, hon. B.
Yarmouth, lord
Bourne, Sturges
TELLERS.
Clive, hon. R.
Binning, lord
Drake, T. P.
Lushington, S. R.
Hope, sir W.
PAIRED OFF.
Needham, hon. F.
Blackburne, John
Smith, Ashton
MINORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Folkestone, viscount
Allen, J. H.
Farrand, Robert
Althorp, viscount
Glenorchy, viscount
Anson, sir G.
Gordon, Robert
Anson, hon. G.
Graham, Sandford
Beaumont, T. W.
Graham, J. R. G.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Grant, J. P.
Baring, sir Thomas
Griffith, J. W.
Baring, Alexander
Guise, sir W.
Baring, Henry
Gurney, Hudson
Barnard, viscount
Gurney, R. H.
Barrett, S. M.
Gaskell, Benjamin
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Haldimand, W.
Benyon, Benjamin
Hamilton, lord A.
Bernal, Ralph
Harbord, hon. E.
Birch, Joseph
Heathcote, sir G.
Brougham, Henry
Heron, sir Robert
Browne, Dom.
Hill, lord A.
Bright, Henry
Hobhouse, J. C.
Burdett, sir F.
Honywood, W. P.
Bury, viscount
Hornby, Edmund
Byng, George
Howard, hon. W.
Blake, sir F.
Hughes, W. L.
Bentinck, lord W.
Hume, Joseph
Benett, John
Hurst, Robert
Belgrave, viscount
Hutchinson, hon, C.
Calcraft, John
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Calcraft, J. H. jun.
James, W.
Calvert, Charles
Jervoise, G. P.
Calvert, Nicholas
Kennedy, T. F.
Campbell, hon. J.
Langton, J. H.
Carew, R. S.
Lamb, hon. W.
Carter, John
Lennard, T. B.
Cavendish, lord G.
Lemon, sir W.
Cavendish, Henry
Lloyd, sir E.
Chaloner, Robert
Lloyd, E. M.
Clifford, captain
Lushington, Stephen
Clifton, viscount
Maberly, John
Coke, T. W. jun.
Maberly, W. L.
Colburne, N. R.
Macdonald, J.
Concannon, Lucius
Mackintosh, sir J.
Coussmaker, G.
Madocks, W. A.
Crespigny, sir W.
Martin, John
Curwen, J. C.
Maxwell, John
Creevey, Thomas
Milbank, Mark
Davies, T. H.
Milton, viscount
Denison, W. J.
Monck, J. B.
Denman, Thomas
Moore, Abraham
Duncannon, viscount
Moore, Peter
Dundas, hon. T.
Marjoribanks, sir J.
Dickinson, W.
Mahon, hon. S.
Ebrington, viscount
Neville, hon. R.
Ellice, Edward
Newman, R. W.
Ferguson, sir P. C.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Nugent, lord
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
O'Callaghan, J.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Ord, W.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Ossulston, lord
511
Palmer, colonel
Stanley, lord
Palmer, C. F.
Stuart, lord J.
Parnell, sir Henry
Sykes, Daniel
Pierce, Henry
Sebright, sir John
Pelham, hon. C, A.
Talbot, R. W.
Phillips, G. R.
Taylor, M. A.
Phillips, George
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Tynte, C. K.
Power, Richard
Townshend, lord C.
Powlett, hon. W.
Tennyson, C.
Price, Robert
Titchfield, marq. of
Prittie, hon. F. A.
Webbe, Edward
Pryse, Pryse
Western, C. C.
Pym, Francis
Wharton, John
Ramsden, J. C.
Whitbread, W. H.
Ricardo, David
Whitbread, Samuel C
Rice, T. S.
Wilkins, Walter
Robarts, A. W.
Williams, T. P.
Robarts, G.
Williams, W.
Robinson, sir George
Wilson, sir Robert
Rowley, sir W.
Wood, alderman
Rumbold, Charles
Wyvill, M.
Russell, lord W.
Wetherell, C.
Russell, lord John
Whitmore, W. W.
Russell, R. G.
TELLERS.
Ramsbottom, John
Lambton, John G.
Rickford, William
Tavistock, marq. of
Scott, James
PAIRED OFF.
Smith, hon. Robert
Aubrey, sir John
Smith, John
Coffin, sir I.
Smith, Samuel
Grenfell, Pascoe
Smith, Abel
Mostyn, sir Thomas
Smith, George
Noel, sir G.
Smith, William
Osborne, lord F.
Scarlett, James
White, Duke
Scudamore, R. P.
Williams, Owen
Seifton, earl of
Wilmington, sir E.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 8, 1821.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Lord Ebrington
presented a petition from South Moulton, condemning the proceedings against the Queen, and praying for an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the Milan commission. His lordship stated, that 976 signatures had been affixed to this petition in a space of eight days; and that he could bear testimony to the respectability of many of those signatures. On the other hand, the corporation address of the same town, which address contained many unnecessary protestations of loyalty, had received only 183 signatures in a longer space of time, and five were those of excisemen. The noble lord opposite had observed, that the good sense of the country was to be collected from corporation addresses. Now, it was a fact, that several of those who signed the loyal address of South Moulton had also affixed their names to the petition he had the honour to present.
512
Mr. Monck
presented petitions from Hungerford and Newbury, complaining of the distresses under which the petitioners laboured, and praying for the discontinuance of any further proceedings against her majesty, and the restoration of her name to the Liturgy. Adverting to the depression of trade at Newbury, the hon. gentleman observed, that that place had formerly returned members to parliament, but had been relieved from doing so by its own prayer. At that period members of parliament received wages from their constituents. If such were the case at present—if other boroughs, which, like Newbury, had lost their trade, were compelled to pay wages to their representatives, he believed that one and all would petition to be disfranchised. But circumstances were now very different. If many of the boroughs had lost their regular trade, they had found a new, but he feared a contraband one, although it did not appear to be at all offensive to the gentlemen of the Treasury. He trusted that parliament would attend to the public feeling, which had been so strongly expressed with reference to her majesty. He was not one of those who held that the old maxim "Vox populi vox Dei," was to be acknowledged on all occasions. Sometimes he knew that the people were mistaken. For instance, in the cry some years ago, of "No popery;" a cry encouraged by ministers themselves, and to the prevalence of which they were indebted for their power. Such an expression of popular sentiment was far from being identified with consummate wisdom. But, whenever the expression of public feeling was reasonable, even whenever it was harmless, it ought to be attended to. He was persuaded that the public tranquillity would not be restored until her majesty's name was restored to the Liturgy.
Mr. Denison
presented a petition from the freeholders of Surrey. It prayed for economical reform, the abolition of useless offices, and the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. No county was more loyal than the county of Surrey; and he believed that the prayer of their petition was that of nine-tenths of the people of this country. Whatever taunts might be thrown out against petitioning by the noble lord opposite, he hoped the people would never be prevented from exercising that valuable and constitutional right.
513
Lord Althorp
bore testimony to the respectability of the meeting. United as the country evidently was, as to the expediency of restoring her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he thought it would be hardly possible for the House to resist so unanimous a declaration.
Mr. W. L. Maberly,
said, that ministers ought to have resigned their places rather I than have instituted the proceedings against the Queen.
Sir W. De Crespigny
deplored, that a period should have arrived when county meetings were treated with contempt. It was the only mode by which the people could state their wrongs and speak their wishes.
Mr. Calvert
observed, that the noble lord opposite had declared that ministers had no wish to remain longer in office than while they possessed the confidence of the country. If the opinion of a great and opulent county, such as Surrey, would have any weight with the noble lord, he would refer him for that opinion even to the hon. member for Surrey, who had not been intrusted to present the petition of his constituents, and who could inform the noble that a more respectable and orderly meeting had never been assembled. And what was the result? That, when the question was put to the vote, there were about half a dozen hands held up against 3 or 400. The hon. member for Surrey complained that his friends were not present. Why they were not present he knew not, unless they thought that the cause which the hon. gentleman wished them to support was too bad a one to be countenanced.
Mr. H. Sumner
said, he did not wish to impeach the respectabiltty of the meeting at Epsom. All he maintained was, that those who received the opinion of a meeting of about 400 persons as the Opinion of the county of Surrey, laboured tinder a great delusion. The hon. gentleman had asked, why his (Mr. S. 's) friends had not attended the meeting? The fact was, that the language of the requisition, was so moderate, that although, as one of the members for the county, he thought it his duty to be present, in order to give any explanation that might be required of his conduct, he had discouraged many who had applied to him on the subject from attending. The requisition was merely for a meeting to petition for the discontinuance of further
514
Mr. Macdonald
declared, that he had moved the resolution of which the hon. gentleman complained, because he thought it his duty as a freeholder of the county of Surrey to do so. The conduct of a representative in parliament was always a fair subject for criticism at a county meeting, and he should have thought that the hon. gentleman would have felt that his conduct on the subject respecting which the meeting were convened, must be so fresh in their minds, that it could not escape scrutiny. Nor had he any right to complain of want of generosity, who had recently exhibited so egregious a want of that quality. In the animadversions which he had felt it his duty to make on the hon. gentleman's conduct, he had not adverted to any hearsay information. He had spoken of facts which were as clear as day, of the course which the hon. gentleman had pursued in that House. As to the period of making his motion, it was impossible that he could have made it before the original resolutions on which the petition was founded, were agreed to. He denied, therefore, that his conduct had been either unmanly or ungenerous. He had merely given effect to what were decidedly the wishes of the meeting.
Mr. Maberly
said, he never witnessed an expression of greater disapprobation of the parliamentary conduct of a repre-
515
Mr. Denman
said, that as so much had been said on the subject of the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, he felt it his duty to take this, the earliest opportunity in his power of declaring his sentiments. From what had lately occurred, and more particularly after the extraordinary speech of the noble lord opposite the night before last, it appeared to him more than ever necessary that the people should press for the restoration of her majesty's name to the liturgy. It was very painful for him to be obliged to say, that since the abandonment of the bill of Pains and Penalties, there had been more unjust, more iniquitous, and more cruel calumnies heaped up against the Queen than even before the introduction of that measure. Was it not time to require that justice should be done the Queen, when her prosecutors had the hardihood to boast of the bundles of depositions containing evidence against her majesty, which they had refrained from producing at the trial? Could any thing be more despicable than this declaration of the existence of evidence which they flared not produce where it could have been rebutted? Although the proceedings against the Queen had commenced in her condemnation before proof was offered—although they were carried on with the mean and miserable shuffling of withholding from her majesty, during the process, the rank and title which was
516
ex parte
517
518
Castlereagh
Mr. Denman
rose to order. He had spoken as a member of parliament, and
519
The Speaker
said, if the House thought that the noble lord had exceeded the freedom of debate, then he could have no hesitation in saying that the noble lord was disorderly; but he did not think that the passage of the speech alluded to, conveyed an attack of a personal kind.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that nothing was further from his intention than to reflect personally upon the learned gentleman. Indeed he thought he had diminished rather than increased the effect of the learned gentleman's sentiments, and which, from the variance they presented at one moment from those uttered at another, and particularly in conjunction with his learned colleague (Mr. Brougham), certainly were calculated to lead to the notion, that at one moment the learned gentlemen were delivering their own opinions, while at another they were merely speaking from their briefs. But certainly, as the learned gentleman spoke now as a member of parliament, and not as a counsel, he should have taken care to state accurately the contents of his (lord C's.) speech. Now, as to what had been said respecting the circulation of particular speeches, why should the gentlemen opposite complain that authentic copies of particular speeches had been circulated throughout the country? What else could they expect. If, indeed, the gentlemen opposite had been silent when the bill was withdrawn, then they might expect that others would have followed their example; but had the gentlemen opposite pursued that prudent course? Had they not, at the different meetings throughout the country, arraigned, in the most severe terms, the motives and conduct of ministers during the late transactions—had they not, in the most unsparing terms, attacked both their public and private motives, and charged them with eliciting nothing but "filthy lies." The hon. gentlemen opposite were to have free warren and free chace against ministers,—they were to have all the battle to themselves—they were to handle every topic of irritation, and ministers were not to be allowed to raise a hand in their own defence. They were to allow that part of the press which was in the pay of her majesty to cast forth sentiments and expressions so base as to find no parallel in the whole range of the public press; and yet it was to be held a high crime and
520
Mr. Denman
said, that with respect to the attack on the witnesses at Dover, that circumstance never came within his knowledge. With respect to certain witnesses having been on the road, he did not know that fact, and he did not believe it.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the fact had been proved on oath.
Mr. Hume
called upon the noble lord distinctly to state what papers were in the pay of her majesty.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the members for Somerset and Surrey had
521
l.
Mr. Honeywood
presented a similar petition from the county of Kent. The high sheriff, notwithstanding the requisition was signed by the most respectable inhabitants, had refused to convene a
522
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that, generally speaking, he thought it was the duty of the sheriff to call a meeting, when he was satisfied with the respectability of the requisition. In this instance, the sheriff, after some deliberation, had felt it his duty to decline calling the meeting, because he thought the general feeling of the county was against the meeting; and it should be remarked, that when he had so refused, there could not be found five magistrates in the county to convene the meeting.
Sir R. Wilson
avowed himself one of the requisitionists alluded to. The high sheriff had only to look to the number and respectability of the signatures, without any reference to the sentiments of the county. This was one more instance of the impolicy of the noble lord's bill on this subject.
Dr. Lushington
thought, that a more complete exemplification of the impolicy of the noble lord's bill had never been presented. It was now come to that pass, that when a requisition, signed by four or; five peers, and sundry other persons holding rank in the county, was presented to a high sheriff, it was refused to be complied with under the enactments of this act. This was not at all to be wondered at, when it was considered who the sheriffs were. They were nominated by the Crown, and the magistrates were under the same nomination. The lord lieutenant appointed them; and it frequently happened, that they elected those who agreed with them in political opinion. The system now acted upon came to this—that you cannot have a county meeting, unless you find five magistrates holding the same political opinions with yourself. The sheriff now, by his single fiat, took upon himself to determine whether or not a county meeting should be held. He would say, the sheriff had no right to take the object of the meeting into his consideration, before he complied with
523
After some further conversation, the petitions were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.
TRADE OF BIRMINGHAM—PETITION
Mr. Dugdale
rose to present a petition from the merchants, manufacturers, and traders, of the town of Birmingham. To this important document he begged to call the serious attention of the House. It was proper to state that this petition was agreed upon at a very numerous meeting, held in the month of August last; but owing to the different adjournments of the House, there had not been any possibility of presenting it till the present time. The petitioners stated, that on the 12th of May last they did present a petition to the hon. House, praying that a solemn inquiry might be instituted by it into the causes of the national distress, and praying that some measures might be adopted for relieving it. They set forth, that it appeared to them no legislative measure had yet been adopted for the purposes of such relief, excepting only the appointment by parliament of a committee for the extension of the foreign trade; but they humbly submitted that the home trade was at all times a matter of paramount interest. The petitioners further stated, that the present state of their trade, and consequently of those numerous classes who were dependent upon it, was deplorable. In order to get more accurate information as to the state of Birmingham in this respect, a committee was appointed by the petitioners some time back to inquire into the consumption of meat, beer, and other necessaries in the town, as compared with the year 1818; and the result was, that a most material diminution of the consumption of such articles was found to have taken place, and this, it was unnecessary to add, had existed principally among the lower classes. At the present moment it was not his intention to enlarge upon the subjects to which the petitioners had referred. He would, however, say, that the public books of the country were a
524
Mr. Lawley
thought it his duty to recommend the prayer of the petitioners to the most serious attention of the House. It was entitled to serious consideration, not merely from the number and respectability of the petitioners, but from the importance of the statements it contained. The petitioners had divided themselves into small parties, in order to ascertain, in the different parts of the town, the state of the consumption of articles of necessary use, and they
525
Mr. Littleton
observed, that if similar inquiries to those made in Birmingham had been instituted in the south-west of the county of Stafford, the same results would have been found. He believed, though the petitioners only hinted at it, that if a committee should be appointed, a great part of the distress complained of would be found to have resulted from what had been, he would admit, very properly, done by government with respect to the metallic currency, and the limitation of issues from the batiks. He had, however, every reason to hope that confidence would soon be restored in this respect. He had heard from several gentlemen connected with the manufacturers in Birmingham, that a great deal of business had been done on paper credit, which must necessarily have been since reduced in proportion to the great reduction of issues from the country banks. This was a great check, and though it could not be said to operate at present, yet it had operated to a very considerable extent at the period when those limitations took place. The petitioners, it appeared, did not attribute the distress of which they complained, to the cessation of the demand for the articles in their trade, at the termination of the war; but they had not carried their inquiries farther back than two years. If they had carried them back for the last five years, he was of opinion that they would have found, that that cause had operated very materially in producing the distress which was now felt. When he considered the very great extent to which the trade, in articles of military furniture, had been carried on in Birmingham, the great quantity of swords, guns, stirrups, and other such articles which were constantly in demand; when he considered the large armaments which were fitted out in almost every part of Europe, and the liberal assistance which
526
Mr. Curwen,
having been requested to support the prayer of this petition, could not suffer it to pass without a few observations. The iron trade was a most important branch of our manufactures; and from the skill and capital engaged in
527
l.
528
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
529
Mr. Littleton
begged to explain, that he did not mean distinctly to propose a property tax, but had stated that it was just that some share of the public burdens should be laid on that monster of consumption, the funded interest.
Mr. Curwen
said, that if what he had alleged was the real state of the case, he would wish to know whether the noble lord meant to adopt as his maxim the ob servation of one of his colleagues, namely, "sufficient to the day was the evil thereof." The number of unemployed hands in the country was daily increasing, and the weight of taxation was bearing the farmer to the ground. If government would go into the examination of these things, it should have his support. This was a time that called on every man to forget party, and to join heart and hand to endeavour to extricate the country from its embarrassments. Some gentlemen were afraid of parliamentary reform, some were afraid of Catholic emancipation, and others had some similar cause of apprehension; but he believed the time was coming, when they would have nothing to do, and, therefore, nothing to fear. If that moment did arrive, men of property and consequence might feel themselves compelled to resort to measures at which they would now tremble.
Mr. W. Peel
believed the allegations
530
Mr. Robinson
remarked upon some of the objects of the petition, and deprecated, in strong terms, any attempt to abrogate the Bank-payments act, which had been passed only two years ago, and also deprecated the resorting to any remedy for the national distress, which should be founded on a breach of the public faith. He could not contemplate any thing more unjust, or whose tendency would be more fatal. He begged those gentlemen who made such a proposal with the view of reaching the great fundholder, to consider what in such a case would be the state of the small fundholder, whose whole means of existence were dependent upon the observance of the public faith? He considered the proposition neither honourable nor useful; but, if any motion was founded on the petition, he would give it his anxious attention, as no one was more inclined to favour every inquiry which could tend to the relief of the country.
Mr. Baring
was surprised that the right hon. gentleman had sat down without expressing more of his feelings oh the specific subject before the House. In what he had said with respect to the interest of the national debt, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman; and if there was one subject on which every honest and honourable man in the country were united, it was that; for that country could have no honesty and no honour, which, after passing through a war like the last, by borrowing money of some of its subjects, should in peace refuse to make good its engagements. He was sure the benefits calculated upon from such an expedient would not be realised, and, that in a country like this, one description of property could not be touched without endangering every other. The hon. gentleman would find, if the mortgage which the public creditors had on the property of the country were disregarded, that his own title-deeds would soon be worth nothing.—
Mr. Curwen
wished to keep good faith with the public creditor, if that,
531
Mr. Baring
resumed. Undoubtedly it had been proposed by many gentlemen to pay off the public debt by means of a sacrifice of property on all sides; and such a doctrine had even been supported by high authority in that House. He himself had always considered it impracticable. The sacrifice of general property must be at all times, and in all countries, attended with much danger. When his hon. friend spoke of impossibility, as the reason why such a plan should not be adopted, he would say, that he never considered it impossible to pay debts as long as the party owing them possessed a farthing of property. The petition brought the House to the consideration of the general concerns and state of the country; for although it presented a correct representation of the state of Birmingham, it was also a true picture of the whole nation. There was no interest in deeper distress than the agricultural interest; and that was certainly a most important consideration for the House, and most particularly for country gentlemen. For that reason he had been surprised to see the right hon. gentleman sit down without adverting to so interesting a topic. It was a serious thing, that the sixth year of peace should find the nation in such a state, that a speech from the throne represented no one of its interests to be in a state of prosperity. He was not to be considered as a party man upon this subject, and he hoped that all would come to it, without any of those differences of opinion, which arose from party motives. Nothing was so urgent and important as a strict examination into the causes of our present state—a state, he was convinced, not resulting from the cessation of war, for the petitioners themselves proved it. They stated that the year 1818 was a year of comparative prosperity; and that since that year their distresses had been accumulating. They also said, that their local distress originated in the great depression of the American market. The Americans had formerly sold their flour for 10 dollars, and could now get only three dollars and three quarters. The consequence of this was, that the manufacturers of Birmingham, who had worked more exclusively for the American market, felt a great diminution in the
532
s.
l.
l.,
533
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.;
l.
l.
l.
534
s.
s.
s.
s.
535
Mr. Western
was of opinion, that much good would result from an inquiry. The petitioners stated, that the year 1818 was one of comparative prosperity. This was also the case with agriculture. This proved the union of the two interests, and that whilst the one flourished, the other prospered.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that if the House would indulge him for a few minutes, he should be desirous to make one or two allusions to what had fallen from his hon. friend below. The great point to which, his hon. friend had addressed himself as the origin of the prevailing distress. By some persons this was ascribed
536
s.,
s.
l.
l.
d.
l.
s.
l.
s,
l.
s.
l.
l.
s,
537
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
s.,
538
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
539
Mr. Alderman Heygate
denied that the distress was confined to the growers of corn. It was felt in the production of all articles. It extended to other countries, and especially to America, where the principles of the hon. member (Mr. Ricardo) had been pushed to their fullest extent. The hon. alderman alluded to the passing of Mr. Peel's bill, which, he contended, had produced all those evil effects, of which he had forewarned the House. The title of the bill ought to have been, "a bill to add one-third to the national debt; to add, in the same proportion, to all fixed incomes; and to subtract an equal amount from all the resources of productive capital and industry." As to the remedy which had been suggested by reducing the interest on the public debt, it was objectionable both in justice and policy. Even while parliament should be deliberating on such a measure, an immense portion of capital now vested in the funds would be transferred to other countries, never to return. Still, however he might disapprove of the late act, he should pause before he would advise its repeal, considering what had been since done to carry it into effect—how much had been already endured—and that we were now at peace, with the balance of trade improving in our favour.
Mr. Baring
proceeded to explain his
540
541
Mr. Ricardo
remarked, that the difference between his hon. friend's opinion and his own was this, that he maintained the advance of the pound sterling with reference to the price of commodities to be only about 4 or 5 percent, which was equal to the difference between the price of gold at 4
1.
s
l
s
s
d
s
d
542
Mr. Atwood
stated the fact, that during a period of two years and a half the Bank had issued rive millions and a half of sovereigns, notwithstanding which, not one was to be seen in circulation.
Mr. Hume
observed, that the fact stated by his hon. friend, with respect to the fate of the sovereigns issued by the Bank, afforded conclusive evidence of the consequence of an excessive issue of paper in driving gold out of the country; for it appeared, that of the five millions and a half of sovereigns which the Bank had issued, no less than four millions had been recoined by the treasury of France.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Saturday, February 9. 1821.
TIMBER DUTIES—PETITION FROM
Mr. Marryat
rose and said;—Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a petition from the merchants, ship-owners, and magistrates of Miramichi, in the province of New Brunswick, setting forth the vital importance of the timber trade to the inhabitants of the British provinces in North America, and praying that this House will not suffer it to be placed on a footing less favourable to them than it is at present. It may be proper to premise, that such is the importance of Miramichi, that of 1,520 British vessels employed in the timber trade with our North American colonies, in the year 1819, no less than 297 loaded in that port alone—Statements from the inhabitants of the colonies themselves, how far their prosperity is likely to be affected by any legislative measures of the mother country, bearing upon their productions and commerce, are highly important, as they serve to correct misapprehensions and errors, into which, at this distance, we are apt to fall, for want of authentic information respecting interests so remote. The truth of this remark was never more strongly exemplified than in the present instance; for never was there a greater discordance than between the facts stated in this petition, and the report of a committee of the House of Lords, made in the last session of parliament. The variance between them is so great, that justice to these petitioners, and to the other inha-
543
544
545
s
s
d
546
1799, 1800,
1801.
1817, 1818,
1819.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
525,734
0
8
Denmark & Norway
816,791
4
0
132,146
16
6
Sweden
330,498
7
10
1,580,702
4
4
Russia
6,198,729
10
1
854,413
1
3
Prussia
1,512,475
6
10
£3,092,996
2
9
£8,858,494
8
9
547
548
l
s
d.
l
s
d
l
s.
d
l
s
d
l
549
550
551
552
s
Sir Isaac Coffin
made a few observations on the assertion of the petitioners, that all the timber brought to this country in British ships, from America, was
553
Mr. J. P. Grant
vindicated the Report of the Lords' committee. It was one of the most useful reports that had ever been made.
Mr. T. Wilson
presented a similar petition from Montreal.
Mr. Ricardo
had heard with much surprise the principles on the subject of the timber trade advocated by the hon. members who had presented the petitions. They certainly were directly the reverse of the principles laid down in the Report of the Lords' committee, which was acknowledged to be a most comprehensive and correct view of the matter.
Mr. Marryat
said, he had only contended that the petitioners ought to be allowed to remain in the same state that they were in at present. If the rates were at all lowered, the petitioners must inevitably be ruined.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS IN INDIA.]
Mr. Lambton
, seeing the president of the Board of Control in his place, begged to ask him a question relative to a report which was prevalent in India, namely, that it was the intention of his majesty's government to put in full force the censorship of the press, which had been removed by the marquis of Hastings. He wished to know whether such was the intention of his majesty's government?
Mr. Bathurst
said, he could assure the hon. member that there existed no such intention on the part of government [Hear!]. The regulations made by the marquis of Hastings were in full force, and it was the intention of government that they should remain so.
Mr. Lambton
expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the answer of the right hon. gentleman.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Sir R. Wilson
presented a petition from the operative braziers of the metropolis, praying for the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy. In presenting the petition, he took the opportunity to contradict the reports which had been spread to the prejudice of the Queen, and these petitioners, relative to the sums of money
554
l
l
l
Ordered to lie on the table;
CHESTER PETITION, COMPLAINING OF
Lord Belgrave
said, he rose to present a petition, complaining of the conduct of the high-sheriff of the county of Chester, at a late public meeting, which had been signed by 300 freeholders in the course of two days. As it would not be in his power to be present at the discussion of the motion relative to the conduct of sheriffs, which the hon. member for Northumberland meant to introduce on Wednesday next, he would take that opportunity of stating his opinion on the subject. Notwithstanding it was a question intimately connected with the rights of the subject, which appeared to him on some late occasions to have been materially invaded, he would not have troubled the House with his sentiments on it, if he had not deemed it to be his imperative duty, fearlessly,
555
556
557
558
Mr. Egerton
said, that although he was present at the meeting, he was not sufficiently near the high sheriff to hear all the proceedings. He was sorry to observe, that those proceedings were not so quiet as it could have been wished they had been. At the same time, if any thing illegal had occurred, he thought the proper mode of redress would have been to appeal to the laws. He could answer for the independence of the present high sheriff of Cheshire, and that he would not be swayed in the discharge of his duty by any party feeling. That gentleman exerted himself as much as possible to keep order at the meeting, but in vain. With respect to the amendment which had been proposed by a noble earl, and to the consequent proceedings, he repeated, that he was not near enough to the chair to form an accurate opinion.
Mr. Bright
declared, that of all the rights possessed by the people, the right of addressing the Crown and of petitioning parliament was the most valuable; and that while he had a seat in that House, he would never allow an attempt to be made to infringe that right without reprobation. Some years ago, certain bills had passed with reference to the subject of public meetings, which were considered by the majority of that House to be necessary for the tranquillity of the country. At that period he had not the honour of a seat in parliament, or he should have expressed his opinion in hostility to those bills—They had considerably limited the right of petitioning; for they left to the high sheriff, the lord lieutenant, or other constituted authorities, to call meetings of the people. He would not now ask if a high sheriff was bound to call a meeting, on a requisition to that effect being presented to
559
Mr. Bootle Wilbraham
, while he allowed that it was the bounden duty of that House carefully to watch over the sacred right of petitioning, denied that the present was a case which called for its interference. What were the facts of the case? The high sheriff of Cheshire, in: compliance with a requisition made to him, had called a meeting of the county, it which he himself presided, as he had
560
561
ex parte
Mr. Creevey
said, the sheriff having been requested to call a meeting, and having complied with that request, and an amendment being proposed at the meeting by earl Grosvenor, the matter for consideration was, did he refuse to put that amendment, or did he put it in the negative? If he did, there certainly was no law to punish him, and the only course was to call him to the bar of the House—a proposition which, if the noble lord, or some other member, did not introduce, he would himself submit to the House. The hon. gentleman had alluded to a scene which took place in that House at the close of the last session. He had stated that hisses were resorted to on that occasion. Now, he was present, and could affirm that there were no hisses. With respect to other demonstrations of feeling, such as cries of "Hear! hear!" and "Shame! shame!" he was happy to be recorded as one of those who used them; because, never was there a scene so injurious to the dignity of the Crown, so disgraceful to the character of the administration that sanctioned it, or so insulting to the members of that House.
Mr. Philips
observed, that from what he had heard of the conduct of the meeting, the high sheriff had acted with partiality, and the parties who were the cause of the uproar which prevented a noble earl from being heard, had acted in a manner extremely disgraceful to themselves. He hoped the House would vindicate its privileges, and order the high sheriff to attend at the bar.
Sir. J. Newport
was of opinion that the House had a right to interfere in a case of this nature. If sheriffs were to be permitted to invest themselves with this authority over county meetings, and to refuse, on the ground of their own will and caprice, to put any reasonable proposition which might be offered to them by those who were duly qualified to attend, there would at once be an end to those privileges, the exercise of which was reserved to the people by the first principles of the constitution. It would be idle to talk of the right of petition, if such proceedings were permitted to pass without receiving the censure of the House.
562
Mr Stuart Worthy
, although he did not think that the privileges of the House were endangered on this occasion, must fairly say, that he condemned the recent conduct of several high sheriffs. Those, gentlemen could not do any thing more detrimental, or more contrary to constitutional principles, than to refuse to call a county meeting on a requisition properly signed, and when there were no circumstances which could induce them to consider such a meeting as likely to be attended by consequences dangerous to the public peace. He trusted that it would be a lesson to sheriffs, whatever might be their political opinions, not to endeavour to prevent the people from exercising one of their most valuable privileges.
Lord Belgrave
explained, that the high sheriff had the command of a corps of Yeomanry embodied soon after the 16th of August, 1819. He merely mentioned this because, at the period to which he alluded, the same care was taken in making these appointments that was now! taken among the professors of exclusive loyalty in keeping every thing for themselves. To the high sheriff of Chester he had imputed no motives, but merely related a plain fact. His conduct had led to a protest on the part of several gentlemen who were present.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
DETENTION OF A BRITISH SUBJECT AT
Mr. Denman
rose to present a petition, which he had received by that day's post, from a person who was perfectly unknown to him. The petitioner, whose name was W. M'Dougall, stated that he was detained a prisoner at Ghent, by the foreign authorities upon a charge of forging: a letter of credit in the name of a bank in Scotland, and obtaining money thereon in France. The petitioner denied the charge, and stated that, by being detained a prisoner at Ghent, he was deprived of the means of proving his innocence. He thought the subject worth the attention of the authorities at home, and entitled to immediate inquiry.
Mr. Goulburn
asked, whether the petitioner had applied to the British authorities abroad?
Mr. Denman
stated, that applications had been ineffectually made to lord Clancarty and lord Castlereagh.
563
Mr. Denman
said, he was quite aware that the full extent of the prayer of the petition could not be complied with. He thought, however, the case ought to be looked into.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he had only one alteration to propose. In the year 1816, several excise duties which had been granted during the war, were continued for a term of five years and, would expire in July, 1821; and his object was, to renew these duties for one year. The duty he proposed to continue thus from year to year was that on foreign spirits, which would have the effect of raising this branch of the annual revenue from 3,000,000
l
l
564
l
s.
Mr. Creevey
said, he had come down to the House with the intention of opposing any supply, had it been proposed by the right Hon. gentleman. He had not opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair, because he did not suspect that any vote of public money was intended; but seeing now the drift of the right hon. gentleman's resolution, he should propose, as an amendment to it, that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The House would recollect the grievances which had been stated last night from all quarters of the country, particularly from the great and formerly flourishing town of Birmingham. In the conversation which that petition had produced, opinions had been elicited which had never before been heard in that House. A most honourable and respectable country gentleman had proposed to deprive the fundholder of part of his rights, calling him "a devouring monster of consumption." Another hon. friend of his had hailed with joy this attack on the fundholder, and had expressed his anxiety to be at it. The chancellor of the exchequer might laugh at this, but what would Mr. Pitt have said, if he had heard such opinions respecting the propriety of setting one part of the community at war with another? Every gentleman who spoke last night on this subject had pressed on the House the necessity of retrenchment, but nothing in the way of relief was even hinted at by government—they heard no plan for the amelioration of distress—night after night they had before them the old story of committees of supply and ways and means; but they heard not one word about reform—not one word upon the necessity of retrenchment. Under such
565
l
566
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had reason to hope, that in the estimates of
567
l
l
Colonel Davies
said, he would not vote for any supplies until every possible economy had been resorted to, and till proper estimates were laid on the table. He now gave notice, that when the votes for the army should be proposed, he would not agree to them unless full estimates were previously laid before the House.
Mr. Lockhart
thought that, in the present distressed state of the country, the House ought not to vote one shilling of the public money without the estimates. If it were true that the country was to receive no relief either from an alteration of the present system of the currency, or from a change in the distribution of the taxes, he would ask from what source relief could come, but from the most rigid economy on the part of ministers? He was one of those who could not see why one part of the community should be drained and exhausted merely in order to pay another part. This was a system which might go on for some time; but, far from enduring for ever, they would soon find that not only would the capital of the country be ruined, but her spirit be exhausted. He lamented to hear the wild language which had been thrown out last night, when an hon. member had declared, that the taxes paid to the fund-holder were a mortgage on all the land, on the church establishment, and on all the property of the country; and that they were to pay to the last shilling, to show whether they were honest men or not. As if it was possible, in any society, that so strange an alteration could take place with common consent, that every one who was well-born, well-bred and educated, and who filled a station in the institutions of the country, should give up the whole of their property, in order to fulfil an engagement, which finally would be ruinous even to the fund-holder. These things startled him, when they came from gentlemen who were so well versed in the theories of economics. It was manifest that these opinions,
568
Mr. Hume
thought that some misunderstanding existed as to the speeches which were delivered last night by two hon. friends of his. He would shortly state the reason why he should most certainly support his hon. friend in the call which he proposed to make for a division of the House. He had himself, in common with many other members, presented he knew not how many petitions to that House, praying for a reduction of some of the present taxes. With how little effect those petitions had been introduced, it was but too unnecessary for him to state. He had understood to-night, from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he meant to continue the tax on spirits only. If, however, he had since understood the hon. chairman rightly, the proposition appeared to be to continue the tax on malt also. The proceeding of the right hon. gentleman, therefore, he could hardly consider as fair. That tax upon malt was agreed to be imposed by the House, upon the faith that in twelve months after the cessation of the war the tax should cease. He did think, that with so many petitions for the reduction of taxation before them, they ought not to grant the continuation of a single tax, until ministers explicitly stated what it was they intended to do. The chancellor of the exchequer, when asked by him some evenings ago what reduction it was proposed to make, did not think it worth while to give him any answer. He should therefore persist in opposing the resolution, seeing it was
569
l
l
l
570
Mr. R. Ward
begged to observe, that in the Ordnance department, the salaries and allowances of all the higher offices had been reduced. His own, for instance, had been reduced to about 600
l
l
l
Mr. Hume
said, that the storekeeper at Dover, whose salary during the war was 100
l
l
Mr. Ward
said, that no such thing had occurred. The storekeeper at Dover had not 500
l
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the proposition before them was simply this—to grant the annual malt-tax for one year in the same way as it ever had been granted since the reign of queen Anne. As a supply was granted, to withhold the ways and means could only tend to plunge the government into confusion. He thought
571
Sir J. Newport
was glad to hear from the right hon. gentleman opposite that the distress complained of was exaggerated. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would take an opportunity of stating what were the districts which enjoyed prosperity. With respect to the estimates, he was willing to allow that in time of war, they could not be got ready by the opening of parliament. But now that we were at peace, he saw no reasonable objection to pursuing such a course. They ought to be taken into consideration before the session, if ministers had any view to retrenchment, without being driven to it by parliament. He strongly objected to the manner in which the business of the House was transacted. It was not uncommon to see forty or fifty bills go through the different stages at the end of a session, when there were scarcely any members present. The consequence was, that the bills passed in so defective a state that they were obliged to be corrected in the next session. He recollected a bill having passed both Houses to impose a duty upon madder; in which it was afterwards discovered that the word "madder" had been entirely left out. An hon. friend near him reminded him of another case, in which a bill had passed confirming the sentence of a man who was to be imprisoned for six months.—"The half of which," it stated, "was to go to the King." The other branch of the legislature had complained that bills were sent up to them so late, that, as they had not time to examine them, they refused to pass them at all. Such facts as these must tend to disgrace the House in the eyes of the country. He hoped this subject would be taken into consideration without reference to the party from whence it came, as he disclaimed all feeling of hostility in pressing it upon the attention of gentlemen opposite.
Mr. D. Browne
admitted the existence of distress in this country, but observed, that in Ireland the case was infinitely worse; for there the agriculturists were reduced to the lowest state of depression; and as to manufacturers, there was now left scarcely any thing which deserved the name, except one
572
Mr. Gladstone
conceived that a great portion of the distress which was felt by the agriculturists arose from the excess of production above the consumption—that consumption being owing, in a great degree, to the reduction of the wages of labour. The farmer was obliged to be a seller for what, he could get, and was thus in some sort at the mercy of the consumer. He deprecated the idea going forth to the public, that the House possessed the means of applying an effectual remedy for the distresses which had been alluded to in the petition which had been presented to the House last night. The remedy must only be looked for in the gradual increase of the prosperity of the country. The accounts of a brisk demand for goods in Manchester proved that the assertion of the distresses of Birmingham being local, was not altogether incorrect. The manufacturers of Manchester raised the price of their goods in proportion to the demand; if, for instance, 100 pieces of goods were ordered, which were sold at 10
s.
s.
d.
s.
573
Mr. Western
objected to the resolution, as he was determined not to vote away any more of the public money until the agricultural distress had been fully taken into consideration. He wished to ask, whether the proposed grant was for the old annual malt tax, or whether it was a revival of the new tax. If the latter he should oppose it.
Mr. Huskisson
replied, that it was the same old tax of 1
s.
Mr. Creevey
said, he should not divide the House upon the malt tax, but upon the resolution which proposed to continue some excise duties.
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, that a most iniquitous system of regulating and collecting the taxes prevailed. He should, in a short time, submit a motion to the House, on the subject. He would prove, that there were gross defalcations, and that many of the defaulters were still in the employment of government. Without a complete change of the system, it would be impossible to make the revenue equal to the expenditure.
Sir F. Blake
wished to make a few observations on the subject of the committee of supply, of which he had been a member. It had been stated to have been a farce, upon no better grounds than that few members had been in attendance. The fact he admitted, and lamented as much as the honourable member for Appleby (Mr. Creevey) himself, but it did not follow that public duty was therefore neglected, or mismanaged. There had remained members of as great integrity and independence, as any members of that House. If the proceedings of the committee had, therefore, been a farce, they had been made so by the hon. member himself (Mr. Creevey), who had divided the committee five times without any prospect of success.
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution for the renewal of the sugar duties being put, the House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 48.
574
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Honywood, W. P.
Althorp, viscount
Hume, Joseph
Barham, J. F. jun.
Jervoise, G. P.
Barrett, S. M.
Lloyd, J. M.
Bernal, Ralph
Lockhart, J. J.
Bright, Henry
Martin, John
Caulfield, hon. H.
Maxwell, John
Chaloner, Robert
Monck, T. B.
Crespigny, sir W. de
Moore, Peter
Davies, T. H.
Newman, R. W.
Denison, William
Nugent, lord
Duncannon, viscount
Palmer, C. F.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Parnell, sir Henry
Ebringtbn, viscount
Ramsden, J. C.
Ellice, Edward
Ricardo, David
Farrand, Robert
Rice, T. S.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Robarts, George
Fitzgerald, Hon. M.
Smith, hon. R.
Glenorchy, viscount
Sykes, Daniel
Gordon, Robert
Western, C. C.
Guise, sir Wm.
Whitbread, Sam. C.
Haldimand, W.
Wood, alderman
Hamilton, lord A.
Wyvill, M.
Harbord, hon. E.
TELLER.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Creevey T.
BOARD OF CONTROL.]
Mr. Hume
to submit to the House the motion of which he had given notice, and of which the object was, to ascertain whether the president of the board of Control, had vacated his seat. He had no doubt, from the examination which he had made, that, if the appointment of the right hon. gentleman corresponded with the time of taking his seat, he was free from the penalty. But that could not be known to the House without the warrant of the right hon. gentleman's appointment. When any motion for reform was made from his side of the House, there was an outcry by the other side against innovation. Yet, by the other side of the House, were the most dangerous innovations made on the constitution. Not one of the four right hon. gentlemen, whom he saw opposite, could hold a seat in that House by the act of queen Anne, or could vote away public money, as they had done in the division which had just taken place. The great objection to Mr. Fox's bill had been, that it gave patronage to the Crown, and occasioned expenses to the India company. When the board of Control was originally constituted, Mr. Pitt gave a distinct pledge to the country that the commissioners should perform the duties without pay or salary, and that they should have no patronage from the East India company. From the year 1784 to 1793, the commissioners had no salaries, and conse-
575
l
l
l
Mr. Bathurst
did not rise to object to the motion, but to observe, in the first place, that it would have been more consistent with parliamentary practice, if the hon. gentleman had waited till the documents were laid on the table, before he commenced his general remarks upon the character and functions of the board of Control. The hon. gentleman quarrelled, first, with the particular appointment in question, then with the construction put
576
Mr. Creevey
said, he did not mean to insinuate that the patronage enjoyed was turned into money, but it was presented by the directors upon an understanding, and was, of course, used in the ordinary way. It should be remembered, also, that cadetships and writerships were provisions for life, and of more value than a few thousand pounds which the president might himself receive. He was inclined to think, upon a fair construction of the different acts, that the office must be considered as one of profit and emolument.
Mr. W. Smith
acquitted the right hon. gentleman of all suspicion that he received any salary for the office. But the question to be considered was, whether the gift of that office did not increase the power of the Crown? No one could suppose that the right hon. gentleman would support administration any more than he had done before; but the question was upon the principle, and with-
577
l
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
contended, that the right hon. gentleman's appointment was an evident violation of the act of parliament. All his predecessors had vacated their seats on receiving it; and he could see no security against the object of the act being defeated, if so important an office as the one in question could be held without vacating a seat during the session of parliament, on pretence that no salary was received during that period. Such a precedent might be extended to other offices, and the salaries taken when ever parliament was not sitting. But without reference to this possibility, the appointment in question was a constant source of influence. Many would be very glad to exchange the lucrative advantages of office for the enjoyment of extensive patronage. For his own part, he had no doubt he should materially increase his influence among his constituents, by distributing among them I now and then a few writerships and cadetships, and he would do the right hon. gentleman the justice to believe that he would prefer the acquisition of influence to that of money. He should be sorry to accuse him of disingenuousness, when: he said that no patronage was attached to his office, because it belonged, in the first instance, to another body, with whom the Board of Control maintained a civil understanding. The president of that board, he understood, had always in effect a greater portion of patronage than was annexed to any other office in the gift of the Crown. When lord Melville, a distinguished Scotchman, was at the head of the board, aspiring young Scotchmen were to be found in every corner of India. Under one of his successors, Ireland had sent forth her sons to the same quarter; and now lie presumed the right hon. gentleman meant to give England her due share. At all events, he trusted
578
Lord Althorp
understood the act of Anne to have been passed, not so much for the purpose of depriving the Crown of any influence which it might derive from the offices which it held in its gift, as for the purpose of affording the constituents of any member who might accept office an opportunity of deciding whether they would re-elect him.
Mr. T. Courtemay
explained the routine of the business attached to the board to which the hon. member is secretary. There was no salary attached to the office; and as to the argument respecting patronage, he should not condescend to reply to it. There could certainly be no doubt that the patronage of the Crown created obligation; but the same argument would apply to ribbands and all other honours which emanated from the King. In short, if the argument could hold, there would be no point to which it might not be carried.
Mr. Denman
wished to know, if the right hon. gentleman did not receive the salary usually attached to his office, what became of it? It was rumoured, that the right hon. gentleman received no part of it himself, but reserved it for another right hon. gentleman who had lately held the office, and who was now absent from the country [Cries of "No, no"]. If that were the case, was it distributed amongst the other commissioners? Or was it saved to the public?
Lord Binning
would not have troubled the House on this question, had it not been for the allusion just made to his right hon. friend, the late president of the Board of Control. Where, in the name of God, had the hon. gentleman heard of this rumour? Why had he mentioned it? Was the character of public men to be thus loosely sported with? His right hon. friend would be the last man in the world to receive the emoluments of an office, the duties of which he did not perform.
Mr. Denman
stated, that he had made no insinuation. He had only alluded to that which was generally reported, and which had appeared in the newspapers.
Mr. S. Bourne
said, he could not envy the feelings of the learned gentleman who could impute to his right hon. friend, in his absence, a participation in so corrupt an arrangement. Where was his authority? Who had dared to state it? He
579
Mr. Denman
said, he had made no insinuation against the character of the right hon. gentleman, but had put what he conceived to be a fair question. Political malignity to that right hon. gentleman's predecessor he felt none. The soreness which the two hon. members had exhibited was no very great compliment to their right hon. friend.
Mr. Astell
did not see any thing reprehensible in the manner in which the question had been put. He bore his testimony, as an East India director to the efficient and cordial manner in which the late president of the Board of Control had exercised the duties of his office. He had heard, with great satisfaction, that the company would be benefitted to the amount of the salary by the present appointment.
Colonel Davies
wished to know what was to be done with this salary.
Mr. Bathurst
said, that it would he a saving out of the sum granted by the East India company.
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 12. 1821
MACHINERY—PETITION OF ROPEMAKERS.]—
Sir R. Wilson
rose to present a petition from the Journeyman Rope Makers of the metropolis, signed by 700 individuals. The petitioners stilted the deep distress into which they were plunged in consequence of the application of machinery to certain branches of their profession. By the introduction of machinery into the trade, two-thirds of the workmen formerly employed were prevented from earning a livelihood. The machine of which they complained was called "The Devil," which, with the assistance of six or seven men, performed the same quantity of work, which previously occupied ninety-seven. The petitioners stated that the work so done, was extremely imperfect, and would of course injure the character of that manufacture in foreign countries. In conclusion, the petitioners expressed a wish to place this "devil" in more immediate connexion with the chancellor of the exchequer—to whom they recommended the propriety of laying a tax on it. The question for the consideration of the House
580
Mr. Curwen
observed, that on a former occasion, when a petition was presented remonstrating against the undue use of machinery, and praying for a restraint upon it, a long discussion had taken place, in the course of which, it appeared to be the unanimous opinion of all the most intelligent members of the House, that the discouragement of machinery would be highly injurious to the country; an opinion in which he believed the petitioners themselves afterwards concurred.
Ordered to lie on the table.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Guilford, setting forth the deep alarm they felt at what they conceived to be a great infraction of the law of the land, namely, the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, which they viewed as likely to lead to other infractions. They called on the House, therefore, to interpose; and also, to take into consideration, the present distressed state of the country, and the necessity of effecting a reform of parliament. The striking of the Queen's name from the Liturgy was one of the most important circumstances that had occurred for years. After hearing all the arguments that had been adduced respecting it, he felt more and more confirmed in the opinion that it was an illegal act. Much reliance had been placed on the case of the queen of George 1st, but that case was not at all in point, as there had; been a dissolution of the marriage in the Consistorial court. At that time also, there were two very strong factions in the country, one in favour of the house of Hanover, the other in favour of the house of Stuart, and history plainly showed how powerful the influence of the latter was. In such a state of things, care was of course taken, not to do any act that seemed likely to increase that influence. Besides, the wife of George 1st, never was recognised as possessing any of the rights of the queen of
581
Mr. Butterworth
presented a petition from Dover, praying that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy, that a reform of parliament might be effected, and that the House would turn its attention to the business of the country. He begged leave to correct a gross misrepresentation of a few words which he had used in that House a short time since. An hon. member for Yorkshire had stated, on the night to which he alluded, that many individuals had been actuated by party views in supporting the motion of a noble lord. On that occasion, he (Mr. B.) felt himself called on to state his motive for giving the vote he had done on the noble lord's motion; but, in doing so, he did not say one word respecting the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, although he had been represented as giving a very strong opinion on that subject.
Mr. Littleton
, as the hon. member had entered into some explanation of his own opinions, in consequence of a misapprehension which existed with respect to them, hoped he might also be permitted to explain a very general misrepresentation as to what had fallen from him on the night on which the petition from Birmingham was presented. What he had suggested on that occasion was, whether it might not be possible, with reference to the relief of the agriculturists and the poor manufacturer, to substitute for some of the existing taxes a tax on land and on the holders of the national debt, which should have the shape of a modified property tax? The proposition of the hon. member for Cumberland,
582
Mr. Curwen
said, that what he had stated on the occasion alluded to, resolved itself into two points. He had stated, that he conceived funded property to be equally liable, in reason, law, and principle, as any other species of property, to be applied to the exigencies of the state. He knew of no distinction of property that should exempt that of the fundholder; and if that House had thought proper to call on him to support the expenses of war, he did not think it was at all unfair to call on him to contribute towards the expenses of peace. The Bank Restriction act had raised the value of funded property, and depressed that of land at least 25 per cent. An hon. member had, some time since, observed, that the land ought not to be let at such high rents. If the hon. member had examined the subject, he would have found that the rents had been very much lowered. He thought it was nothing more than just that the funded proprietor should fare as other bodies did, and that they should share in that depreciation which every other species of property had suffered.
Sir C. Burrell
said, he would be one of the last men in the world to propose any thing that might appear to be a breach of the public credit. At the same time, he thought a remedy might be devised for the existing evil without any such breach. An intelligent individual had suggested to him that a considerable sum might be raised by imposing a tax, perhaps to the value of a shilling percent, on the transfer of stock. It would assist in discouraging speculation, would afford some relief from the pressure of existing taxation, and would do no injury to public credit.
Mr. Grenfell
did hope his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, had risen, to explain some misapprehension of his meaning on a former night. To reduce the interest of the national debt would
583
Ordered to lie on the table.
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT
Lord John Russell
, in rising to move the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee upon this bill, said, he had little more to do than to repeat the sentiments he had expressed when this question was last under the consideration of the House. Upon the necessity of passing this bill of disfranchisement in the particular case of Grampound, he thought there could be no doubt—The only question, then, for consideration was, to what place the transfer of the elective franchise should be made. For his part, he gave a decided preference to Leeds; he thought the elective franchise could not be better disposed of than by transferring it to a large town of that description. By that means the House would at once punish the corruption which prevailed at Grampound, and let into the representation of the country a large class of respectable householders who were at present without the enjoyment of the elective franchise. It was a fact which, on such an occasion as this, required great attention, that out of twelve of the largest towns in England, five were totally without representation in that House. The county of York contained, he believed, 6,000 square miles, and one million of inhabitants, and was represented by only 30 members, while the county of Cornwall, which was in every respect inferior, had 44 members in that House. With respect to a proposition already talked of, to move an instruction to the committee that the transfer of the elective franchise from Grampound should be to the hundreds of Pyder and Powder, that proposition he should oppose altogether. It was agreed
584
Mr. Grenfell
said, he was anxious to state that he concurred in all the opinions which had been expressed respecting this bill by his noble friend, and he was the more anxious not to give a silent vote, because he had on all previous occasions resisted all general, undefined, and, as they appeared to him, visionary plans of what were called parliamentary reform. The reason he approved of the present bill was, that it applied a proper punishment to an acknowledged abuse. Any plan of safe and practical reform, directed as this measure had been, and limited to a proper object, should at all times have his hearty concurrence.
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, objected altogether to the principle of this bill, and declared his determination to resist it in every stage. It set out with reciting what was an untruth, namely, the prevalence of bribery and corruption at the last general election for Grampound. Now it was known that the two or three last elections which had intervened since the acts of bribery were committed, were conducted in an unexceptionable manner. Whatever, therefore, might have been the former transgressions of any of the electors of Grampound, they had been since amply redeemed by their subsequent conduct. He was hostile to every species of reform, in the manner in which, it was called for by certain persons. In the particular instance of Grampound, before they tried this summary punishment, they should apply the remedy provided by the existing law, and administer the bribery oath. He could not consent to a disfranchisement for ever of the des-
585
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
contended, that the improvement in the purity of election, as evinced in the two late elections for Grampound, was to be attributed to the fact of this bill having been hanging over the heads of the electors. The bribery of Grampound was so notorious, that he would, without hesitation, consent to the disfranchisement of that borough. He approved of transfering the right of voting to Leeds, in preference to the adjoining hundreds of Pyder and Powder, which were already fully represented.
Mr. Wilson
approved of the bill, because it went to remedy a practical evil. As to the comparison between Grampound and the Bank of England, he contended, that if a blot appeared on the charter of the Bank, it should not be held sacred, after the powers intrusted to it had been abused. He thought the only way in which parliamentary reform could safely take place was, that wherever an evil was proved to exist, a suitable remedy should be applied.
Mr. Lockhart
contended, that it had been proved that the king's writ for the return of members for the borough of Grampound had been regularly construed into a writ of
venditioni exponas.
586
Sir. J. Newport
thought it singular that the hon. member who spoke last should not hesitate to pronounce for a disfranchisement which went at once to blot out two members from the representation, and should hesitate to admit a principle comparatively of minor importance, namely, the settlement of the mode in which their places should be supplied. All arrangements upon that point he thought would come better in the committee than in the present stage of the bill. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Galway, it was of course quite consistent in him, who resisted
in limine
Mr. Beaumont
said, that he was not sanguine enough to expect this bill would satisfy the advocates of reform in general; but as he thought it would do a great deal of good, he should give it his support. He differed in one respect from the general advocates of parliamentary reform, for he thought that public opinion had a greater influence upon their deliberations than was by many ascribed to it. Instead of Leeds, he should be for extending the right of voting to the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr. Davies Gilbert
said, that upon the general question of parliamentary reform he had so often declared his sentiments, that it was unnecessary for him now to repeat them. Suffice it to say, that he entirely concurred upon that question in the sentiments of the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Canning), whose absence he forcibly lamented, and who had: so ably and unanswerably reviewed the subject of Reform in his eloquent speech to his constituents. The practice of the represen-
587
Mr. Philips
said, that the honourable gentleman seemed afraid that the country should have a more free and perfect system of representation; now, he differed so much with the hon. gentleman, that he lamented that the people of England did not enjoy a fair system of representation—that the feelings of the country were not fairly represented in that House—that (in the language of Mr. Burke) it did not possess "the spirit or essence of a British House of Commons." The hon. member had acknowledged the gross corruption of Grampound, and admitted that the franchise should be taken from them. But to whom did he propose it
588
589
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, the hon. member for Bodmin, who had so well pleaded the cause of his Cornish neighbours, when he proposed that the electoral franchise should be given to the hundreds of Pyder and Powder, had omitted to state what they had done to deserve this mark of favour. He contended, that there was no greater tendency to democracy in the members for populous places, than in the members for counties or boroughs. The principle of transfer, from one town to another, had been acted upon in numerous instances, from the reign of Edward the 1st to the reign of Charles the 2nd, a space of 400 years. Within that time 140 places had been added, and 70 taken away from the representation; but as to the principle of transferring the right of representation from a borough to freeholders, where was there a precedent for that? Such a transfer was contrary to all the analogies of the constitution. The freeholders had been wont to return knights of the shires; the freemen of cities, citizens; and burghers, burgesses; but the extension of the right of voting to the freeholders of an adjoining hundred, gave a double character to the freeholders. There was no precedent for any such confusion of rights till within the last fifty years. There was no instance before that of Shoreham,—a measure extorted from the weakness of lord North's administration, and passed by small majorities in small houses. Neither was there, by such a change, any improvement in the theory of the constitution. Through the medium of the boroughs, the colonial and mercantile interests, the army, the navy, the law, did in fact furnish their share of representation to that House. But, when the right was transferred from burgesses to freeholders, a double representation was given to a class already amply represented, to the virtual disfranchisement of all others. The next, instance to Shoreham, was that of Cricklade, in 1782. Lord Rockingham's administration supporting the measure, as tending to establish what was termed in the language of
590
The Hon. J. W. Ward
said, he did not conceive, that by voting for a bill for the disfranchisement of a borough in which bribery was notorious, and for transferring the elective franchise to a populous town, he was any more giving a pledge to what was called parliamentary reform, than he should have done if he had voted
591
prima facie
592
593
594
Mr. Wynn
said he had no desire to enter into those exact and laboured calculations, which an honourable gentleman had favoured them with, of the precise proportion which the population of the different counties bore to the House of Commons. Whether or no, it was to be proposed that the present system was to be done away with altogether, or whether they were to sit there, as a cortes, to inquire if a more equal system of representation might be adopted, he should only say, that he was adverse, and ever should be adverse, to any general change. But here, as had been said by his hon. friend who spoke last, a practical and certain good was offered and might readily be effected. The hon. member for Galway, alone, had ventured to speak in favour of Grampound. But, could it be fit, after the glaring and undisguised bribery which had been proved to have existed in that borough, that it should still send members to parliament? The cases of Cricklade, Shoreham, and Aylesbury were, in some particulars, essentially different from the present. For himself, he never knew a borough, where
595
596
Mr. Robinson
wished to state the grounds upon which he was inclined to-prefer the measure which had been suggested by his hon. friend under the gallery (Mr. D. Gilbert), The question which
597
598
Mr. Maxwell
strenuously supported the principle of the bill. He entered into a history of the conduct of government towards the labouring classes of the people since the time of Henry 8th, and pointed out the justice and good policy of giving to the manufacturing classes their due weight in the state.
Mr. Wilmot
thought that the House should confine itself strictly to the consideration of applying a remedy for a specific grievance, and not mix up this subject with the general question of parliamentary reform. It was not even necessary to consider in the abstract the propriety or impropriety of extending the elective franchise to large unrepresented towns. He saw no constitutional objection to such towns being represented, but at the same time he saw the palpable inconvenience of introducing general subjects of reform into the discussion of a measure, of which the object was, to remedy a glaring abuse, and a specific grievance. In applying a punishment to the offending borough, he could not put out of his consideration the moral effect of the decision of the legislature, and he, for one, should not feel satisfied, unless the name of Grampound was expunged from the representative system. He thought it equally impolitic and inconvenient to enter into general topics of commercial distress, and therefore should offer no comment upon what had fallen from his honourable friend who preceded him. His objection to the substitution of the west riding of Yorkshire for Leeds was, that he was not aware of any constitutional precedent for the representation of a riding. He could understand why the west riding of Yorkshire should be selected as a district which might be benefited by more direct representation; but the transfer of the election from Grampound to Leeds, would equally accomplish the object, and, as he contended, in a more constitutional manner. To those who were afraid of letting in the principle of reform, he begged to say, that in that hour, when the royal assent was given to the bill for extending the right of voting for the borough of Shoreham to the freeholders of the adjoining hundred; the principle of reform was admitted and
599
Mr. Bathurst
, while he fully concurred in the propriety of applying some remedy, thought the House was bound to look to the consequences which would probably result from the measure which they should now adopt. Looking to the question now before the House as a practical question, he wished to bring it to a practical result. There were not wanting gentlemen who would consider the loss of this measure as so much gain; because, if nothing were done in this case, the refusal of the House to apply a remedy to an admitted grievance would furnish additional ground for complaint. What he wished the House to consider, therefore, was, the practical result of this measure, and in order to secure a practical benefit, he thought they ought not to take a wider range in applying a remedy, than the necessity of the case required. They were bound to look to what parliament bad done in former instances, and to apply such a remedy as was calculated to introduce as little innovation as possible into the existing state of the representation. This was the first instance of a system of reform of transferring the elective franchise: from small boroughs to large and populous parts of the country. His hon.
600
Mr. Lennard
said, that an hon. member had stated, that no seats had been lost at the last election, in consequence of hon. members having voted for the six unconstitutional bills. He did not intend to contradict the inference that must be drawn from the speech of the hon. member, that the House did not sympathize with the feelings of the people; but in justice to his constituents he must declare that he believed he owed the seat which he had the honour to have, to the disgust which was created among his constituents by the votes of the late members for Ipswich in favour of those bills. With regard to what had fallen from the president of the Board of Control, who had stated that the disfranchisement of Grampound would serve as a warning to other boroughs, it was his opinion that it would have no such effect; he had no hope that it would have any such effect. He was convinced that boroughs of the same sort would, while they continued to exist, act like other hardened delinquents: with the example of punishment before their eyes, they would still go on in their evil courses. With respect to the proposal of the noble lord to throw the elective franchise where it was most wanted, he should have thought there could be no question. Although in former cases the forfeited
601
Mr. Littleton
said, he did hope that a case so clear, so glaring as the present, would be met, not by evasive or Jesuitical conduct on the part of the House, but by that immediate infliction of condign punishment which alone would satisfy the country. If, when a case of plain, unqualified, indisputable crime was brought before the House of Commons, the people of England saw that House temporising, wavering, and endeavouring to sooth with palliatives that evil for which an obvious and an efficient remedy presented itself; if the people of England saw such a course adopted by the House of Commons, it could scarcely create surprise if those people, in the disappointment of their reasonable and honest expectations, did fall into the hands of demagogues, or visionary and vicious schemers. The people of the country were always inclined to act with honesty and justice; and, upon an occasion like the present, the House, he thought, ought to take the lead. The proposal of the noble lord seemed perfectly unobjectionable; it embodied a principle which, serving as an example to future parliaments, might preserve the country for ages to come against the danger to be apprehended from revolutionary sentiments. The objections of the hon. member for Bodmin were not, coming from that hon. member, at all surprising; but he could not see why Cornwall alone should be so peculiarly blessed with electioneering grace. To him it had always appeared most improper and most impolitic, that so many large and populous towns, furnishing so much support, both of talent and of riches, to their country, should remain unrepresented. To him it did appear,
602
Lord John Russell
, before the question was put to the vote, thought it necessary to make a few remarks upon the objections which had been urged against the motion. In the first place, he should endeavour to rescue his hon. friend (Mr. Ward) from the imputation which the president of the Board of Control had attempted to cast upon him; namely, that any hon. member who should support the present, or any proposition of reform, was exposing the constitution to serious danger; as, if the principle of reform were once admitted, no one could say to what length that principle might be carried: on the contrary, he felt that a member might consistently vote for his proposition, and yet resist any general plan of reform, or refuse his support to any measure of this nature, unless where a similar chasm was created by similar corruption, which chasm it became necessary to fill up. The hon. member for Bodmin had argued, that Cornwall did not, in fact, possess any undue share in the representation; because, truly, only five out of the 44 members returned by that county were actually resident. But this argument admitted of an answer which did not appear to be in the contemplation of the hon. gentleman; for as there was such a number of non-resident members returned for Cornwall, that number was of course taken out of the common stock of representation, and from that common stock it was proposed by his motion to have still two members returned. But instead of having these members elected by Grampound, which had forfeited its rights by corruption, or fixing that right in any part of Cornwall, the freeholders of which were already sufficiently represented, he would have it transferred to a large, populous, and important town, which had at present no direct representative in that House. This town, then, had a right to complain, while no such right could belong to the freeholders of Cornwall, even though the franchise of Grampound, or any other borough convicted of corruption in that county, should be transferred to other populous towns. The president of the Board of Control had objected to the proposed transfer of
603
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Beaumont
then moved, "That it be an instruction to the Committee, that they have power to enable the county of York to send four Members to serve in
604
Mr. N. Calvert
seconded the motion, observing, that if the right of representation were transferred to Leeds, the members returned would not be independent, as they must expect to be turned out whenever they should vote against the opinion or interests of the majority of the clothiers by whom they were returned. Such members must, indeed, support all the commercial speculations of their constituents.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
observed, that the objection urged by the last speaker against the proposed transfer of the right of returning representatives to Leeds, would operate equally against the present system of representation for all populous towns—for Westminster, Bristol, or Liverpool for instance. Putting aside all general opinions as to the necessity of parliamentary reform, here was a blot hit; and if a remedy was to be applied, let it be applied in the way best calculated to benefit the public. Now, in giving two additional members to the county of York, nothing was done for the improvement of the representation. Every freeholder in that county had someone present in the House of Commons to protect his interests; but in Leeds, as in other great towns, there was an immense body of persons in the habit of thinking much upon political subjects, who had no organ whatever in that House whereby to express themselves. It was a considerable advantage to the House to have within it the immediate representative of a large body of men, and particularly of a large body of manufacturers. With respect to the county of York itself, did the hon. member think that (as regarded the transfer which he proposed) mere instructions to the committee would be sufficient for his purpose? Much machinery must be put in action before Yorkshire could be divided into two counties. At present Yorkshire had but one sheriff and but one county court; in the event of division, there must be two sheriffs and two county courts. The proposal of the hon. member brought with it many other disadvantages. Yorkshire was accustomed to meet as a whole county, and it was the boast of its inhabitants that it carried with it more weight, from its great extent, than any county in England.
605
Mr. Alderman Heygate
supported the extension of the right to the town of Leeds. He thought its adoption would give satisfaction to the country.
Mr. H. Sumner
supported the amendment. An hon. gentleman had spoken very properly and impressively of the benefits resulting from an adequate representation of the trading interests. He was aware how powerful that interest was, and that it would secure its own adequate representation. The House recollected the consequences which followed in Yorkshire, when a noble lord, now called to the upper House (lord Lascelles), had ventured to oppose the clothing interest. It so drew on him the displeasure of that interest, that he was turned out of his seat on the next election. He considered it no small additional objection to conferring the representation on a large town rather than
606
The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 126: Majority against the Instruction, 60. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
QUEEN'S ANNUITY BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the blank be filled up with the sum of 50,000
l.
Mr. Alderman C. Smith
rose to state the reasons which induced him to object to the proposed grant. Notwithstanding the disgusting nature of the details exhibited by the evidence on the late trial of her majesty, he had felt it his duty to give his most serious attention to so very important a subject, and the result was, that he could not conscientiously agree, even if he could overlook the past, that so large a sum should be entrusted to such hands. He was persuaded the Queen had got those persons about her who would persuade her, notwithstanding her expressed determination to the contrary, to accept the proferred bounty of parliament, and he much feared, from the well-known character of those persons, that the greater part of this immense sum would be applied to increase that ferment, and perpetuate those disturbances which had so long injured the public interests. In another point of view, he was disposed to consider the sum too large. He thought ministers would not be justified in recommending, at this period of distress, so large a provision for the Queen. He could not pass over this subject, without referring to another burthensome charge on the public; he meant, the immense annuity now enjoyed by the prince of Saxe Coburg. He professed the sincerest respect for the memory of the Princess Charlotte; but he would say, that the object which the country bad in giving that enormous income to the husband of the nation's
607
Mr. Baring
observed, with reference to one of the clauses, that it declared the present provision to be in bar of all other claims as well as of dower. If the Queen were a consenting party to this bill, such an arrangement might be unobjectionable; but it did not appear just to deprive her of any right, where she declined receiving: what was tendered in lieu of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the words were unnecessary. The Queen Consort had no title to dower, inasmuch as the Crown lands were not subject to it. It was considered better to make the arrangement co-extensive with her majesty's life, because she was entitled to a similar annuity by her marriage settlement.
Mr. Baring
would not have adverted to the point, had it not been for the novel circumstance of their now proceeding to grant an annuity to a person who refused to accept it. In the event of her surviving his majesty, she might no longer have the same reason for that refusal.
Mr. Huskisson
remarked, that the last act of parliament made no distinction with regard to the Queen's surviving. By her marriage settlement she was entitled to the same annuity if she had survived as the Princess of Wales; but the letters patent for executing that settlement were never passed, and there was now no such person as the princess of Wales. The act of settlement had therefore become a nullity, and it was necessary that the provision made by it should be again secured in the event of her surviving his present majesty.
Mr. Baring
was of opinion that this ought to be done by a special act as it appeared that the Queen's rights had been affected by some omission or neglect. It might be a great hardship to render that a provision for life which she now refused, as implying a sacrifice of character, but might hereafter, under different circumstances, be disposed to receive, if granted in any other form. He could see no objection to grant the present annuity for his majesty's life, and, in the event of the Queen's surviving him, to place the provision on a different footing.
608
Mr. Huskisson
observed, that the present bill provided for the Queen Consort, in the same manner as she had been provided for in her marriage settlement as princess of Wales.
Mr. Tierney
conceived that the views of all parties would be best answered; by the introduction of the bills, as the Queen might otherwise be reduced to the necessity of rejecting a provision for her whole life.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that it was neither an omission nor a mistake in the act. There was an act enabling the Crown to-make her royal highness a certain grant in case the prince of Wales died before her in the life-time of his late majesty; but no such contingency had ever happened. There was nothing in the marriage contract to provide for her majesty as Queen-Consort.
Mr. Bernal
was at issue with the right hon. gentleman as to its being neither an omission nor a mistake in the act. If she was not considered entitled to any provision either as princess of Wales or Queen Consort, her rights as a subject must be taken into consideration; and she would then be entitled to her equity on her marriage contract. She had a right to insist on the grant or execution of the letters patent, or on some other instrument, to carry that grant or those letters patent into effect,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
maintained that her majesty could nave no claim upon the grounds suggested by the hon. gentleman. Though her majesty might have some difficulty in accepting the grant of 50,000
l
Mr. Tierney
was unwilling to produce at that moment any grave discussion, but he trusted his silence would not subsequently be thrown in his teeth, or that he should be considered by that silence as pledged to any admission, either that the grant was too small or too large.
The bill went through the committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 13. 1821.
PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.]
Sir W. De Crespigny
presented a petition from Tadley, praying for an inquiry into the Agricultural Distresses. The petition-
609
l.
l.
bona fide
Mr. C. Calvert
presented a petition, signed by four-fifths of the inhabitants of the parish of St. John's, Southwark. Itexpressed great disapprobation at the proceedings against her majesty, and astonishment that no means had been devised of diminishing the public expenditure, and extending the national commerce.
Sir R. Wilson
expressed his conviction, that by a steady perseverance in petitioning that House, the people would ultimately triumph. He should consider the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy as an act of amnesty. If, on the contrary, ministers persevered in their present course, they must take the consequences, and on their heads would be all the evils that would ensue.
Mr. Bernal
presented a petition from Lincoln, signed by 1030 persons, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, and for a reform in parliament. The hon. gentleman explained the circumstances which had induced the petitioners to place the petition in his hands, and supported the double prayer of the petition.
Mr. Sibthorp
concurred in hoping that the House would take the petition into consideration, but begged not to be understood as pledged to the support of
610
Mr. R. Smith
concurred in that part of the petition which prayed for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, on the plain ground, that as a lawyer, he could see no legal or constitutional justification for the expulsion of it. To the question of parliamentary reform, he looked with more apprehension of evil than hope of good; and he had determined not to accede to any proposition on that subject, the consequences of which he did not clearly foresee. The hundreds of petitions in which parliamentary reform and her majesty's exclusion from the Liturgy were coupled, showed how unfortunately the latter occurrence had excited the people with respect to the former object. There was not throughout the kingdom a more quiet, orderly, and well-disposed population, than that of the city of Lincoln; and to his certain knowledge, hundreds had signed their names to the present petition, who entertained a sincere respect for royalty, and were indignant at the way in which the dignity of the royal family had been compromised by ministers. A wise government would have endeavoured to conciliate such persons, and not to set up the votes of the House of Commons against law, and the general feeling of the people throughout the kingdom.
Sir R. Heron
presented a similar petition from Holbeach, many of the signatures to the petition were those of persons who had been called upon to sign what were called loyal declarations, and which they did under the impression that those declarations were merely expressions of loyalty. Subsequently, on discovering that those declarations contained a libel on a portion of their countrymen, and were intended to support a faction in the possession of power, they regretted the delusion into which they had been betrayed, and signed the petition which he held in his hand. At a time when so many persons were apprehensive that it would be impossible much longer to discharge the interest of the national dept, the importance of compelling government to adopt that species of retrenchment which could alone be effective, was self-evident. They
611
Mr. Pelham
said, he could assure ministers, that if they calculated upon all the individuals who had signed the loyal declarations as their supporters, they were wofully mistaken. He was convinced that a large majority of the people wished for a change of ministers and of measures.
Dr. Lushington
presented a petition, signed by ten Clergymen of the established church. The petitioners stated, that they had always been taught to believe that the Act of Uniformity regulated the performance of divine service in all respects; and that the power of the Crown, in ecclesiastical matters, was entirely limited and circumscribed by it. He entirely agreed with the petitioners, that the Act of Uniformity had so limited and circumscribed the power of the Crown, which, in his opinion, was prevented from making an iota of alteration in the Book of Common Prayer. If this were not so—if the Crown, by means of an Order in Council, could make any alteration in the established form of divine worship, it would be difficult to say where the exercise of that power might stop. He could conceive no doctrine more fatal to the established church, or more pregnant with national evil than such a supposition. And why? Undoubtedly under the reign of our late revered Sovereign, there was no danger of any such consequences. It was also true, that in his present majesty's reign, no such evil was to be apprehended. But who could tell whether—as James the 2nd desired to overthrow the established church by the introduction of popery—some future king, in his latter days, having spent his youth in profligacy and debauchery, might not be wheedled mid deluded by that class of religious enthusiasts, called Methodists, and, under the influence of their fanaticism, be tempted to endeavor to introduce into the service of the established church that, which, in his opinion, would be attended with much greater evil than any Roman Catholic doctrines? In the petition, there was not
612
Mr. Lockhart
said, that according to the plain words of the act of parliament, the order in council appeared to be illegal. It was not less so, with reference to history and precedent. The forcible arguments which had been urged on that side were combated by the law officers of the Crown by nicety and subtilty of reasoning, by precedents which did not in any way bear upon the subject. The statute appeared to him to be directory—it appeared to be more than directory—itapeared to be mandatory. But if it left, as was contended, a discretionary power, then ought the law in reference to the Queen to be construed in the most favourable, instead of the severest manner; otherwise the statute should be looked upon as a statute, penal in its nature. Of all judgments, that to an honourable and feeling mind was the most abhorrent, which was called an infamous judgment; that judgment which took away the character of the party, which excluded him from the place of virtuous and honourable society. If, instead of being mandatory, the statute was penal, it ought to be construed favourably—construed, as an ordinary man would construe it, on a fair perusal, and not upon nice and subtle grounds. The exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was most unconstitutional, and formed a dangerous precedent, as regarded the succession. He complained that ministers had not taken the advice of the twelve judges: instead of which they depended solely on the law officers of the crown. He had intended to move as an amendment to the motion of Mr. Smith,
613
Mr. Harbord
observed, that he was not one of those who approved of a secession, under any circumstances, of the members of the English church from their places of worship; but it was a melancholy fact, that such a secession had taken place to a considerable extent. He did not complain so much that her majesty was not prayed for, as he did that she was prayed against. He deprecated the too frequent practice of introducing political matter into sermons. He was sure there was no person in that House but would concur in the propriety of condemning such a prostitution of the pulpit. It was from no political motive whatever that he introduced this subject, but the fact was that he was lately at a parish church with two hon. members, and on that occasion the clergyman introduced politics into his sermon in the most offensive manner. He hoped that through the means of such an humble individual as himself, the practice might be reprobated and discontinued.
Dr. Lushington
presented a similar petion from King's Lynn. He would take that opportunity of stating as a fact, that; a clergyman, who stood remarkable for the active part he had taken against the Queen, had lately confessed that one-third of his parishioners had left the church. The petitioners stated, that the distress and discontent which prevailed throughout the country was to be mainly attributed to the ignorance, obstinacy, and inanity of ministers. He did, from the bottom of his heart, agree in that sentiment. To the conduct of the ministers, and to the defective state of the representation, did he attribute the national misfortunes.
Mr. R. Martin
said, that if the learned gentleman should continue to deal in such broad assertions against ministers, his veracity would be liable to be questioned [cries of order, order!]. He contended, that he was not out of order; that was not veracity which was not true.
The Speaker
thought the hon. member was in the first instance somewhat out of Order; but he had no doubt but that his explanation was highly disorderly.
Mr. Martin
said, he received the decision of the Speaker in the most humble and penitential manner.
Mr. Alderman Wood
presented a similar
614
Mr. Wilson
said, that the petition imputed to ministers conduct, so infamous, that if it were true, he would feel himself degraded by remaining in his present neighbourhood. He believed it was untrue, and that the noble lord and his colleagues acted from conscientious motives. He had heard much very ably urged on the question of the Liturgy, but whether it was from want of comprehension or not, he certainly went away unconvinced. He thought her majesty was entitled to all the benefit of the proceedings in another place having been dropt; but when he looked to her answers to certain addresses—when he read her Letter to the King, and the communication which she had sent down to that House, he could not help saying, that though she had peace on her tongue, there was war in her heart.
Mr. Bernal
was not surprised that her majesty had refused the provision which that House had offered; convinced as she was of her innocence, she demanded her rights; to have accepted of that provision would have been a compromise of her honour.
Sir G. Robinson
presented a similar petition from Northampton. He did not believe, that any man of sense and sincerity, could lay his hand on his heart and say, that the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was not intended by ministers as a mark of disgrace, or that such a disgrace was not a punishment. He rejoiced that she had had the magnanimity to refuse any pecuniary arrangement until that right had been recognised. Her majesty, with that magnanimity which characterized the family from which she sprung, had twice refused to barter her honour for a bribe; and he trusted the people had too much generosity to allow their Queen to be starved at la>t into a compliance with the will of ministers.
Mr. C. Dundas
presented a similar petition from Kintbury, in Berkshire. He hoped the House would grant the prayers of the people, and thereby restore peace to the country, and congregations to the deserted churches.
Mr. Hobhouse
said he had three peti-
615
616
617
Lord Castlereagh
said, he would reply to the extensive appeal of the hon. gentleman on one topic only. It was true that he was, in 1790, an advocate for a Reform of the Irish House of Commons, and the hon. gentleman might be surprised, when he said that, notwithstanding the events of the last 25 years, which had been by no means calculated to encourage the general principle of parliamentary reform, under the circumstances in which the Irish House of Commons then stood, he should again support parliamentary reform. He supported it then on the practical ground that a dissolution of parliament did not produce the same effect in Ireland that it did in England. But when in 1793 the constituents were enlarged by the admission of the Catholics to the right of voting, he had stated that thenceforward he should not vote for any parliamentary reform. This
618
Sir J. Newport
said, it was very true that the noble lord continued to advocate a reform until 1793, when he became connected with office, and from that time it was true that he never advocated any reform. There was a speech of the noble lord's recorded in the debates of the Irish parliament, uttered by him in support of a motion brought forward by his revered friend, and the friend of the independence of his country, now deceased, in which the noble lord declared, that if the Irish House of Commons did not attend to the wishes of the people, they would be reformed from without with a vengeance. That parliament did not attend to the wishes of the people, and the noble lord being put into a situation, in which he could play the reformer, reformed it in a truly radical style, for he altogether extinguished its separate existence. The noble lord had severed the Irish parliament from the Irish people, and the parliament fell. This should be a most impressive lesson to the parliament of England. He who led the parliament of Ireland through its degradation to its destruction, now led the parliament of England through the same course towards the same end. "I speak," continued the right hon. baronet, "from conviction. I have watched him from the commencement: and I conscientiously believe, that he gives and has given the most fatal counsels that any nation can adopt. It is my conviction that the noble lord has such impressions on his mind, that his counsels, if they have influence, must drive the nation onward in the career which was pursued in Ireland; and which ended in the debasement of the parliament, the extinction of national independence, and all the subsequent ruin which the loss of independence had brought upon that country."
Lord Castlereagh
said, that whether the right hon. baronet thought well of him or no, would not break his heart. As to that measure which he had promoted, the union, it must be decided on by posterity, and it might go down for judgment, accompanied with the right hon. baronet's criticism. A more useful member of parliament than the right hon. baronet did not exist, but certainly his irritation hurried him into frequent oblivions of fact, and exhibited him in a
619
Mr. Martin
, of Gal way, said, he would refer the right hon. baronet to an authority which could not be disputed,—that of the late Mr. Ponsonby. Mr. Ponsonby had declared he would support the cause of parliamentary reform in Ireland, but that on no account would he consent to a reform of the House of Commons in England, which he thought really and truly represented the people.
Sir F. Blake
presented a similar petition from Berwick-upon-Tweed. He said that in all the statements of the petition he cordially concurred. He would take that opportunity of asking ministers a question; but whether they answered it now, hereafter, or never, was of very little consequence. He trusted he had only to state it to enable the House to see its object. If her majesty's name had stood in the Liturgy at the time the bill of pains and penalties was withdrawn (which by the noble lord had been called, or miscalled, a technical acquittal), would his majesty's ministers, under the circumstances of that acquittal, have advised her majesty's name to be expunged from the Liturgy? If they would have advised that her name should be erased, they would have been counteracting the good effect of withdrawing the bill itself; nay, further, they would have done what nobody scarcely in his senses would have done; but "quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat." If they would not have advised such erasure, the inconsistency of their conduct was more obvious than ever.
620
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
MOTION FOR RESTORING HER MAJESTY'S NAME TO THE LITURGY.]
Mr. John Smith
, in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice, begged to remind the House that some short time back he had the honour to present a petition from the merchants, bankers, and traders, of London, assembled at the Mansion-house. In that petition they had implored the House to adopt such measures as would restore that peace and tranquillity to the country which were so much wanted. He could now assure the House that he should speak the sentiments, and act upon the wishes, of that most respectable body in coming forward on this occasion; for there was no body of men to whom the peace and tranquillity of the country were more important than to them. In taking the present step, he declared most solemnly that the restoration of peace and tranquillity to the country was his only object. He conceived it his duty to look at past transactions fully and fairly, and he was determined to do so. He begged first to call the attention of the House to that period of the last year when his majesty's ministers had advised the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy. At that time, and on several occasions since, he had endeavoured to collect what were the real motives which had induced them to adopt that measure; for this purpose he had listened with attention to every thing which had passed in the House upon the subject. He had, indeed, heard some kind of explanation, and some motives stated, but, up to the present hour, he had not heard any precise reason given. So much had been already said upon the impolicy of that measure, that he did not now feel it necessary to press that further upon the attention of the House. There were, he knew, differences of opinion upon subsequent parts of the proceedings, but he solemnly protested, that he had never met any one who did, under all the circumstances, approve of the measure. He would admit, that it was the wish of his majesty's ministers, that the Queen should remain abroad. That he did not complain of; for he agreed, that if there was any chance whatever of the public tranquillity being interfered with by her return, it would have been better, and he could have wished, that she had remained abroad. But how
621
622
623
naiveté
624
625
626
627
628
629
Mr. Tennyson
, in rising to second the motion, declared that he found himself impelled to do so by the strongest and most decisive impressions, and by au anxiety to discharge a correspondent duty to the Crown and the country. The subject before the House was one of extreme interest, involving moral and political consequences of no ordinary nature, and in no ordinary degree. It had, indeed, been so ably brought forward by his hon. friend who preceded him, that much of what he might otherwise have been disposed to address to the House, would now be withheld. He should abstain also from travelling over those extensive and important grounds, which, on a former occasion, were so effectually taken by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Oxford (Mr. Wetherell), in a speech which would never be forgotten by those
630
631
nominatim.
632
*
*
633
might
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
Mr. Legge
considered the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy both ill-advised and inexpedient, although he was by no means disposed to concede that there was any force in the argument, that it was impossible to retain her majesty's name in the Liturgy, and yet institute the proceedings against her which had lately taken place. He did not see that there could have been any inconsistency in adopting such a line of conduct. The retaining her name was consistent with the custom which had so generally prevailed for years, and he did not imagine that its remaining in the place in which custom had assigned it, would have the effect of prejudging her case, or have created any strong prejudice in favour of her innocence, in the event of its being necessary to commence a criminatory proceeding against her. On the contrary, he was convinced that her exclusion from the Liturgy had created her a host of advocates out of doors, and some within that House. As to the Queen's right to have her name inserted, he thought it would be most inopportunely argued at present, after the able legal authorities which had been heard at length on that branch of the question. He might, perhaps, be disposed to say, that the omission was not in itself illegal; but he was at the same time not disposed to agree with those who insisted that her majesty was not prayed for by virtue of her being included in that general prayer for the royal family. He
641
Mr. Wynn
began by observing, that it had been his intention to address the House at an earlier period of these discussions, but having failed to catch the attention of the chair, he had still the satisfaction to find that his view of the question had been completely taken and
642
643
644
Mr. Wilberforce
said, that every thing which had happened since the period when he first delivered his sentiments to the House on this important subject, had tended to confirm the opinions which he then entertained. Under the circumstances in which the House was placed, it now became necessary to express a deliberate opinion, and as he had had no opportunity of delivering his sentiments the other night, he must now declare, that they were, in the main, the same as those which had been just expressed by his hon. and learned friend below him. Whatever his opinions might be upon particular parts of the case, he could not but thing, that, looking to the whole of the conduct of his majesty's ministers, there was nothing which called for the condemnation of the House or the country. The ministers had been placed in a situation of extreme difficulty; they had only a choice of evils before them, and if they had erred in making that choice, their error should in fairness be regarded as an error of judgment, and ought not to be imputed to incapacity, and still less to want of integrity. He had now, however, something different in contemplation: he wished to take a practical view of the subject as the best mode by which they could now arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Intending to treat the question in this manner, he must, in the first instance, examine the objections which had been raised on both sides, to the course of
645
646
647
648
649
Mr. Stuart Worthy
said, he was anxious to follow his hon. friend, having acted up to that period in concert with him, though now obliged to differ from him in the line he had taken. His hon. friend professed that he took that line out of deference to the views of the people, stating at the same time that he did not agree with any of those views. He was ready to accede to him that the general feelings of a great body of the people were for the restoration of the Queen to the Liturgy, but then, in his view of the duty a member of parliament owed his country, those feelings were not to be acted upon at the sacrifice of an honest conviction. The feelings of the people ought to have their due weight with their representatives—he would listen to their prayers, and to the arguments by which they were enforced, but in that House he was bound to act according to the judgment he had formed. Upon that principle it was that his vote on the present occasion would be founded; and he would explain to the House why he could not, after what had happened, advise the Crown to bestow any mark of grace or favour upon the Queen. True, the sense of a great body of the people had clearly declared itself in favour of the effect of the present motion; but he thought that the people had come to that opinion under an erroneous impression. The people thought that to exclude the name of the Queen from the Liturgy was to deprive her of a right; and if once he could be of that opinion, he would undoubtedly vote for the insertion of her name; but he voted against the present motion because not even all the eloquent speeches he had heard had convinced him that in the exclusion there was any thing illegal. He did not put the negative vote which he proposed to give upon the ground taken by the hon. member (Mr. Legge) who had spoken for the first time upon the present occasion: he deprecated the language put forth in her majesty's addresses, and in her Letter to the king; but parliament ought in another way to mark its disapprobation of that language; he would not on that account exclude her majesty's name from the Liturgy. But the Queen, most ill-advisedly, had rejected the mediation of the House; she had refused to take any steps by which the differences between the illustrious parties could be arranged; she had put herself upon her trial; and, in so putting
650
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, said, that the present motion had actually been made in the form of an amendment eight months ago, and negatived by the House; and could any man now expect the House, after the lapse of so short a period, to reverse the decision then come to by a majority of 301 to 124, in which majority he believed the hon. gentleman himself joined who had brought forward this mo-
651
Mr. Lennard
said, he was very glad that it had been at last admitted by gentlemen opposite that the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was a punishment. He had always considered it so; and he thought it unworthy of the noble lord opposite to contend, as he had done on former occasions, that it was
652
"castigatque auditque.'
653
"vestigia nulla retrorsum"
654
Mr. Wilmot
expressed his conviction, that the motion was introduced by the hon. mover in the true spirit of peace and conciliation. He did not give less credit to the motives which induced the hon. member for Bramber to support it; but he could not conceal his regret, that the hon. member in his support had recognised a principle, which he thought in the highest degree dangerous, and capable of being perverted to the worst of purposes.—The hon. member admitted, that her majesty had no claim upon any special act of grace or favour of which the insertion of her name in the Liturgy clearly partook; for if she was entitled to that insertion by law, the question was set at rest, all discretion was at end, and the question of grace and favour would be wholly irrelevant. But the hon. member was desirous that her name should be restored for the purpose of complying with what he thought was the general wish of the people.—This was the principle against which he protested; even admitting that it was the general sense, it must be considered as yet (into whatever final judgment it might resolve) an effervescence of public opinion. He was most unwilling to differ from the hon. gentleman, whose efforts in the cause of humanity and of his country were so distinguished; but he must beg leave to oppose to such doctrine the opinion of a man, who was equally the ornament of the period in which he lived, he meant Mr. Burke; not in his later life when he might be stigmatised as the timid alarmist of the French Revolution, but during the period of the American War. Mr.
655
656
657
Mr. Marryat
was of opinion, that even if ministers had been in possession of irresistible proof of her majesty's guilt, the exclusion of her name from the Liturgy was not the proper way of marking their sense of her misconduct, or inflicting the requisite punishment. He could discover no precept of Scripture, and no dictate of reason, which forbad us to pray for those who had wandered from the path of duty. The mode in which her majesty had been prejudged and punished by the exclusion of her name from the Liturgy, assumed the character of a religious persecution, and a religious persecution was of all others the most unjustifiable and the most odious. Hence the general dissatisfaction of the country with the treatment which the Queen had experienced. He verily believed that to the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, and the odium attached to it, was to be ascribed the greater portion of her popularity. The people often reasoned wrongly, but they always felt right; and when they saw her majesty punished without trial, they could not refuse her their sympathy and support, nor would she cease to be an object of popular regard until she ceased to be persecuted. If he were a partisan of her majesty and wished her to retain the hold which she possessed over the minds of the people, he would advise ministers to refuse the insertion of her name in the
658
Lord Milton
argued against the use which had been made of Mr. Burke's observations on the instructions which he had received from his Bristol constituents respecting the Irish commercial propositions and the Catholic question, which measures were, about the time of his making the observations, quoted by the hon. member for Newcastle, coming under discussion in that House. If the hon. member wished to know Mr. Burke's real opinions on a question similar to that before the House, let him read his "Thoughts on the present Discontents," and he would there find the opinion which Mr. Burke entertained of the probable consequences of differences between what he termed "an addressing House of Commons and a petitioning people." He thought the House would act wisely to add their petition for the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy, to those of almost all the rest of the nation.
Sir Thomas Acland
said, that if the House could be prevailed upon to think that the petitions on the subject before them were general, that they came from those classes of the community whose opinions deserved the greatest respect, and were founded on their cool and deliberate judgment, they ought certainly to adopt the recommendation of the noble member for Yorkshire, and add their pe-
659
660
661
662
Sir John Newport
said, he did not know how those who censured the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy in the first instance as unwise and inexpedient could vote against the present motion for reinserting it. They said, it was true, that circumstances had changed since the time of the first erasure; but if they had changed, he maintained that they had changed in favour of her majesty; for upon every principle of British justice, the abandonment of the bill introduced into the other House of parliament against her, was equivalent to an acquit-
663
Mr. Davenport
thought the original omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy a most ill-advised measure; but, from what had appeared in evidence elsewhere, and from her conduct, particularly in her letter to the King, and her answers to addresses since she returned to this country, he could not consistently vote for the motion.
Mr. Lamb
said, that considering the importance of this subject, and the political consequences likely to follow from the decision of the House, he thought it necessary to offer a few words. With respect to the legal question, he must say, that he was not convinced that the clause in the act of parliament referred to, did not give the power to the Crown to judge of the names to be inserted in the Liturgy. The learned gentleman in his argument upon that point, had recounted all the various privileges which belonged to a Queen Consort; but he thought the learned gentleman would agree with him, that they were given to the Queen in aid and assistance, not in opposition and contradiction to the Crown. That was the general rule of law on which all the privileges of a Queen Consort were to be construed. The clause in the Act of Uniformity, on which the learned gentleman had placed so much reliance, was put in
ex abundanti
664
Mr. Bright
supported the motion, and contended that in point of law, as well as
665
Sir J. Marjoribanks
opposed the motion, amidst loud cries of "Question."
Mr. Alderman Bridges
could not support the motion, after the exposure that had been made of her majesty's conduct. The Prayer Book was held, and justly, only inferior to the Bible, and he could not consent to its disgrace by the introduction of her name into it.
The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 298. Majority against the motion, 120.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Duncannon, vise.
Allen, J. H.
Dundas, hon. T.
Althorp, visc.
Dundas, C.
Anson, sir G.
Ebrington, vise.
Ashurst, W.
Ellice, E.
Astell, W.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Aubrey, sir J.
Ellison, C.
Baillie, J.
Evans, W.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Farrand, R.
Baring, A.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Baring, H.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Barnard, visc.
Fitzroy, lord C
Barrett, S. M.
Folkestone, vise.
Beaumont, T. W.
Fox, G. L.
Becher, W. W.
Frankland, R.
Benett, J;
Gaskell, B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Glenorchy, vise.
Bentinck, lord W.
Gordon, R.
Benyon, B.
Graham, S.
Bernal, R.
Grant, G. M.
Birch, J.
Grant, J. P.
Blake, sir F.
Grenfell, P.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Guise, sir W.
Boughton, W. E. B.
Haldimand, W.
Bright, H.
Hamilton, lord A.
Brougham, H.
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Browne, D.
Harbord, hon. E.
Bury, visc.
Heathcote, sir G.
Byng, G.
Heathcote, G. J.
Calcraft, J. H.
Heron, sir R.
Calcraft, J.
Hill, lord A.
Calvert, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Campbell, hon. J,
Hornby, E.
Carew, R. S.
Howard, hon. W.
Carter, J.
Hughes, W. L.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Hume, J.
Cavendish, lord G.
Hurst, R.
Cavendish, H.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Cavendish, C.
Hyde, J.
Chaloner, R.
James, W.
Clifford, A. W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Clifton, vise.
Kennedy, T. F.
Concannon, L.
Lamb, hon. W.
Crespigny, sir W;
Langton, J. H.
Davies, T. H.
Leake, W.
Denison, W. J.
Lennard, T. B.
Denman, T.
Lemon, sir W.
Doveton, G.
Lester, B. L.
666
Lloyd, sir E.
Rice, T. S.
Lloyd, J. M.
Rickford, W.
Lockhart, J. J.
Robarts, A.
Lushington, S.
Robarts, G.
Maberly, W. L.
Robinson, sir G.
Maberly, J.
Rowley, sir W.
Macdonald, J.
Rumbold, C.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Russell, lord W.
Madocks, W. A.
Russell, lord J.
Mahon, hon. S.
Russell, R. G.
Marjoribanks, S.
Scarlett, J.
Marryat, J.
Scott, J.
Martin, J.
Scudamore, R.
Maxwell, J.
Smith, hon. R.
Milbank, M.
Smith, S.
Mildmay, P. S. J.
Smith, G.
Milton, vise.
Smith, A.
Monck, J. B.
Stanley, lord
Moore, A.
Stuart, lord J.
Moore, P.
Sykes, D.
Newman, W.R.
Talbot, R. W.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Tavistock, marq.
Nugent, lord
Taylor, M. A.
O'Callaghan, J.
Tichfield, marq. of
Onslow, A.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Ord, W.
Townshend, lord C.
Ossulston, lord
Wall, C. B.
Palmer, col.
Warre, J. A.
Palmer, C. F.
Webbe, E.
Pares, T.
Western, C. C.
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Wetherell, C.
Phillips, G. R.
Wharton, J.
Phillips, G.
Whitbread, S. C.
Pierce, H.
Whitbread, W. H.
Power, R.
Whitmore, W. W
Powlett, hon. W.
Wilberforce, W.
Price, R.
Wilkins, W.
Prittie, hon. F. A.
Williams, W.
Pryse, P.
Wood, ald.
Pym, F.
Wyvill, M.
Ramsbottom, J.
TELLERS.
Ramsden, J. C.
Smith, J.
Ricardo, D.
Tennyson, C.
PAIRED OFF
Anson, hon. G.
Noel, sir G.
Balfour, J.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Belgrave, vise.
Smith, R.
Coffin, sir I.
Smith, W.
Crompton, S.
Taylor, C.
Graham, R. G.
White, L.
Gurney, H.
Winnington, sir E.
Mostyn, sir T.
SHUT OUT
Creevey, T,
Sebright, sir J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Sefton, earl of
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, sir R.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 14, 1821.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS.]
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
rose to move for a committee to inquire into the laws respecting the admission of Attorneys and Solicitors in England. The measure he had in contemplation was not intended to apply
667
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
CONDUCT OF SHERIFFS.]
Mr. Beaumont
rose to call the attention of the House to the conduct of Sheriffs in refusing to call county meetings. It would be in the recollection of the House, that on Friday last a petition was presented by the noble lord who was member for Chester complaining of the conduct of the sheriff of the county, at a public meeting, in two instances. In the first place, it was alleged that he had prevented an amendment from being put; and, in the next, that he had not proposed the negative question on the original motion. In bringing forward this motion it was not his intention to discuss the particular conduct of this sheriff, nor to propose any vote of censure on him, in consequence of the course he had adopted. All he meant to do was, to state the general inconvenience which arose from the conduct of sheriffs, under certain circumstances, which inconvenience had been experienced in Northumberland, in Gloucester, in Kent, and in some other counties, and to endeavour to procure some legislative measure to prevent the recurrence of the evil in future. He would briefly introduce the subject to the House. With respect to the conduct that had been immediately complained of, it was most obvious that if a sheriff had the power of declaring to a public meeting what should and what should not be received—what he thought proper to permit and what he pleased to prevent—the inconvenience and injustice would be, that
668
669
Mr. Davenport
requested to know what was the difference between the present motion and a motion of which notice had been given by the member for Appleby.
Mr. Beaumont
said, that the present motion was directed towards a general legislative measure, while that of his hon. friend referred to some particular in stance.
Mr. Creevey
said, he thought that the motion of his hon. friend would have been for a general inquiry into the conduct of sheriffs as to the exercise of their discretion in refusing to call county meetings. His object, in giving the notice of last night, was to bring the conduct of the sheriff of Chester before the House, with a view, in case it should appear that he had acted improperly, of having him censured.
Lord Castlereagh
said, it appeared to him that both motions were of the same tendency, and went to affect, in the first instance, the conduct of an individual. Both were, in his view of them, anomalous; for they called upon an individual—and without, at the outset, showing the fullest necessity—to encounter the expense of defending himself at the bar of that House from an imputation. It was a serious thing to put a gentleman under the reprehension of that House, without previously affording him the opportunity of showing whether or no he could justify his conduct. Although his majesty's government had no desire to obstruct any inquiry which had for its object the removal of any supposed impediment to the right of petition, yet he thought it too much to call upon that House, at the outset, to erect itself into a tribunal over the exercise of the discretion of a high sheriff, whose deliberate powers were recognised by the control vested in him over the arrangements of the county courts. Let the House be put in possession of the particular acts on which the charge of de-
670
Mr. Beaumont
said, that nothing was farther from his wish than to take the House by surprise upon this subject, or to interfere with the motion of his hon. friend. He was ready, therefore, to withdraw his motion for the present.
The motion was then withdrawn.
SCOTCH JURIES BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy
rose and apologised to his honourable friend, the member, for Northumberland, for his apparent inattention to the arrangement which had been made on a former evening—that of allowing his notice to take precedence—but he (Mr. K.) was extremely unwilling to proceed in the absence of the learned lord-advocate of Scotland. At the same time, having waited until the last moment, he was sure the House would feel with him, that, however reluctantly, he must now proceed—The subject to which he was about to call the attention of the House was one of which he had given notice nearly two years ago. He had abstained during the last session from introducing it, owing to peculiar circumstances in the condition of the country. But, having done this, he was the more anxious to propose the measure with which he should conclude, early in the present year—and particularly as he could not be aware how long it might be convenient to the learned lord to attend his duty in that House. He ought perhaps to apologise to the House for the nature of the motion at a moment when the temper of the House and of the country was scarcely tranquillized, or withdrawn from a subject which had so much occupied its attention—but it did appear to him that the time was come to proceed to other important matters. It was not so interesting as a measure affecting the financial, agricultural or commercial embarrassments of the country—subjects to which he should be happy to see the attention of the House directed and especially—by honourable members on the other side of the House, under whose auspices success and advantage were more probable—but he could not think the amelioration of the criminal law or
671
672
qualify
arbitrary punishments
673
ex officio
674
pro loco et tempore,"
675
They are named by the presiding judge from the Roll of
676
our custom allows him not
677
three
678
may
679
Lord Binning
assured the hon. member who had brought forward this motion, that he felt as deeply as he did, the necessity of the regulations and improvements he suggested, but he lamented he had thought it necessary to introduce into his speech so many topics unconected with the subject matter of it. He lamented particularly that he had entered so minutely into the nature of the office and appointments of his hon. and learned friend, the lord advocate, at a time when that noble lord was absent from his place. He did not feel himself competent to answer the hon. gentleman either in the extraneous matter he had indulged in, or in his legal argument; but there was one part of his hon. friend's preliminary matter to which he would advert, and he was only induced to do so by the formidable sound of the words "arbitrary punishment," on which his hon. friend had commented. This arbitrary punishment, as it was called, consisted only in the court being empowered to pronounce sentence of transportation on a prisoner who had been put to the bar to be tried, perhaps for his life, but in whose case the lord advocate had restricted the libel to an arbitrary punishment, thus taking from the
680
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, it was rather unparliamentary that his hon. friend should be assailed because he brought forward the motion in the absence of the learned lord, whose duty it was to be present. He did not see why, if the lord advocate was absent, their tongues were to be tied; the noble lord should rather have apologised for the learned lord than have inculpated his hon. friend. His hon. friend had brought to view the arbitrary power exercised by the court of Justiciary, to instances of which he (Mr. T.) had happened to be witness in a case, the details of which were printed, and which was also to be found in the debates of that House: he meant the case of Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer. He (Mr. T.) had been in the House at the time of the debate, as well as in Edinburgh at the time of the trial, and certainly, in common with many others, he did not think the verdict was that which would have been given by an English jury. He had on this point the testimony of a man of no mean authority, who was present the whole time, he meant the late sir S. Romilly. Mr. Erskine, a lawyer of the very first eminence, had told him, that on that occasion the Court of Justiciary had misunderstood the law, when they sentenced the prisoners to transportation. The law said that persons convicted of sedition should be banished from their "pleasant fields and native homes." But this never had been understood, or could be honestly interpreted, as giving a power to transport the prisoner to a particular place, as they did those prisoners to Botany Bay. The case was brought before the House of Commons by the present commissioner of the
681
*
Mr. J. P. Grant
regretted the absence of the lord advocate. He rose solely for the purpose of correcting the noble lord in what he had said respecting the arbitrary power of the Judges of justiciary in Scotland. The noble lord had represented that power as being confined to the pronouncing of sentence of transportation, in cases where the public prosecutor had restricted the libel to an arbitrary punishment. But the truth was, that this was a modern assumption of power on the part of the judges, which he was prepared to prove they did not legally possess. The utmost extent of their power being merely to banish forth from Scotland, they had assumed the same power of transporting to a foreign settlement as was allowed under the statutes of England. In a very recent case, in the face of a unanimous recommendation from the jury, the court, in the exercise of its lenity, had sentenced an individual to five years' transportation.
Lord Binning
explained. He had not said that the court of justiciary never exercised the power of sentencing to transportation, unless where the offence was a capital one. What he had stated was, that what was called an "arbitrary punishment" was in fact a leniency, because the punishment was only so restricted in cases of capital offence.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SMUGGLING-PREVENTIVE SERVICE.
Mr. Warre
wished to receive some information as to the intentions of his majesty's government with respect to the mode generally pursued throughout the country, for the Prevention of Smuggling. He understood that the chancellor of the
*
682
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
stated, in reply to the representation of the hon. gentleman with respect to the midshipmen in the Preventive Service, that one of the lords of the Admiralty had lately been sent to inspect and report on the state of these officers and the service in general, and the report made with respect to them was of the most gratifying nature. The midshipmen were found to conduct themselves in the most respectable manner; they messed together as the officers in the army did, and were in every respect in a state of the most perfect discipline. These midshipmen had passed their examination for lieutenants, and had therefore already learned their business. They now conducted this service in a manner that could not be excelled, and it was satisfactory to the Admiralty to be able to give them this employment in time of peace, at the same time that they became valuable to
683
MALT DUTIES BILL.]
On the order of the day, That this Bill be now read a second time,"
Mr. Creevey
rose to oppose the motion. He had, he said, two or three short reasons for resisting any bill of supply under existing circumstances. The first reason was, that although the House had been sitting for three weeks, no estimate of the public expense had yet been presented to the House from any department of the administration; and he would not consent to grant the public money to any department, until a clear statement of the ground of its application were previously communicated to the House. In this resolution, indeed, he was the more confirmed by the language which he understood was unreservedly used about the Treasury, and which was generally believed by its adherents—namely, that the present would be a very short session, that all the public business would be over before Easter; that is, that ministers were safe, that the Queen was sacrificed, and that nobody cared about money. The estimates then should have been sooner presented. They ought, indeed, to be two or three weeks before the House, in order that such members as were disposed to attend to their duty, might have ample opportunity of examining those very voluminous and complicated documents, which, according to the existing practice, were seldom above a night or two on the table before the House was called upon to pronounce a final vote respecting them. Upon this, and upon other grounds, he felt it his duty to oppose the grant of any supply, until the will and the wants of the public were attended to by ministers. He had been told, that a certain lay-lord of the Admiralty (sir G. Warrender) as he was called by some, but whom he would call a sinecure and sham lord, had been heard to declare, in those circles of which this lord was such a splendid ornament, that he would come down and inflict signal punishment upon him, if he
684
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the House had already considered the number of seamen, for instance, to be voted for the service of the year. Would it not then be something inconsistent if the House were afterwards to withhold the means of paying their wages The present were not new taxes; they were part of those which were usually granted. As to the estimates, the utmost haste was making to have them ready, and he hoped they would be laid before the House next week. No measure would be introduced respecting them, until they should have been a sufficient time in the hands of members.
Sir R. Wilson
thought it was the duty of members to oppose any grants of supply while ministers continued to act in opposition to the declared wish of the people. It would not be regular to say that the majority of the House had, by last night's vote, declared war upon the people; but he would maintain that, as a majority on the other side persisted in not listening to the prayers of the people, it was but a fair exercise of their privilege, for members on his side to retaliate by refusing to grant any supplies.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he had as much of that constitutional jealousy with which the grant of supplies ought to be exercised, as could be found on the other side of the House; but still he could not concur in the objection to the present bill.
685
Colonel Davies
was glad to hear such Sentiments as those which had fallen from the hon. baronet. He could assure him that the objection to the present motion arose solely from the wish to correct a grievance. He, and his friends wished to have it understood, what retrenchments it was the intention of ministers to make, In their present course they only exercised the undoubted privilege of the House to refuse all supplies, where a grievance complained of was not remedied. But for such refusals of supplies they might not now be existing as a House of Commons. When he saw ministers wholly regardless of the prayers of the people, he thought it the duty of members who had the interest of their country at heart to exercise their constitutional privilege in opposing the money grants.
Mr. Hume
was surprised to hear the term "factious" applied to gentlemen on his side of the House. He considered that the term would be more applicable to the other side, and that the majority of last night was factious in the highest degree. [Order, Chair.]
The Speaker
said, he would first remind the hon. gentleman that the word factious had not been used by any member. If such word had been applied to any portion of the House, he would have considered it disorderly; but certainly to apply the term factious to a majority of that House was still more disorderly,
Mr. Hume
said, he was sorry for having: used the word, which he had mistaken for the word vexatious. But he begged to say that he did consider the majority of last night as most vexatious, being calculated only to produce vexation and disappointment in the country. He prophesied that the vexation would not end here, nor end at all, unless measures of a conciliatory nature were adopted. That decision he had no hesitation in saying, was in opposition to the declared opinions of nine-tenths of the people. Under these circumstances he considered it his duty to oppose the granting of any supplies.
686
Mr. Mansfield
did not consider the hon. member was justified in applying the words "factious and vexatious" to the majority of the preceding evening. He was one of that majority—and would say, that to the best of his judgment, in voting as he did, he had used an honest and a sound discretion, and did not deserve to be called either factious or vexatious. He perfectly differed from the hon. member too, when he declared that that House did not speak the sense of the majority of the people. He knew that in the place he came from, a party not interior in numbers, but infinitely superior in respectability, held opinions directly opposite to those of the hon. gentleman. He had no wish to say any thing that might hurt the feelings of an unfortunate lady whatever he might think of her conduct, and he had therefore carefully abstained from saying any thing on the subject on several occasions, but it was too much to sit there night after night, and hear it asserted that, deciding as they had done, the House had voted against the wishes of the people. He did not believe any thing of the kind. If, however, he did believe it, he would still contend, that it was the duty of members of that House conscientiously to act on their own opinions. This, however, was not his argument. What he meant to assert was, that if the voices of his constituents could be collected from one end of the county of Leicester to the other, he was confident the majority, in numbers and in respectability, would approve of the decisions come to in that House.
Sir J. Newport,
though he thought it desirable to look carefully at the conduct of ministers in order to find out where retrenchment could be effected, did not see why the supply being already voted, the means should be withheld. He however thought the estimates ought to be laid before the House in the first week after the meeting of parliament. In war time this might not be easily done; but during peace there was no cause for not doing it. He should feel disposed to resist any new motion for supplies before the estimates were produced.
Mr. J. Martin
was determined not to vote away any more of the public money until a more clear mode of keeping the accounts should be adopted.
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided: Ayes, 71. Noes, 22.
687
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
Martin, R.
Bennet, H. G.
Monck, J. B.
Bernal, R.
Palmer, C. F.
Davies, T. H.
Parnell Sir R.
Denman, T.
Pryse, P.
Fergusson, sir R.
Ricardo, D.
Folkestone, lord
Sefton, lord
Hobhouse, J.C
Western, C. C.
Hume, J.
Wyvill, M.
Hutchinson, hon. C,
TELLERS.
Kennedy, T. F.
Creevey. T.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, sir R.
Lloyd, sir E.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 15, 1821.
CASE OF THE BOWDITCHES.]
Mr. Warre
rose, in pursuance of notice, to make a motion, which was in fact for information only, in the manner in which he meant to put the case. It was true that be meant to ground upon this information an ulterior measure, in the hope of obtaining some compensation for parties who had suffered such unmerited punishment. The circumstances to which he was about to call the attention of the house had been already familiar to the public—he meant the case of a family of the name of Bowditch and others, who were tried nearly three years ago at the assizes at Taunton, for the forcible abduction of Miss Glenn. Upon the evidence of that young lady, the parties were convicted; but at a subsequent period the statement given by Miss Glenn was found so inconsistent with truth, that she was prosecuted, and convicted of perjury in the evidence she gave which led to the conviction of the Bowditches. In consequence of that conviction, immediate steps were taken to obtain the mitigation of the unexpired part of their sentence; Mr. Harmer, a professional gentleman, was employed to prepare a memorial to the Home department, setting forth the new situation in which the Bowditches were placed, by the verdict against their prosecutrix. Notwithstanding the presentation of that memorial to lord Sidmouth, the Bowditches were detained in custody until the full expiration of their sentence. It was the circumstance of their detention between the period of Miss Glenn's conviction and the termination of the full sentence, that he complained of, and after the fullest consideration of the whole case,
688
Mr. Clive
highly applauded the motives of the hon. gentleman, and was willing to afford him every information in his power; from which he believed he would find that the petition had not been neglected by government. In the subsequent trial alluded to by the hon. gentleman, the case of perjury against the prosecutors of the Bowditches was so clearly made out, that the lord chief justice, who presided at the trial, drew up a memorial to the Home department on the subject. This memorial was presented in October last, the original trial and sentence of the Bowditches having taken place in 1819. In consequence of the representation of the lord chief justice, Mrs. Mulraine was released from prison, upon the royal pardon being extended to her. One of the Bowditches had already suffered his term, and the sentence of the other two then in gaol did not appear to be at all affected by what transpired at the subsequent trial in question. It did not therefore appear necessary or proper to interfere with their punishment. The evidence was still strong against them as having forcibly carried away Miss Glenn.
689
Mr. Warre
said, that had he known a distinction had been taken between the defendants upon a subsequent review of the case, he should not have made his motion. His only desire was to obtain an explanation, and that being given he had no desire to press it farther.
Lord Castlereagh
said, the question at issue appeared to be with respect to the three remaining prisoners. One woman had been released at the instance of the lord chief justice; but he did not see that because he had made application in behalf of that one, it at all affected the other prisoners.
Mr. Bennet
said, that the explanation given did not satisfy him; for if Miss Glenn, upon whose testimony the Bow-ditches were convicted, had perjured herself, then he was entitled to say, that the crime had not been committed which she swore to at first; and it followed that the parties ought not to have been continued in custody.
Mr. Bankes
assured the hon. member, that from private information, which he unfortunately possessed respecting the whole transaction, the view taken of the matter at the Home-office was the just one.
The motion was then withdrawn.
THE QUEEN—CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.]
Lord Archibald Hamilton
said, that in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, for a copy of the order in council, directed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, relative to the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, and also for the copy of a letter relating to the arrest of a clergyman in Scotland, he was sorry to find that there was every probability that a motion which he originally thought would be conceded was now to be opposed. This anticipation he formed from the extraordinary declaration of the noble lord opposite that this motion must be considered as a disgrace to the order-book of that House. He was anxious to give the noble lord an opportunity of disclaiming that expression, or of stating the grounds upon which he had used it. Knowing the influence of the noble lord upon the majority of that House, he was most anxious, before that influence was put into complete activity, to state the grounds which he deemed justificatory for submitting this question to the consideration of the House. It was a matter of general notoriety, that when the alteration in the form of the Li-
690
691
692
693
"Who the pretender is and who the king,
God bless us all, is quite another thing."
694
695
Lord Glenorchy
considered the order in council to be a breach of the fundamental principle of the church of Scotland, which admitted of the intervention of no superior authority with regard either to its discipline, the internal regulation of its affairs, or the topics to be alluded to in its public worship. This principle, as the history of Scotland showed, was long contended for both by word and act, and it had been established and ratified by the blood of persons who had thought it an object worthy to be fought for. It had been secured to Scotland at the union of the two Crowns, by several acts of parliament, and it was so fully acknowledged, that he was surprised this order in council had ever been issued. The act of queen Anne was passed under particular circumstances; and, as it was intended for the security of the succession, those who were interested in the privileges of the church of Scotland thought it unnecessary to interfere. It was not, however, on that account to be regarded as a precedent to be acted upon on future occasions. Although this order might not be dangerous in itself, yet as its object embraced subjects of religion, and a matter which had excited the attention of the whole country, it assumed an importance which it would not otherwise have possessed. The people in Scotland had ever been considered a highly religious people, and were well qualified by their education to weigh the motives of human action. He was convinced that they had well weighed the motives from which this order had emanated, and he feared they had been unable to find any good motive in which it could have originated. Was it sent down to promote the happiness of the country?—to promote the dignity and honour of the Crown?—to promote purity of religion and sanctity of morals? He had endeavoured to weigh it by these considerations, but had been unable to perceive how it could possibly have a tendency to promote any
696
The Lord Advocate
was almost persuaded that, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble mover, it would not be necessary for him to trespass long on the attention of the House. The noble lord professed to have made this motion for the purpose of raising the question on what grounds this order was justified, and that question he was perfectly prepared to meet. He thought the motion did the noble lord no discredit: it was perfectly consistent with the uniformly praiseworthy conduct of the noble lord, in watching over the interests of Scotland, and bringing under the notice of the House every subject connected with that country which might require investigation. He was sure, therefore, that the noble mover must have misunderstood the remarks in which he supposed his noble friend to have called the present motion a disgrace to the order-book. He had been lately in the habit of paying pretty close attention to the discussions in that House, and he certainly was not aware that any such statement had been made by the noble lord near him. Before he proceeded to answer the question involved in the present motion, he begged to assure both the noble lords opposite that he was by no means disposed to undervalue the rights and independence of the church of Scotland. It might perhaps be enough for him to say that ministers, in advising this order in council, had acted on the uniform practice of upwards of a hundred years. But he did not mean to rest the justification of the measure on usage: he would meet the argument fairly, and would say, that the issuing of this order was a legal exercise of power—that the king in council had in this case exercised a right founded on the law of the land. He was glad that it was not necessary for him to enter into the general question of the propriety of omitting the Queen's name in the prayers of the church; and he should accordingly confine himself to the proper question before the House; namely.—whether the Privy Council had a right to issue this order to the General Assembly of Scotland. That the right existed he contended, and he founded it on the act of the 10th of Anne, chap. 7,sec 10. By this enactment he con-
697
698
l.
699
l.
l.
saving
l.
700
701
bona fide
nominatim.
nominatim,
702
703
nominatim.
704
Sir James Mackintosh,
in rising to make a few observations on the very candid speeches which the House had heard from gentlemen on both sides, upon the motion of his noble friend, felt actuated by that warm affection for the interests of Scotland, which neither the lapse of time, nor distance, nor occupation would ever eradicate from his bosom. After the speech of his noble friend, so replete with facts and argument, he felt disinclined to address the House upon many of the points which it had embraced and indeed disposed of; he should therefore enter only upon the general principles of the motion. He was the rather disinclined to follow those who had preceded him, with any thing like minuteness, as the noble lord who had seconded the proposition, had done so, in a speech full of promise and distinguished for its propriety; he had given his powerful support, moved by that generous spirit
705
706
707
708
709
710
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that so little impression had the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman produced upon the argument of his noble friend, that he did not intend to dwell upon it for a moment. He rose rather for the purpose of calling back the attention of the House to the real question before it; but first he should remind the House of the objections which he had made on some former occasions to those who maintained that the tranquillity of the country depended on the insertion of the Queen's name in the Liturgy. He had stated, on such occasions, that if such were considered to be the case, those hon. gentlemen should have put the question into some shape in which it could be met directly and fairly, and not endeavour to introduce it by a side wind. He did not know whether those observations of his had produced the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. Smith) which the House had disposed of in such a marked manner; but he assured the noble lord, that the objections he had then made did not apply to such a motion as that now before the House. At the same time, it appeared to him that this motion
711
712
713
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that the order in council had been shown to be most absurd and preposterous; and he must add, that it was most illegal. He would refer to the act of the 5th George 1st, chap. 29. This act had been passed in 1719. The last case quoted by his right hon. friend was in 1718, consequently the act was later authority than any of the cases cited. His right hon. friend said, that the act of Anne was still in force. Now, the 5th of George 1st prohibited any number of persons, exceeding nine, to assemble in a meeting-house or episcopal place of worship, who did not pray for the King, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and their issue, under the pain of imprisonment for six months. In this act there was no reference to the act of queen Anne. How, then, did the case stand? The act of Anne was either effectual, or it was ineffectual. If it was effectual, there was no need of a new act; if it was not effectual, and a new act was required, then had the force of the act of queen Anne ceased with her life. But, according to the noble lord, the 82nd of the late king applied to the church of Scotland, as well as to the Episcopalians. We were then in this situation: the act of George 3rd, repealed the act of Anne in favour of the suspected, against whom it had been originally passed, and left it in full force against the unsuspected, for whose protection it had been passed. He agreed with the noble lord, that the House ought not to interfere in cases of individuals; but the order in council was an attempt to introduce supremacy. He was certain
714
Mr. Maxwell
said, that if the noble mover had brought forward his motion for party purposes, as insinuated by the noble lord opposite, he, for one, would not support it. But he was satisfied that the motion had no such object, and thought the order was issued for the purpose of prejudging the Queen.
Lord A. Hamilton
briefly replied. If the act of queen Anne was sufficient for their purpose, why was the order in council issued? The arguments of the case had been so ably disposed, as to leave him nothing to add. If the interpretation of that night, assumed by his majesty's ministers, namely, that they possessed a right to order the church of Scotland, should go to that country, he feared the House would lament that such an interpretation was ever made. The noble lord had charged him and his hon. friends around him, with a desire to poison the public mind. Now, if there was one man who had done every thing in his power to poison the public mind, to affix an indelible stigma on royalty, and to divide royalty against itself, it was most undoubtedly the noble lord. He had endeavoured, not alone to poison the public mind, but the very laws themselves, when he ventured to broach that most reprehensible doctrine, that after a trial, the Queen, though technically acquitted, was morally convicted. Such an assumption was an entire subversion of the principles of justice—it poisoned the administration of the laws at their source. He professed he could not see the possibility of the country being tranquillized as long as that declaration was withdrawn undenied.
Lord Castlereagh,
in explanation, said, that he did not attribute any improper intention to the noble lord. He meant merely to state, that such motions had the tendency to irritate the public mind. With
715
The question being put on the first motion, the House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 102. Majority against the motion, 67. The second motion was negatived.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visc.
Nugent, lord
Allen, J. H.
Ord, Wm.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Parnell, sir H.
Creevey, Thos.
Ricardo, D.
Crespigny, sir W.
Rice, T. G.
Crompton, J.
Roberts, Abr.
Davies, T. H.
Sefton, lord
Denman, Thos.
Scarlett, James
Duncannon, visc.
Sykes, D.
Ellice, Ed.
Talbot, R. W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Tennyson, C.
Folkestone, lord
Webb, Ed.
Glenorchy, lord
Western, C. C.
Harbord, hon. E.
Wetherell,C.
Hill, lord A.
Wood, ald.
Kennedy, T. F.
Wyvill, M.
Mackintosh, sir J.
TELLERS.
Maxwell, John
Hamilton, lord A.
Newport, sir J.
Grant, J. P.
COURT OF ADMIRALTY IN SCOTLAND
The Lord Advocate moved the order of the day for going into a Committee to consider of Compensation to the Clerks of the Scotch Court of Admiralty. The House having gone into the committee, the lord advocate moved, "That it is expedient that compensation be made to the clerks and other officers of the Courts of Admiralty in Scotland, for any loss which they may sustain by the operation of any regulations that may be made in the said courts, which compensation shall be paid out of the monies chargeable by several acts of the 7th and 10th years of queen Anne, with the fees, salaries, and other charges allowed for keeping up the Courts of Session, Justiciary, and Exchequer."
Mr. Creevey
thought the least that might have been expected of the learned lord was, that he should lay some ground for his motion, and inform the House for what services they were now called upon to vote compensation. He for one was determined not to grant a single shilling till he knew what those services were. Their present business was to retrench—a notice had been given of a motion for taking off 3,000,000
l
716
The Lord Advocate
said, that a committee had been appointed to examine the state of the Scottish courts. The committee had reported, that the proceedings in the Court of Admiralty were very voluminous and expensive to the suitors, and recommended the abolition of the offices in question. The people holding those offices held them for life, and therefore had vested interests in them. The question was, whether theirs was not a case to entitle them to compensation?
Mr. W. Smith
said, that had the learned lord given that explanation before, it was probable the observations of his hon. friend would not have been made; for certainly the mode of the present proceeding was out of the course of practice in that House.
Mr. Bright
thought it was impossible to be too vigilant in the examination of claims on the public money. As so much weight had been attached to the idea of a vested interest in these offices, it might be a good rule upon the creation of any new office by the legislature, to insert a clause, declaring that in case of a future abolition of the office, the holder should not be entitled to any compensation.
Mr. Creevey
said, that when a noble friend of his had moved for the production of an account, gentlemen on the other side said, "Oh! for God's sake,
717
Mr. Robinson
said, he could see no analogy in the cases put by the hon. member. The proceeding now before the House arose out of a report of that House; and the hon. member knew, or ought to have known, of the proceeding. Therefore, whatever opinion the hon. member might entertain on the score of common decency, there was certainly no ground for attributing improper haste to others.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Folkestone, vise.
Althorp, vise.
Harbord, hon. E.
Benett, J.
Newport, sir J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Parnell, sir H.
Boughey, sir G.
Ricardo, D.
Bright, H.
Rice, T. S.
Brougham, H.
Robarts, A. W.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Smith, W.
Crespigny, sir W.
Talbot, R. W.
Denman, T.
Webbe, E.
Fane, J.
TELLER.
Fergusson, sir R.
Creevey, T.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 16, 1821.
SCOTCH JURIES BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy brought in his bill, "To alter the mode of choosing Juries to serve on Criminal Trials in Scotland." On the motion, that it be read a first time,
The Lord Advocate
said, that he did not rise to object to the first reading of this bill, for he should at all times be ready to give his utmost attention to any subject connected with the administration of justice in the Scottish courts. The hon. member had not communicated with him before he submitted his bill to parliament; if he had, he should have told
718
719
Mr. Kennedy
was not surprised that the learned lord should have felt a wish to make these observations on the present occasion; but, at the same time, he conceived that he himself was fully warranted in not having postponed his motion on account of the learned lord's absence the other evening. The learned lord had complained that many of his countrymen took pleasure in stating the defects of the establishments in Scotland. For himself, he was actuated by a very different motive: the love he cherished for the establishments of his country had prompted the desire of remedying their defects. The learned lord had said, that it was not enough to show the existence of theoretical defects, and that some practical defect should have been pointed out to warrant the introduction of such a measure as the present; but he (Mr. K.) was of opinion, that if he exhibited any tiling faulty in theory, which might lead to injurious imputations on the conduct of the learned judges who presided over the criminal court of Scotland, he did better than if he were to take any indelicate notice of the practice into which these learned persons were led by such a defective theory. He meant to propose that the bill should be printed and read a second time a week hence, with an understanding, that it should stand over till April, subject to any future postponement that might be necessary.
Mr. M. A Taylor
not disposed to
720
The Lord Advocate
expressed his readiness to meet the hon. gentleman, and to maintain that that judgment was legal. He was the more confident on the subject, because that judgment had recently come under the consideration of the supreme court, and had received its sanction.
Mr. J. P. Grant
could not sit silent and hear it said that the supreme court had recently approved of that sentence; because he knew that the ablest judge on that bench held opinions hostile to that sentence. There was scarcely a lawyer of eminence in Scotland who did not entertain grave doubts on the subject.
The bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a second time on Thursday.
IRISH UNION DUTIES.]—
Mr. Curwen
presented a petition from Keswick in Westmoreland, praying the House to consider the propriety of repealing the act of last session, for continuing the Irish Union Duties. The hon. member contended that the abolition of these protecting duties, as they were called, would be equally advantageous to the English and to the Irish manufacturer.
Sir H. Parnell
supported the petition, which he conceived to involve a question of great importance. Numerous petitions were in progress, to the same effect, and he sincerely wished for some investigation into the subject. A greater mistake had never been committed than by the Irish parliament when they conceived that by these duties manufactures could be established in Ireland. Their effect was neither more nor less than to shut the Irish manufacturer out of the English market; and this was proved by the tact^ that Ireland had at the present moment no manufactures except where the market was free.
Mr. Hutchinson
opposed the prayer of the petition, the object of which, if he understood it aright, was, to make the chancellor of the exchequer revise the act of last session, by which the protecting duties had been continued for a spe-
721
Mr. Littleton
supported the petition, on the general principle, that there should be no tax on the interchange of the commodities of the two countries. He admitted that those concerned in manufactures which existed before the union had a right to expect that these duties, if not continued, should at least be gradually removed: but there was not the same reason for continuing duties on manufactures which did not exist at all in Ireland, such as pottery and hardware, which were almost exclusively the manufactures of Staffordshire.
Lord Althorp
was in favour of the prayer of the petition, because be conceived that no manufactory in Ireland would be injured by the removal of these protecting duties.
Sir J. Newport
was convinced that these duties operated as a heavy tax, and threw a great impediment in the way of British manufacture. With respect to pottery, that manufacture never did exist in Ireland, and never could, because coal could not be had but at a heavy price. His opinion was, that all articles which were duty free should be put on the same footing. Though no duties existed, yet the port charges were the same with respect to the manufactures of Ireland as they were with regard to foreign countries. This operated as an injury to both countries. He hoped the chancellor of the exchequer would take the matter under his consideration. These discouragements tended greatly to the injury of the tillage of Ireland, and broke through a principle which was held in that House; namely, that of binding the two countries together by mutual interest, and doing away all cause of irritation and unpleasant feeling. It was with this view that in 1806 he had brought in the Grain intercourse, bill and experience had proved that that was a beneficial measure.
Mr. Peel
earnestly hoped, that the chancellor of the exchequer would give his earliest consideration to this important subject. He was most anxious to see this kind of commercial distinction speedily abolished. These duties, instead of being a protection for a certain portion of the Irish trade, were merely a tax
722
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it had been made a matter of complaint by hon. gentlemen, that the measure for continuing those protecting duties had been brought in at the close of the last session, and passed with so much rapidity as not to allow of the necessary attention being paid to the subject. So far from that being the case, it was well known that as far back as the session previous to that, petitions had been presented in great numbers, praying for the renewal of the duties, and a deputation had been sent from Ireland, with the express intention of endeavouring to procure that object. It had been continually represented to him, that there would be great inconvenience in allowing the Irish manufacturer to be taken by surprise. Under these circumstances, he had introduced a measure which would provide for a gradual extinction of the duties. Whether the period fixed was too long or too short, or whether all the details of the measure he had recommended were best adapted to the case or not, he could not determine. But he certainly doubted whether the sudden withdrawing of the protection duties would not be productive of greater evils than those now complained of. It was certainly his desire to conciliate the different interests, and to decide upon this question in the way that would best contribute to the prosperity of each.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, that the temper in which this subject was-discussed was with him a subject of congratulation. These duties had been enacted at the Union for twenty years, with a view that at the end of that time they might be revised and possibly extinguished. He did not complain that the chancellor of the exchequer had acted unfairly in continuing them, but that he had acted with-
723
Ordered to lie on the table.
BRITISH MUSEUM.]
Mr. Lennard
rose to make his promised motion upon this subject. In this establishment, he said, supported as it was at the public expence, the utmost possible facility should be afforded to the access of the public, but especially to those individuals who were devoted to literary and scientific pursuits. He was aware that of late years, a great freedom of ingress was allowed to those who visited the Museum merely for the gratification of curiosity, no less than 50,000 having been admitted within the last year; but what he had to complain of was the difficulty of admission on the part of those who for literary and scientific purposes were desirous to examine the library, to have access to the reading-room, or to see the several collections of minerals, prints, drawings, and coins. In France and the other continental nations, the utmost freedom of access was allowed to strangers who desired to see similar collections, and he could not think it honourable to the character of this country, that a different practice prevailed here. If it were said, that from the value of these collections at the Museum to which he referred, it would be imprudent to expose them to the access of strangers, he should say in answer, that an additional number of officers ought to be appointed to take care of them. This certainly would be a much less exceptionable arrangement than the existing restriction upon the admission of strangers. But the appointment of additional officers would be unnecessary, if it should appear that the Museum had
724
Sir C. Long
said, that his object in rising was not
to
725
Mr. Gurney
said, he should not discharge his duty if he did not bear testimony to the general facility given to the public by the trustees and the attending officers of the British Museum. By application to the proper officers, admission might be had to the coins, manuscripts, &c. on other days besides those on which the public were admitted. The officers employed were men of high literary attainments, and none could be found more fitted for the employments which they enjoyed. The French government expended more money in the care of their library than was given by us for the support of the British Museum altogether; and he was surprised how well the duty was discharged at so small an expense.
Mr. Bright
concurred in what had been said respecting the facilities given to the public.
Mr. Colborne
agreed in the encomiums passed upon the trustees and officers, and suggested the propriety of erecting an edifice, which should be at once a commemoration of our victories, and a depot for the contents of the Museum.
Mr. Bankes
spoke of the decayed state of part of the Museum, and expressed his
726
The motion was agreed to.
MOTION FOR THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES
Mr. Hume
rose to draw the attention of the House to the Ordnance Estimates for the present year, and to submit a motion on that subject; the reasons for which he should state in the first instance. That retrenchment was the object that he had in view, as well as the avowed object of the House itself, could hardly be doubted. It became necessary, therefore, to point out what alterations could, with the least inconvenience, be made; but in order to satisfy members with regard to particulars of this nature, it was also necessary that accurate and detailed accounts should be placed before them. The estimates, as at present framed, gave none of the requisite information: they entered into no details, but left the House utterly ignorant of all the items which went to compose the separate heads of expenditure. It was impossible for the House to judge what reductions were practicable or expedient, or to what extent they ought to be carried whilst the existing system of account between the public and the Ordnance department was allowed to prevail. The commissioners of military inquiry had in one of their reports advised that a different form of accounts should be adopted, and it was certainly singular that the House should have hitherto been content to vote the sums demanded, on an inspection merely of their total amount. The necessity for setting out these accounts in greater detail would appear manifest on a reference to the last ten or twelve years, during which, it would be found that, the sums actually disbursed did not correspond with the finance accounts.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
727
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
728
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
729
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
730
l.
l
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
731
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
732
733
quantum
l.
l.
l.
l.
734
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
735
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
736
Lord Nugent
seconded the motion.
Mr. R. Ward
said, that the details required by the motion, when every particular should be entered into in such a way, that not a single figure could be kept back, would produce extreme inconvenience, and create much useless trouble. He had expected, that this subject would have been discussed in the regular course of committee, and not in single speeches between the hon. gentleman and himself. According to the usual practice, the estimates had been laid on the table; but he was not disinclined to furnish a separate paper for the information of the hon. gentleman. He had hoped that he should not have had to enter into the details then, but after the speech of the hon. gentleman, containing, as it did, some correct statements, and others very incorrect, he was much surprised to find, that such a speech had followed the notice that had been given. He did not deny the right which the hon. member had to enter upon the subject, but nothing could equal his astonishment on finding that he was involved in such a discussion after the notice by which the motion had been preceded. The hon. member had chosen to go into a very minute detail indeed; he had commenced with the first article in the estimates of 42,000
l.
737
l.
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
Ex una disce omnes:
l.
l.
738
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
739
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
740
741
l.
l.
l.
l.
742
Sir R. Fergusson
expressed his surprise, that the right hon. gentleman had left untouched the principal argument—which was, the increase of salaries to the clerks and other officers.
Sir H. Parnell
contended, that the speech of his hon. friend had been left unanswered. Without entering into any detail, he would read an extract from the 6th report of the Committee of finance. The report stated, that "of late years a system of progressive increase of salaries had been extended to most of the public officers; but in the Ordnance department, this was carried to the greatest length." This, he contended, was sufficient to convince the House of the fallacy of the right hon. gentleman's speech.
The House divided: Ayes 44. Noes 58. Majority against Mr. Hume's motion 14.
List of the Minority.
Becher, W. W.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Benett, J.
Langton, J. H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lennard, T. B.
Benyon, B.
Macdonald, Jas.
Bernal, R.
Martin, J.
Bright, R.
Monck, J. B.
Brougham, H.
Newport, sir J.
Browne, Dom
Nugent, lord
Caulfield, hon. H.
Parnell, sir H.
Creevey, Thos.
Ricardo, D.
Denison, Jos.
Rice, hon. G.
Evans, Wm.
Robarts, A.
Fergusson, sir R.
Robarts, G. J.
Fitzgerald, right hon. M.
Sefton, earl of
Sykes, D.
Glenorchy, lord
Talbot, R. W.
Gordon, R.
Taylor, M. A.
Graham, S.
Trcmayne, J. H.
Grenfell, P.
Whitmore, W. W.
Guise, sir W.
Williams, W.
Harbord, hon. E.
Wyvill, M.
Heron, sir R.
TELLERS.
Hill, lord A.
Hume, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Folkestone, visc.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 19, 1821.
NAPLES—CONDUCT OF THE ALLIED
Earl Grey
rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for such further information as was necessary to obtain a view of all the circumstances by which their lordships might be enabled to form a correct judgment of the conduct of his majesty's ministers relative to Naples. The recent changes which had taken
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he could assure the noble earl and the House that though he must oppose the motion, he was not sorry it had been brought forward, and that thus an opportunity was afforded him of explaining and defending, if it required explanation or defence, that circular communication on which the noble earl had commented, and also of answering the general observations which he had thrown out. The circular of the 19th of January, he would contend, contained a clear, distinct, and intelligible exposition of the views of his majesty's government on the matter to which it referred, and the principles on which the allies professed to act. Although he had been willing to grant the papers moved for by the noble earl, he could not sanction a motion which was introduced for the purpose of censuring the conduct of government, without appearing to allow the justness of that censure. If any of their lordships should be of opinion, after considering all the circumstances of the case, that the communication made by ministers had been erroneous; or, still more, that it had been criminal; if they believed that its results would be different from what appeared to them to be true policy of this government, those who entertained such sentiments would, of course, vote for the motion. The noble earl had adverted to what passed on this subject on the first day of the session. The noble earl's observation went to this—that the paper laid on the table, and which was dated on the 19th of January was intended for the meeting of parliament, and that the sentiments which it contained should have been made known at an earlier period: therefore, he concluded, that the conduct of ministers, in withholding it for some time, was reprehensible in a greater or less degree. Now, as there had been some misapprehension
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
Lord Holland
remarked, that, if the noble earl had proved that the conduct of his majesty's government had been in all respects justifiable, and that they had maintained a perfect neutrality towards Naples, he should still, and on narrower grounds, vote in favour of his noble Friend's motion. That motion was for in-
772
prima facie
773
"There is a question which I yet must ask,
A question which I never asked before—
What mean these mighty armaments;
This general muster? and this throng of chiefs?"
774
"What mean these mighty armaments?
This general muster? and this throng of chiefs?"
775
776
777
778
779
780
The Earl of Harrowby
said, he felt himself under the necessity of speaking to order. The language used by the noble baron in allusion to a foreign potentate, with whom this country was now maintaining relations of amity, appeared to him to be both unparliamentary and indecorous. Even during a period of war it would be improper so to speak of any sovereign with whom we might be engaged in hostilities; but thus to characterize the head of a friendly government was an obvious departure from the orders of that House, and the decency of its proceedings.
Lord Holland
resumed.—He admitted that it would be a gross indecency in any member of that House to allude distinctly to any subject of royal guilt, without sufficient knowledge of the actual circumstances attending it. But, where the object was, to keep down the public voice, to stifle the expression of popular feeling, it would indeed be a bad omen of what was to take place hereafter, a sad specimen of what was likely to result from the combination of great powers, if a peer of parliament was to be restrained in his allusions to the conduct and character of foreign potentates. If the British government I should ever be permitted by direct aid, or by connivance, to crush the liberties I of an independent state, then, no doubt, I it would become an order of the House that no such allusions should be made. As the liberty and privileges of parliament however still remained, he would renew his statement, that the present emperor of Russia owed his crown to the murder of his father, or in other words that the crown devolved upon him in consequence of that murder. It brought to his recollection also, that since the time of the czar Peter 1st, no sovereign had ascended the throne of Russia altogether unstained with the blood of his immediate predecessor, or some member of his own family. It was not therefore from this quarter, as he had already said, that Europe ought to receive lessons of morality. Even though it should be contrary to the orders of the House, it might perhaps be excusable, because it was natural in an Englishman to express indignation at occurences of this kind. But these
781
"Sic canibus catulos similes; sic matribus hædos.
782
783
eo ictu sese confecit
784
ralio suasoria
ratio justificatoria
785
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that if he could agree with the noble baron who last addressed them in the interpretation he had given of the circular of the British government—if he could believe that the neutrality they professed was a hollow and insincere neutrality—if he could suppose that they were inclined to uphold the one party y the sacrifice of the less powerful—he should be disposed to speak of such conduct in terms as indignant as those used by the noble baron. But, taking into his consideration the statements which had been made by the noble earl, and looking at what appeared to have been the conduct of the government, he could not avoid coming to a conclusion different from that come to by the noble baron; he could not but be of pinion, that the course that had been pursued was that which was most conformable to sound policy, under the present difficult circumstances of Europe. The noble baron had complained that ministers had expressed strong disappro-bation of the mode and circumstances by
786
787
788
Lord Calthorpe
thought the language of the circular any thing but satisfactory.
789
Earl Grey
said, he entirely agreed with those who maintained that it was the object, as it was the policy, of this country to preserve a strict neutrality; but he did think that the noble earl opposite had not succeeded in making it appear that any thing like strict neutrality had been maintained. He was of opinion that no such disposition had been manifested by government in her communications with the two nations principally concerned. Had there, in truth, in any single transaction that could be named, been any thing like an equal measure preserved between those two countries? The noble earl declared, that not disputing but that the case of Naples might form an exception to that general conduct against which the allied powers were in declared hostility, all he would say was, that he would not prejudge the question; but, although the noble earl thus deprecated every thing like prejudication, his line of argument was most inconsistent with that declaration. He had promulgated a disclaimer of certain acts on the part of a foreign government, which had taken upon itself to express a disapprobation of the conduct pursued by the kingdom of Naples: and yet he now maintained, that that foreign state was justified in the manifestation of her disapprobation. As to that interference on the part of the allied sovereigns, it was one of the most flagrant acts of political injustice, one of the most enormous violations of the law of nations, that ever was committed; and the tardy disavowal of this government was made at a time when its very disapprobation of these measures could have no other effect but the encouraging the perpetrators of that violation. And this, the noble earl told them, was a strict neutrality! But when noble lords contrasted the general
790
791
eo nomine,
792
793
794
795
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, February 19, 1821.
HULL POOR RATES BILL.]
Mr. Sykes
said, that as much misconception prevailed on the subject of this bill, he would, in order to give time for the correction of that misconception, move, "That the bill be read a second time this day se'nnight."
Mr. Huskisson
felt himself bound to oppose the motion. A number of persons interested in the measure were waiting in town, and it would be to them a great inconvenience to postpone the second reading. He had the strongest objections to the bill; though it was introduced as a private bill, it yet involved important public questions, and principles which were quite new: and which would go to affect the general property of the country. It was agreed on all hands that the poor rates were an evil which ought to be repressed. The poor rates were a cancer which spread throughout the country; and it was not for parliament to encourage the growth of an evil so monstrous. The object of the bill was to subject a species of property to poor rates, which heretofore stood independent of that tax: what was this but an attempt to extend the evil? The bill was an attempt to introduce a tax in the port of Hull, which did
796
Mr. Sykes
said, that the principle of his bill was by no means new. Legislative measures, similar in principle, had been adopted in Sunderland. The same thing was done with respect to Scarborough, Whitby, and Poole.
Mr. Frankland Lewis
felt himself bound to oppose the extension of the poor rates to the shipping, and he did so, because it was the acknowledged tendency of the poor laws to swallow up all the property in the kingdom, and therefore it was necessary, by every possible means, to guard against their extension to any species of property not hitherto within their reach. There was no danger so certain, so inevitable, unless some remedy were shortly hit upon, as that the poor laws would, by degrees, swallow up every species of property that was liable to its operation. Would they, then, admit the dangerous principle of extending their effects by a measure of a private nature, which professed to confine its operation to a particular place, but which would establish a precedent for similar measures in every other port in the kingdom. One great misfortune in the system of poor-rates was, that it wore the appearance of humanity, whilst it produced real hardship and severity. He felt convinced that the poor-rates caused, in a great measure, the extent of public misery, at the same time, he did not mean to throw out the wild notion that the system could be entirely got rid of. The subject was one to be touched with gentleness; and so it had always been treated. The principle of the poor rates was this, that every parish should support its poor as long as it had the means; but the present bill went to subject to a tax property which was not now rated. He must therefore oppose the Bill.
797
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, February 20, 1821.
QUEEN'S ANNUITY BILL.]
The Earl of Liverpool
l.
The Earl of Darnley
said, that so far from wishing to oppose the measures of the noble lord on every occasion, he was very happy when he could, even in the slightest degree, concur with him. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the sum proposed that to which her majesty was fairly entitled. Having thus far stated his agreement with the noble lord, he must disclaim any approbation of the other measures of the noble lord in reference to the Queen. He could not agree that the House of Commons had wisely decided that there existed no grounds for censuring ministers. With that vote, however, before him, he could not help concluding, that any proposition which might be made, however aided by the talents of the noble lords near him, would be decided, not by the consideration of how far it was right or wrong in itself, but with reference to the supporting of ministers. Of the success or the motion of which he had given notice he had therefore much reason to despair; and, in addition to that consideration, he must freely confess that he had on this subject been guided by the opinion of individuals with whom he had long had the honour to act, and of others whose late conduct in preferring their duty to the public to their duty to ministers, had done themselves the greatest honour. He had reason to expect that, if he brought forward a motion for restoring the Queen's name to the Liturgy, he should be supported by many of the persons to whom he had alluded. At the same time, considering the discouraging circumstances he had stated, and the doubts which some entertained of its illegality, he was inclined to think that at present no good effect could be expected
798
799
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if he had any doubt as to the legality of not inserting the name of her majesty in the Liturgy, he would be the first to move an address to the King, to pray his majesty to restore it to the Liturgy. It was a question upon which he had obtained every information that could be acquired, and to which he had applied the deepest research; and the result was, that he had no doubt whatever of the legality of omitting her majesty's name in the Liturgy; an opinion which, in his mind, the construction of the acts of parliament, and the consideration of what had been done under the authority of those acts, during the whole period since their passing, completely confirmed.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
observed that the noble earl had intimated that a large secession from the established church had taken place, in consequence of the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy. Now, if such accession did exist, of which, however, he was entirely ignorant, he thought it must be owing to political, and not to religious feelings, le was not disposed to undervalue the claim of her majesty to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. It was a claim to something which was important when possessed, and still more important when withheld; but at the same time he must contend, that it was a claim wholly unconnected with religious principles. It was a claim, not for prayer, but to distinction in prayer. Her majesty was prayed for in the Liturgy and in the collects set apart for the royal family. He would, however, admit that to be so prayed for
800
Lord Ellenborough
contended, that tie provision made for her majesty by this bill was too large. The reason alleged by the noble earl for granting 50,000
l.
801
The Earl of Limerick
agreed, that the grant was too large, and with much of what had been said respecting the conduct of the Queen; nor should he have risen, had it not been for an allusion
802
The Earl of Blesington
was far from thinking, that the annuity granted to her majesty was too great. On the contrary, he thought it too small. Considering that the bill of Pains and Penalties had been withdrawn, it was the duty of ministers to offer her majesty a palace and the full enjoyment of all her rights. He did not, however, approve of the advice which had been given her to refuse this grant. By the withdrawing of the bill she was the triumphant party, and she might, therefore, accept the money without giving up any legal claim. It was the opinion of the country at large that the exclusion of her name from the Liturgy was unjust, and he was confident there would be no tranquillity until it was inserted.
Lord Calthorpe
expressed a desire that the money now granted would be employed in supporting the high station of her majesty, and in exercising those virtues which the House had in view in all grants to the illustrious family on the throne. He should be glad if the apprehensions which he entertained on this subject were unfounded. With respect to the amount of the grant, ministers had, in his opinion, acted wisely. Her majesty had shown a great degree of liberality, on a former occasion, in surrendering a part of the income intended for her by parliament, and he did not wish to see any advantage taken of that liberality by proposing a less sum on the present occasion. The Marquis of
Lansdoxvn
803
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, February 20, 1821.
PREVENTION OF BANK FORGERIES.]
Mr. Curwen
rose to put a question to the hon. member for Bodmin upon a subject of great public importance. His question related to the steps now taken by the commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the best means of preventing the forgery of Bank notes. It was within the last few days rumoured that Mr. Applegarth's plan of a Bank note which was to render imitation almost impossible, had entirely failed: he hoped, on every ground of policy and humanity that this rumour was not correct. At all events, be hoped that the commissioners would not, on account of one discouraging circumstance, drop their proceeedings. He knew that it was impossible to get any plan which could be pronounced inimitable; but they might obtain a plan which would render forgery so extremely expensive and difficult, as to make that pursuit impossible for those who pursue it.
804
Mr. D. Gilbert
replied, that the Bank had taken the utmost pains to give effect to the exertions of the commissioners. The plan of Mr. Applegarth, did not consist of any superior improvement in the art of engraving, but in hardening a steel plate in such a manner, by a chymical process, as to give it that durability which would admit of any number of impressions being struck from it. But it was obvious that the perfection of the plate alone did not complete the process. The commission had to proceed upon a consideration of the greatest difficulty; namely, to consider whether it was possible to make, by human art, a plan which human art could not imitate. In the pursuit of their project they had corresponded with all quarters of Europe and America. They had availed themselves of all the means of obtaining information which they could possibly command, and had selected what appeared to them the best. Some which at first appeared inimitable were in the course of the inquiry, found capable of imitation; so that the commissioners had had repeatedly to change and vary their plans according to fresh circumstances.
NOTTINGHAM PETITION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF MINISTERS.]
Mr. Denman
said, he held in his hand a petition from the people of Nottingham, praying for an inquiry into the state of the country—praying specifically for an inquiry into the transactions which took place at Manchester, and also that articles of impeachment might be exhibited against ministers. In the absence of ministers he would not stop to say how far their conduct appeared to him to deserve the severe imputations cast upon them. In presenting this petition he thought it right to observe that the language, although strong, and perhaps extremely so in one or two passages, was yet on the whole what he could not but consider applicable to the circumstances to which the petitioners referred. And when the House recollected that the petition came from a town where, though trade was said to have revived, there yet remained an arrear of 6,000
l.
805
Mr. Wynn
said, that he must object to this motion, which would send forth in a printed form, through the medium of that House, a libel upon the administration of justice. He did not object to expressions merely offensive to ministers; but when it was said that innocent blood had been shed upon the scaffold, they ought to hesitate before they circulated such a statement throughout the country.
Mr. Bennet
said, he did not agree in all the statements of the petitions, but he could not but strongly object to the attempt to get rid, by a side wind, of the old right of printing petitions. The hon. gentleman could not produce a single instance in which petitions were not printed as a matter of course for the last two years. His late lamented friend (Mr. Whitbread,) had said, on the occasion where an alteration had been made with
806
Lord Binning
said, that a more inflamed account of a possible grievance could not have been made, than that just given by the hon. member upon an objection being merely taken to the printing of a petition, which libelled the administration of justice throughout the country. Because they refused to print such a petition they were to be told that they were obstructing the right of petition? Since the arrangement had been made upon the subject of printing the votes, he only recollected one instance in which an objection had been taken to the language of a petition; so that the right of making the objection—which unquestionably existed, or else why put the question from the chair upon the printing—had not been captiously exercised. The old practice was, when arranging the votes, for the Speaker to order the petitions to be presented, omitting, however, any passages which might be deemed objectionable. By the new arrangement, the whole of each petition was printed. He certainly should vote against printing a petition containing such language.
Sir Robert Wilson
was not prepared to say that blood had been shed innocently upon the scaffold, yet he was ready to
807
Lord Castlereagh
said, he could not help admiring the strain of feeling in which the gallant member thought proper to indulge, when he launched out in describing acts of the most extraordinary description, and at once charged ministers with protecting from punishment known violators of the law. Thank God the people of England lived in a country where the ministers could not, if they Were so disposed, protect any individual who had offended against the laws from being amenable to their jurisdiction. The ministers had here no power to screen any man from the consequences of his act: the highest and the lowest were alike amenable to the law. Why did the gallant officer indulge in this theme of declamation, when the laws were open to the aggrieved party? Was it because it answered better the views of the gallant member, and others who thought with him, to keep this subject afloat as a topic
808
Sir R. Wilson
said, he had not asserted any thing that he was not prepared to prove. He charged the parties to the transaction of the 16th of August with murder, and he was prepared to take the responsibility of that charge.
Lord Castlereagh
said, it was open to the hon. general to establish his charge before a competent tribunal.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that if he had been in the House when the petition was read, he should have objected to its lying on the table; but he thought that as it had been received it ought to be printed.
Mr. Wynnn
could not accede to the pro-
809
Mr. Bathurst
contended, that the House had sanctioned the principle that a petition might be received and not be printed, by deciding that after it had been laid on the table there should be a distinct question "that this petition be printed."
Mr. B. Wilbraham
declared that the magistrates of Manchester were anxious, for a full inquiry into their conduct. No bills had been presented against any of them. As to the yeomanry, they stood in a situation somewhat different; for bills had been presented against them, and had been thrown out by the grand jury.
Mr. Brougham
thought it must be the desire of the House to put the petition in print. The phrase "disgraceful acts of parliament," must be understood as applicable to the conduct of ministers; and he contended that the people had a right to stigmatise acts of parliament carried by the influence of ministers. With respect to the other parts of the petition he considered that the people had a constitutional right to go great lengths in the language of petition. With respect to the transactions at Manchester, nothing on that subject which had occurred since those transactions, had altered his original opinion. Indeed he thought that what had happened since, had done more to abate the respect of the people for the administration of the public justice than any thing he had ever known before. Nothing had so tended to shake the confidence of the people in that best and surest support of a government. He regretted that the grand jury of Lancaster had not found the bills of indictment; because, had they found those bills, the 'subsequent proceedings upon them, the conviction or acquittal of the accused would have restored the public confidence in the laws.
Mr. Lushington
observed, that the House had last session rejected a motion for the printing a petition; and if there was ever a case in which the House should exercise its discretion, it was in the case of this petition, the language of which, was so universally acknowledged to be objectionable.
Mr. Denman
denied that Ire had ex-
810
The question being put, "That the petition be printed," the House divided: Ayes 6*. Noes 130.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Duncannon, visc.
Althorp, visc.
Ellice, Ed.
Beaumont, T. P.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Becher, W. W.
Gordon, R.
Birch, J.
Graham, Sandford
Bright, H.
Grant, J. P.
Brougham, H.
Griffths, J. W.
Bury, visc.
Guise, sir W.
Calvert, C.
Hamilton, lord A.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Harbord, hon. E.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Heathoote, G. J.
Crespigny, sir W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Creevey, Thos.
Honeyvvood, W. P.
Curwen, J. C.
Hornby, Ed.
Davies, T. H.
Hughes, W.L.
Denison, W. J.
Hume, J.
Dickenson. W.
Hulchinson, hon.C.H.
811
Lambton, J. G.
Rice, G.
Lennard, T. B.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Lushington, Dr.
Robarts, A.
Maberly, John
Robarts, G.
Macdonald, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Martin, John
Stanley, lord
Monck, J. B.
Sefton, earl of
Moore, Peter
Smith, W.
Moore, A.
Stuart, lord J.
Newport, sir J.
Taylor, M. A.
O'Callaghan, J.
Wharton, John.
Ord, Wm.
Wilson, sir R.
Ossulston, lord
Wortley, J. S.
Palmer, C. F.
Wyvill, M.
Phillips, G.
TELLERS.
Phillips, G. R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Power, R.
Denman, T.
CONDUCT OF THE SHERIFF OF CHESTER.]
Mr. Creevey
rose for the purpose of submitting a motion, founded upon a petition from the freeholders of the county of Chester, which petition was presented to the House on the 9th instant. In the first place, he would move that that petition be read. [The petition was here read by the clerk.] He understood the case to be briefly this:—A meeting of the nobility, clergy, gentry, and freeholders of Cheshire was convened by the sheriff. At that meeting an address was submitted. An amendment to the address was moved and seconded by two noblemen, earl Grosvenor, and lord Crewe; the effect of which was to suggest another and a different address, deprecating the conduct of ministers, and requiring the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. Both addresses were equally loyal, but there was this material difference between them, that the one moved by lord Grosvenor entered into a little detail of facts and opinions, which it was thought right to submit to the consideration of his majesty, with regard to which the address on the other side was totally silent. The petitioners complained that the sheriff refused to put the address of lord Grosvenor at all, and also, that he would not allow the negative to be put upon the address of the other side, declaring on the first show of hands, that the majority of the meeting were in its favour, and immediately withdrawing himself from the chair. The petitioners further alleged, that the majority of the meeting were adverse to the original address, and decidedly for that of lord Grosvenor, as would have been testified had the sheriff put that address first, as they conceived it his duty, as that was an amendment upon the address originally proposed. If
812
813
814
815
Mr. Davenport
said, that not having been present at the meeting referred to, he hoped he should be excused for offering a few observations. The sheriff was as independent in character and fortune as any man in the county, and if he had acted wrong it was only an error in judgment. He had never heard that he was a party man. Was it to be said that he was a party man because he was connected with a yeomanry corps? That yeomanry corps had been raised by a subscription at a county meeting convened for that purpose. A committee had then been appointed, not only for the management of the funds, but the nomination of officers. If it was a party corps, it was an extraordinary party, for whigs and torries had subscribed. The House should recollect, before they agreed to 6uch a motion, that it was no trifling matter to drag the high sheriff up to attend a committee of that House. The office of high sheriff was an arduous, and generally a thankless office.
Mr. Egerton
said, that as soon as the petition was known in the county, the high sheriff had written a letter explaining his conduct, which, with permission of the House, he would read. The letter was hastily written, as little time was left for explanation of the circumstances. [Hear the hon. member read the letter] The high sheriff admitted that he had acceded to earl Grosvenor's proposal to adjourn the meeting to the fields, believing the Salt-house to be too small: but that, on a representation by others that the place
816
Mr. Gipps
hoped the House would not think it necessary to notice the conduct of the high sheriff, unless something more serious were established against him. The case as it now appeared was, that lord Grosvenor and the petitioners had been outnumbered, and felt sore in consequence. If they did not like the manner in which the meeting was conducted, why could they not have withdrawn to some other place and voted counter-resolutions?
Mr. Philips
said, that the only object of his hon. friend was, to make some provision against the recurrence of such conduct as the petitioners complained of. As to the approbation of his conduct, upon which the high sheriff professed to rely, that approbation came only from one quarter. There was not a single individual on the other side whose appro-
817
Mr. Bootle Wilbraham
thought that this was not a matter in which the House could constitutionally interfere. In cases where the privileges of the House were concerned, they had the power of calling the party offending to the bar. The sheriff was undoubtedly amenable to the House in all cases of election, but he was not aware that the House could constitutionally exercise any control over the sheriff in other cases. It certainly did not appear from Black-stone, that the sheriff was subject to the control of this House in any matters except those connected with the election of knights of the shire. He begged not to be understood as wishing to abridge the privileges of the House; but the facts of the present case did not appear to him to justify their interposition. The sheriff was a gentleman whose impartiality and purity of conduct were unquestionable, He was persuaded that he went to the meeting with a firm determination to do his duty with impartiality. One of the charges against him was, that he did not summon the inhabitants, though required to do so; another, that he refused to put the amendment, Now, he did not know what law there was to compel a sheriff to put the amendment. As to the other charge, that he refused to divide the meeting, but contented himself with a shew of hands, the usual mode of taking the sense of a meeting was by a shew of hands, and the constitutional appeal from the sheriff's decision was to a poll; but this was a case which did not admit of a poll. He believed the fact was, that the room in which the meeting took place was so full, that it was next to impossible to divide. He certainly regretted that the sheriff had not allowed his noble friend to be heard; at the same time he must observe that some expressions which had been used by his noble friend were received with strong marks of disapprobation, and might account therefore for his not obtaining a hearing. He trusted the House would not yield to this motion, and by so doing afford a triumph to those tribunes of the people who had liberty in their mouths, but anarchy in their hearts.
Mr. Curwen
said, it was of the utmost importance, that the right of petitioning should not be violated, that the country might know whether the noble lord op-
818
Mr. Wynn
said, that the first point upon which the conduct of the sheriff was arraigned, was, that he had called a meeting of the nobility, gentry, and freeholders, and not of the freeholders and inhabitants. Now, he contended, that in so doing, the sheriff had only discharged his duty; for he believed the practice of summoning the inhabitants to county meetings was of very recent date. A county meeting, in the constitutional sense, was a meeting of the freeholders of the county, of those persons only who had a right to attend the county court. As to the charge, that the sheriff did not put the amendment, he really was not aware that the forms of that House, however excellent, were of such high authority, that every public meeting in the kingdom was bound to copy them. It appeared that an amendment to the original address had been proposed by lord Grosvenor, and that the sheriff, instead of putting the amendment in the first instance, had taken the sense of the meeting upon the original address. Now, he really could not see why the sense of the meeting might not be as fairly collected in this way as by following the forms of that House. There was another charge against the sheriff, that he had refused a division when it was called for. Now he had heard of a great many county meetings, but he had never heard of a division taking place at such a meeting. The objection was perfectly frivolous, and honourable members, who knew how much time a division occupied in that House, must be aware that the numbers at a county meeting could scarcely be counted on a winter's day. He thought the sheriff had exercised no more than a legal discretion, and that, whether legal or otherwise, his conduct ought not to become the subject of inquiry in that House.
819
Lord Belgrave
said, he was present at the meeting, and certainly there was a material difference between the terms of the requisition as it had been read by the hon. member for Cheshire, and the terms which were actually employed. The hon. gentleman had stated it to be a requisition for a loyal address to his majesty; but the words of the requisition were, "We, the undersigned, call upon you to eonvene a meeting, for the purpose of declaring to his majesty the sentiments of loyalty and attachment to the throne which animate the breasts of the inhabitants of this county." He was sorry to hear it denied by the sheriff, that he had refused to put the amendment; for the fact was, that he had distinctly said, "I take upon myself to refuse putting the amendment to the meeting.". He regretted that he was obliged to complain of the conduct of several gentlemen with whom he had the pleasure of being personally acquainted, but without entering into details, he would only observe, that so extraordinary was the behaviour of some of those gentlemen, and so great was the confusion, that though he was close to the chair, he could not hear the vote of thanks to the sheriff. The sheriff withdrew precipitately from the hall, and the whole transaction reflected disgrace upon the county to which he had the honour and the happiness to belong. The two important points were, that the sheriff had first refused to put the amendment, and next, that he had not allowed a division, though in truth there ought to have been little difference of sentiment, since the address and the amendment, rightly viewed, were hardly distinguishable. he was anxious that the authority of the sheriffs of counties should be supported, as he knew that it was as important to a county that its sheriffs should be looked up to with respect, as it was to the city of London that it should have a magnificent lord mayor. But, he wished the House to remember in what manner the sheriffs had formerly been chosen by the people, and he wished them to look carefully at any proceedings that went to make them act as the mere instruments of the Crown. Up to the 9th of Edward 2nd the sheriffs were always chosen by the people, as much as members of parliament were at present. He shewed how this right had fared in different parts of the kingdom. In the county of Westmor-
820
Mr. Warre
was convinced that the sheriff of Chester had not acted with any intentional partiality, even if he had erred on a point of form. He must therefore oppose the motion.
Lord Castlereagh
felt that no case had been made out to impeach the conduct of the individual in question. No insinuation had been uttered against the intentions of the sheriff, and his letter bespoke a mind of the utmost candour and liberality. He protested against the doctrine, that whenever a charge was brought forward casting even the remotest doubt, an inquiry ought instantly to be commenced. If the House suffered itself to be dragged into such investigations, they must be interminable. He should be sorry indeed to see county meetings in any way discouraged, because from them the public sentiment was to be collected; but it was to he remembered that, by law, the sheriff was invested with a discretion whether he would or would not call them, and no more effectual mode could be adopted to induce him to decide against them, than to threaten that his conduct as president, however impartial, should be made the subject of complaint and inquiry, provided he were guilty of the slightest breach of the most insignificant forms. Besides, such a jurisdiction did not in fact belong to the House of Commons. If the conduct of sheriffs at county meetings was to be made the subject of the labour of committees, in what way were other assemblies whether convened by lords lieutenants, by magistrates, or in private rooms, to be excluded. The presidents of all these might in turn be brought before the House, whose functions were ill qualified for such a
821
Mr. A. Moore
thought it of the highest importance, that the House should inquire whether the sheriff in this instance had violated a public principle, or merely deviated from a formal rule. Contradictory statements had been submitted to them, and it therefore became necessary, in order to get at the facts, that the subject should be referred to a committee. That some further explanation was desirable, had, he thought, become obvious. An hon. member had observed, that he should have been more inclined to pay attention to this complaint, had the sheriff refused to convene the county. Now to him it appeared that a refusal to collect and to ascertain the sense of the county when it was assembled, called still more loudly for the notice of that House. It was far from his intention to dispute the respectability of the sheriff's character; indeed, that respectability added to the importance of not suffering his example to become a precedent. It had been urged that the practice of convening counties under the authority of the sheriff was but of recent dale. He agreed that they had no judicial power over such assemblies:—they were in a situation similar to that which they held in their county courts. In the latter case the jury, and in the former the freeholders, were the judges. The office, of sheriff was purely ministerial; when he refused, therefore, to put an amendment, he exercised a discretion with which he was not invested. The persons assembled, and not the sheriff, were to pronounce an opinion on the relevancy or non-relevancy of the proposition submitted to them. It was to that House alone that the people could look for redress of a grievance of this nature. A court of law could afford none; but the animadversion of the House, and a recorded statement of its opinion, could hardly fail to prevent a repetition of the abuse.
Mr. Creevey
then shortly replied. The
822
The House divided: Ayes
65;
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Althorp, lord
Becher, W. W.
Lambton, J. G.
Bright, H.
Lennard, T. B.
Bury, visct.
Lushington, Dr.
Calvert, C.
Maberly, J.
Campbell, hon. F.
Macdonald, J.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Clifton, lord
Martin, J.
Crespigny, sir W.
Monck, J. B.
Davies, T. H.
Moore, A.
Denison, W. J.
Moore, P.
Duncannon, visct.
Newport, sir J.
Ellice, E.
O'Callaghan, J.
Farquharson, A.
Ord, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Ossulston, lord
Graham, S.
Palmer, C. F.
Grant, J P.
Phillips, J. R.
Gordon, R.
Price, R.
Griffiths, J.
Ramsden, J. C.
Guise, sir W.
Rice, G.
Hamilton, lord A.
Robarts, A.
Harbord, hon. E.
Robarts, G.
Heathcote, G. J.
Robinson, sir G.
Hill, lord A.
Rumbold, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sefton, earl of
Hony wood, W. P.
Stanley, lord
Hornby, E.
Taylor, M. A.
Howard, hon. W.
Tennyson, C.
Hughes, W. L.
Western; C. C.
Hume, J.
Wharton, J.
823
Whitmore, W. W.
TELLERS.
Wilson, sir R.
Creevey, Thos.
Wood, ald.
Philips, G.
Wyvill, M.
PAIRED OFF.
Shelley, sir J.
AFRICAN COMPANY.]
Mr. Goulburn rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the African Company, and to transfer to his majesty all the forts and possessions belonging to them. He wished not to be understood, that by making such a motion, he cast any imputation whatever on the company.
Mr. Marryat
observed, that though the object of this bill was not to impute any blame to the African company, the effect of it certainly was, to cast an imputation upon it. The House had heard much of late of the impropriety of prejudging a ease before a trial; but the House, in acceding to this motion, was going to condemn a party which, on a former occasion, had been acquitted by a committee of its own selection. Gentleman would recollect, that after the affairs of the African company had been submitted to the consideration of a committee, the committee had declared itself satisfied with the manner in which they were administered, and had merely recommended that the governor of its settlements should be appointed by his majesty, that the number of its forts should be diminished, and that the number of governors should be reduced from nine to six. What had occurred since that period to show the necessity of altering the manner in which the affairs of that settlement were regulated he did not know. The right hon. gentleman had not stated any cause for altering it, and a. very deserving officer, (sir G. Collier)had spoken in high terms of the internal administration of it. He wished to remind the House, that that company had opened a communication with the king of Ashantee, and with others of the native chieftains, from which there was a certainty of obtaining better intelligence respecting the interior of Africa than any which had been yet acquired; while two expeditions which had been sent out from Sierra Leone, at a cost of thirty or forty thousand pounds to the country, had entirely failed in the objects for which they had been fitted out. He did not see why a company which was acknowleged on all hands to have acted meritoriously should be abolished, without the necessity of the abolition of it being shown to a committee.
824
Mr. Gordon
said, he had been a member of the committee to which the affairs-of the African company had been referred, and had been instrumental in the drawing up of the report which it had presented to the House. When the commit* tee recommended that the sovereignty of the settlements on the Gold Coast should be continued to the African company, if had done so from the difficulty of knowing how to avoid many evils which another system of government was certain to introduce. His majesty's ministers had since laboured under the same difficulty; and he was informed that they had considered many plans for the administration of those settlements before they had determined on taking them under their own control and governance. That measure appeared to him to be wise and politic, and calculated to produce the most beneficial effects. He did not see what right the African company had to complain of these forts being taken out of their hands. They were originally placed under their control to support the slave trade: and one would suppose that when the slave trade was abolished those forts would be abolished also. Besides, the country paid from 25,000
l.
l.
l.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, February 21, 1821.
FOREIGN TRADE—COMMERCE OF THE
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose, in pursuance of notice, to move the re-appointment of the committee of last session, or rather of a new committee, to consider the state of our Foreign Trade. In doing so, when he recollected the general concurrence of opinion which prevailed last year, he felt it would not be necessary for him to go into those details to which he had then been induced to direct their lordships' attention. But, though he did not think it necessary to
825
826
827
828
Lord Ellenborough
regretted that he should have occasion to differ with the noble marquis; but he could not entertain the same views of the effect likely to be produced on the existing distress by the reduction of taxation. The utmost practicable reductions could not be to such an amount as to be felt as a remedy. There was one mode, however, of affording considerable relief. That mode consisted, not in the removal of the taxes, but in their more equal distribution so as to press more lightly upon manufacturers. He might appeal in support of his opinion to the report of the committee of last year on the Timber Trade. In what state had the committee found the duties on that trade? The duties on logs were higher than those on manufactured timber. Those on Norway deals amounted to 60 per cent, and those on Petersburgh
829
l.
l.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed, consisting of the same members as that of last year.
The Earl of Liverpool
rose to move that certain accounts be laid before the House, but did not mean to enter into any details on the state of the commerce of the country, and, least of all, on that great fundamental branch of industry agriculture; but he was anxious that the House should, as far as it was possible, know what was the real state of the case with respect to consumption in order, that when they came to discuss the question, they might not be ignorant of the facts connected with it. In the situation he held, he had thought it his duty to direct Ids attention to this subject, and to collect together all the information that could be obtained relative to it. The view of the subject which the papers he intended to move for would give, would not vary much from that which he had taken on the first day of the session, (when a difference arose between him and the noble marquis.) He had then stated, that one great cause of the public distress was an excess of production. He admitted that the causes to which the noble marquis had alluded might have their effects, but the noble marquis had also stated, that diminution of consumption was a more probable cause than over-production. He had endeavoured to obtain the best information in his power on the subject. With regard to that article which was the most important criterion of consumption, he meant bread, he had no means of obtaining information capable of leading to a conclusion which could be regarded as any thing like correct. But, from the manner in which the revenue was collected, their lordships had the means of accurate information on all the other great articles of consumption. It would be found that with respect to the Excise, the increase was great. He would not found his calculation on the value of
830
Strong Beer
Average number of barrels on which the Excise duty was raised in the three years ending in Jan. 1818, 1819, and 1820
5,356,000
For the year ending Jan. 1821
5,599,000
Making an increase of
243,000
Table Beer.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
1,447,000
For the last year
1,519,465
Making an increase of
72,465
Candles.
lbs.
Average for the three years ending in Jan. 1820
79,810,409
For the last year
88,350,000
Making an increase of
3,539,591
Coffee.
lbs.
Average for the three years ending in Jan. 1820
7,569,000
For the last year
7,019,000
Making a diminution of
55,000
Hides and Skins.
lbs.
Average for the three years ending in Jan. 1820
46,219,000
For the last year
44,702,000
Making a diminution of
1,517,000
Malt.
Quarters.
Average for the three years ending in Jan. 1820
23,289,000
For the last year
24,511,000
Making an increase of
1,222,000
Salt and Rock Salt.
Cwt.
Average for internal consumption during the three years ending in Jan. 1820
1,936,000
831
For the last year
1,981,000
Making an increase of
45,000
For Exportation.
Cwt.
Average for the three years ending in Jan. 1820
861,247
For the last year
1,199,000
Making an increase of
537,753
Hard Soap.
lbs.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
69,474,000
For the last year
73,765,000
Making an increase of
4,291,000
Soft Soap.
lbs.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
4,569,000
For the last year
5,187,000
Making an increase of
618,000
British Spirits.
Gallons.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
5,047,000
For the last year
6,575,000
Making an increase of
1,528,000
Foreign Spirits—Rum.
Gallons.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
2,790,000
For the last year
2,757,000
Making an increase of
33,000
Foreign Spirits—Brandy.
Gallons.
Average for the three years ending January 1820
866,000
For the last year
1,143,000
Making an increase of
277,000
Tea.
lbs.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
22,186,000
For the last year
22,542,000
Making an increase of
356,000
Tobacco:
lbs.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
11,847,000
For the last year
11,680,000
Making a diminution of
167,000
French Wines.
Gallons.
Average for the three years ending Jan. 1820
977,000
For the last year
916,000
Making a diminution of
61,000
Wines—not French.
Gallons.
Average for the three years ending Jan., 1820
18,440,000
For the last year
16,300,000
Making a diminution of
2,146,000
Sugar.
Cwt.
Average for England alone during the three years ending Jan. 1820.
3,117,000
For the last year
3,413,000
Making an increase of
296,000
Thus, the papers which he should move for would show that on almost all the great articles of consumption, coffee ex-
832
833
Lord Erskine
declared that he felt great disappointment at the speech of the noble earl. He did expect to have heard much more on the present occasion, as to the best mode of diminishing, if not of remedying, the severe evils under which the people were labouring. The noble earl, amidst his enumeration of small beer, candles, soap, &c. had said nothing of the
834
Lord King
said, that formerly it was the practice of ministers to come down to the House with the annual accounts: now they came down with an annual paradox. One year our distress was owing to a transition from war to peace; and another it was owing to excess of production. Swift, in all his expositions of the follies of mankind, never described any thing so absurd as this last paradox. If there had been a deficiency of supply, the noble earl would have found our distress was owing to that case. When the noble earl mentioned that there had been an increase of production and of consumption, would he likewise say that there had been—the necessary consequence of it—an increase of capital? No; there had been no increase of capital: there had been no increase in the quantity of lime used on the land: there had been no increase in the quantity of agricultural labour. As for the cause of our distress, we need look no further than to the circumstance, that we had been for twenty-five years engaged in war, and that we must now pay for it, aggravated as its burthen had been by a
835
The Earl of Darnley
did not think that any legislative interference could do good. The only remedy for our distress would arise from retrenchment of expenditure and a diminution of taxation.
Earl Grey
expressed the extreme disappointment with which he had listened to the noble earl, who, from figures and official documents, endeavoured to draw an inference which was contradicted by every thing in the country. He well remembered that the noble earl had, some years ago, by the production of similar documents, endeavoured to draw the inference that the Bank paper was not depreciated; he now, however acknowledged that it had been so, and no doubt the same falsification would attend his inference of the present night. The assertion of the noble earl that the continued consumption proved that the comforts of the people were not diminished, could be refuted by every man in the kingdom. Nor did he believe that there was the excess of production supposed by the noble earl; for he understood that the last crop was rather under than over the average. The causes of all the evils which the country endured, were obviously the profuse expenditure of the late war, and the burdens thereby imposed upon the country. The alteration in our currency was also a main source of the evil, for let them turn and twist it as they would, the fact was, that we had contracted in depreciated paper an immense debt, which we were unable to pay in our restored currency. The situation of the country appeared to him to be frightful. A noble friend of his had said, that we must not for a moment look at a breach of public faith. So said he. But there was an ancient law maxim, which was equally applicable to other subjects:—"Nemo tenetur ad impossible." It was difficult to repress the apprehension, that we were much in the same situation in which France, at the time of the Revolution, was declared to be by a celebrated man, namely, "on the verge of bankruptcy." Distressed as the people were, and alienated from the government by a long course of the most impolitic conduct, there was nothing to which we could look
836
The motion was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 21, 1821.
THE QUEEN—MILAN COMMISSION.]
Sir John Newport presented a petition from Langholm, imploring the House to restore the Queen's name to the Liturgy, and to withdraw their confidence from a set of ministers who had misled their king, insulted their Queen, and who despised the voices of nine-tenths of the honest subjects of this realm.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he would take that opportunity of making a few observations with respect to the Milan commission. When he first brought this subject before the House, the noble lord opposite said he should be perfectly ready to promote an investigation when the proper time arrived. But how had the noble lord redeemed his pledge? He now said he should be ready to meet the question, if a motion were made on his (sir R. F's.) side of the House. What a mockery was this language on the part of the noble lord, when the noble lord and his adherents were determined to oppose any proposition which came from that side of the House. When he saw a great majority of that House blindly following a minister, and disregarding the wishes of the country, it would be folly in him to submit any motion on the subject to the House.
Sir J. Mackintosh
expressed his entire approbation of the conduct of his gallant friend, in declining to bring forward any motion after the late divisions in that House, divisions upon which he (sir James) forbore to make any observation. He would abstain from all reflection upon them—he would leave them to the judgment of the country and of posterity; he would only say that they fully justified the prudent resolution of his hon. and gallant friend. He knew nothing of the particulars of the Milan commission; all he knew was, that a general suspicion had arisen as to their proceedings, which was not confined to any party in that House, but had extended throughout Europe. Under these circumstances he was astonished that the persons who formed that commission, filling, as they did, most respectable stations in life, did not themselves insist upon an inquiry into
837
Lord Castlereagh
thought the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman were wholly uncalled for by the circumstances under which this petition was brought before the House. With respect to the conduct of the Milan commission, those individuals had been most anxious to have the whole of the proceedings investigated. It had never, however, been the parliamentary practice, that a mere desire on the part of any individuals should be considered as a motive sufficiently strong of itself for the institution of an inquiry. If it had been expedient to institute an inquiry, they would have been able to satisfy the House that they had acted in conformity with the principles of British justice,
Mr. Bennet
concurred in the propriety of his gallant friend's determination. In the present temper of the House there was little chance of his obtaining the object he had in view. But the time would come when the country would demand inquiry into the infamous transactions of the Milan commission.
Ordered to lie on the table.
NAPLES—CONDUCT OF THE ALLIED POWEKS.]
Sir J. Mackintosh rose to make his promised motion, when he was interrupted by Mr. Wynn, who requested precedence for a motion which he had on the paper; but the cries of "No" being loud and general,
Sir James Mackintosh
proceeded with his motion. He commenced by expressing the readiness with which he should have complied with the desire of his hon. and learned friend, were it not that he saw the anxiety of the House to permit him to go on with the important business of which he had given notice. Indeed, he should have wished to have postponed his motion, were it not for the strong and argent necessity which called upon him
838
839
840
non meus hic sermo."
841
842
843
844
845
habe-mus confitentem reum;
846
primâ facie
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
monstrations des droits.
855
nil horum.
might
might
856
"At non ille, satum quo te mentiris, Achilles "Talis in hoste fuit."
That
this
857
veto
858
859
caput mortuum
860
"License they mean when they cry liberty; For who means that must first be wise and good."
861
862
abouchements des Rois
863
abouchements,
abouchements
864
865
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that in proceeding to examine some of the positions of the hon. and learned gentleman he was perfectly willing to join in many of the sentiments and general principles which he had laid down. His duty Would be best discharged, however, by confining himself as strictly as the nature of the question would permit, to a discussion of those grounds which were immediately applicable to the vote to which the House would have to come. In the first place, then, he must say, that he could see no reason for the House to express any opinion at that moment, unless the state of Europe called for its interposition. It was not the practice of parliament to desire any disclosure of a pending negotiation with foreign powers; and as we were riot principals in the negotiation alluded to, it would be as inconsistent with good faith as with delicacy to compel his majesty's ministers to make any further disclosures on that subject at present. If he should now offer any general observations, it would still be with the view of stripping the main point in question of that colouring which the brilliant talents of the hon. and learned gentleman had thrown over it. He was himself placed in a somewhat whimsical situation by the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman. We were now at the end of a long course of
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
coup de main
879
Sir Robert Wilson
said, that the noble lord had not in his long harangue shown himself to be any great economist of time at least, for he had entered largely into topics quite extraneous from the present debate. He should not follow the noble lord into these wanderings, but he must
880
881
882
Lord Castlereagh
assured the gallant general, that he had never heard a word about such a circumstance before.
Sir R. Wilson
begged to assure the noble lord that he rejoiced at this removal of such an imputation from the character of the country: he had felt it his duty to inquire respecting it thus publicly, because it had been communicated to him as a fact from very high authority, and because he was anxious, if it could be contradicted, that that contradiction should be most complete. The operations of the Carbonari were said to be secret: that was not extraordinary when they knew the powerful opponents with whom they had to combat. They were said to be numerous, and to amount to hundreds of thousands:—so they ought, if their object was the assertion of their liberties; and their numbers would soon, he trusted, become millions, if liberty were to be assailed by despotism. The gallant member then took a rapid review of the acts which at different periods of their respective reigns had marked the career of the allied sovereigns, and rendered their present indignation at a military revolution, effected suddenly and secretly, most extraordinary. The present emperor of Russia had ascended the throne by the means of a secret military revolution; and yet no complaint was made of his accession under such circumstances. Had not another of these sovereigns promoted the defection of general Yorck from his allegiance? And did not Austria induce the Saxon army to desert the colours of their sovereign in the battle of Leipsic? It was singular that these sovereigns, who had all in their turn promoted disaffection, should now threaten to decimate troops who only followed their example. But how did the present conduct of these allies accord with what they had done at Vienna, when, en the 12th of May, 1815, the ministers of the allied powers drew up a declaration, which they published to Europe, stating, "that the governments they represented
883
Mr. Wilberforce
observed, that whether the constitution now established at Naples, in the way stated by his noble friend, was or was not likely to prove a good one, was not the question for consideration. His noble friend in his state paper had very properly divided the subject into two parts. The first, containing certain general principles; and the second, referring to the application of those principles. His noble friend had confined his argument to the latter subject; but the first part bore on his mind as being infinitely more important. That the three greatest military powers of Europe should assume to themselves the right of saying to other states—"You shall form no constitution, except that which we please to sanction," was a principle hostile to every idea of liberty. He could scarcely conceive any principle in itself so unjust or so abominable. His noble friend had distinctly set forth, in the state paper which had been laid on the table, that this principle was not only contrary to the constitution of the country, but to the general laws of nations; but still he felt indebted to his hon. and learned friend for bringing this question under consideration, in order that the principle to which he had adverted might receive the utter reprobation of the House. His noble friend would allow him to state, that it might be supposed, when those foreign powers made such a proposition to this
884
885
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, it appeared to him, after the explanation given by the noble lord, that there remained no room for jealousy on this subject. When the noble lord stated that he had, before the 19th of January, expressed the same opinion which he now held, he conceived that declaration rendered the motion unnecessary. If it had not been made, it would, he thought, have afforded a good ground for dividing the House. His great reason for rising was, to lay before the House his protest against the doctrines contained in
886
Colonel Davies
defended the Neapolitans against the charge of endeavouring to draw the subjects of other states from their allegiance. The inhabitants of Ponte Corvo sent deputies, at the commencement of the revolution, with a desire to become parties, but the Neapolitans, so far from taking an advantage of that disposition, actually reconciled them to the Pope, and induced them to return to their allegiance.
Mr. Tierney
thought that the noble lord had granted too much or too little. If the circular of our government had not been on the journals—if the notice of it had occurred incidentally—he would then have agreed that a division was the thing most to be avoided. But he could not see how it was possible for the House, having a paper before it which was attacked on one side and defended on the other, could give any opinion on that paper, without further information. The House of Commons would present an extraordinary appearance abroad, if they were to be checked, not in taking any step, but in calling for information. He considered the paper which had given rise to this discussion as the most important that had been laid before parliament for many years; and coupling it with the speech of the noble lord, he viewed it with great anxiety. The noble lord had stated, that he had sent to the great powers on the continent such remonstrances, from time to time, as must convince them of the sincerity of his majesty's ministers in their determination to take a neutral course. Now, he meant nothing uncivil to the noble lord, but he certainly should be glad to see the re-
887
888
889
Mr. Robinson
said, the right hon. gentleman had misrepresented the views of his noblefriend. His noble friend had presented a paper to the House; and any one would suppose from the argument of the right hon. gentleman, that the paper was laid on the table to justify the measures of the allied powers. The fact was, the paper was produced to convince the House, that whatever might be the course of proceeding adopted by the allies, this country was no party to the transaction. Then the right hon. gentleman said, the House ought to be put in possession of all communications. In the paper before the House there was allusion to the communication which the right hon. gentleman appeared to consider so mysterious. Unless the right hon. gentleman could show some good ground for bringing the communications to the test, it was too much to call upon the House to say that the true course had not been taken by his majesty's government. No opportunity had been omitted of stating the view which government took; and with respect to that view, he would say, that government would not have clone their duty if they had omitted to state it. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to some stories of prince Metternich having expressed a desire that the present ministers should remain in office. This was quite new to him. But he had heard a story relative to the sentiments which gentlemen of high consideration in this country entertained with respect to a celebrated individual, now in a remote quarter of the globe. And certainly it could not be surprising that prince Metternich should feel considerable alarm at the prospect of a change of ministry, which was to release Buonaparté from the island of St. Helena.
Mr. Tierney
hoped that as there could be no doubt that he had been personally alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, the House would indulge him with an opportunity of offering a few remarks in ex-
890
The Hon. J. W. Ward
thought that the decision of the House that night would depend much on the confidence reposed in his majesty's ministers. The gentlemen opposite, who professed to entertain no such confidence, might vote for the motion; but he could not see how those who retained confidence in the noble lord could support it. If the motion were carried, he should say that the noble lord was pronounced by the House unworthy to retain his office; and therefore he, for one, should vote against it. He agreed, however, with his hon. and learned friend who had introduced this subject with a display of eloquence which he would not presume to praise, that the late proceedings of the allied sovereigns formed a precedent as dangerous in its consequences, as it was unwarrantable in principle. The march of the Austrian army towards Naples, and the steps preceding that movement, he looked upon as the most alarming circumstances that had occurred in Europe for a long period of time. He did not deny that cases might
891
892
Mr. Brougham
rejoiced to hear the testimony which had been borne by the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, by the hon. member for Yorkshire, and by the gentleman who had spoken from his side of the House; and he rejoiced the more at that testimony, because Europe would now perceive, and the congress at Laybach would perceive, that this was not a decision of the English House of Commons in their favour; that it was not even a delay of judgment against them; that it was not an opinion pronounced on the mighty question which now agitated Europe, and which he hoped would at last end in general liberty. He hoped that it would produce liberty, if possible, by peace: but, if that were not possible, then by war—a war which he hoped! not to see this country engage in, but a war imposed as a necessary duty upon those on whose liberties an attack was about to be made. He was not sanguine enough to expect that the first results of that war would be favourable to Naples. But let the immediate result be what it might, though at first defeated, the seed would be sown, the foundation would be laid for better exertions, and for eventual success. Though defeated in the south, they would break out in the north; and though they might even then be quelled, yet Germany itself was not insensible to the struggle. After the part which he had taken five years ago in a debate upon a question in some degree allied to the present, he could not possibly reconcile it to himself to give a silent vote on the present occasion. Once more he entreated, that no
893
Sir J. Mackintosh
rose to reply. After all that had been said, he felt satisfied that in making his motion for further information, he had given to the members of the House an opportunity of expressing in a mild and safe manner, their condemnation of the principles upon which the Holy Alliance had proceeded. The president of the board of trade had observed, that there was no use in asking for information, unless it were intended to be followed by a motion for censure. Were there, then, sufficient grounds, it had been asked, on a
prima facie
894
Lord Castlereagh
said, that it was impossible for him to give a more direct denial to the statement of the hon. gentleman than that which he had given. He had never heard of the circumstance; and he therefore could not be expected to speak to a circumstance of which he had till now been ignorant.
The House divided: Ayes 125. Noes 194. Majority 69.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Clifton, lord
Althorp, visc.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Anson, hon. Geo.
Concannon, L.
Beaumont, T. W.
Crespigny, sir W.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Crompton, Saml.
Baring, sir Thos.
Creevey,Thos.
Baring, Alex.
Corbett, P.
Barnard, visc.
Davies, T. H.
Barratt, S. M.
Denison, W. J.
Becher, W. W.
Denman, T.
Benett, John
Dundas, Chas.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Ellice, E.
Bentinck, lord W.
Evans, Wm.
Benyon, Ben.
Farquharson, A.
Birch, J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Bernal, Ralph
Fitzroy, lord J.
Brougham, Henry
Fox, G. Lane
Bright, H.
Glenorchy, visc.
Bury, visc.
Gordon, Robt.
Byng, George
Graham, S.
Calcraft, J.
Grant, J. P.
Calcraft, J. H.
Grenfell, P.
Calvert, C.
Griffiths, J. W.
Campbell, hon. J. F.
Guise, sir W.
Carew, R. S.
Gurney, Hudson
Carter, John
Hamilton, lord A.
Cavendish, lord G.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Cavendish, H.
Hill, lord A.
Cavendish, Charles
Hobhouse, J. C.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Hornby, E.
Clifford, capt.
Honywood, W. P.
895
Howard, hon. W.
Robarts, Ab.
Hughes, W. L.
Robarts, G.
Hume, Jos.
Robinson, sir G.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Rumbold, C.
James, W.
Russell, lord J.
Jervoise, G. P.
Russell, R. G.
Kennedy, T. F.
Scarlett, J.
Lennard, T. B.
Smith, hon. R.
Lambton, J. G.
Smith, J.
Lemon, sir W.
Smith, W.
Langton, T. H.
Smyth, J. H.
Macdonald, Jas.
Sebright, sir J. G.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Sefton, earl of
Marjoribanks, S.
Shelley, sir John
Martin, John
Stanley, lord
Monck, J. B.
Stuart, lord J.
Moore, P.
Talbot, R. W.
Newport, sir J.
Tennyson, C.
Noel, sir G.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
O'Callaghan, Jas.
Warre, J. A.
Ord, W.
Western, C.C.
Ossulston, lord
Wharton, John
Palmer, C.
Wood, Matthew
Palmer, C. F.
Wyvill, M.
Parnell, sir H.
Wetherell, C.
Philips, G.
Wilberforce, W.
Philips, Geo. jun.
Williams, Wm.
Pierce, H.
TELLERS.
Power, R.
Duncannon, vise.
Price, Robt.
Wilson, sir R.
Ramsay, sir A.
PAIRED OFF.
Ramsden, J. C.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Ricardo, David
Aubrey, sir J.
Rice, T. S.
Barham, J. F.
Rickford, W.
Sykes, D.
Ridley, sir M.
Taylor, M. A.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 22, 1821.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
After several Petitions had been presented complaining of the Agricultural Distress,
Mr. Curwen
said, the distress was of a general nature; there was no class of society exempt from it. He rejoiced to see so many petitions presented from all parts of the country, because he hoped that they would force upon ministers the consideration of the subject. Looking at the miserable state of the people, he was, he confessed, astonished to find persons of information and ability, talking of the prosperous state of the country, and urging the amount of the excise duties as a proof thereof.
Mr. Ellice
wished to make one observation on what had fallen from his hon. friend with respect to the amount of the excise duties forming any criterion by which to judge of the prosperity of the country. He desired to refer his hon. friend to exactly the same statement made by the chancellor of the exchequer in
896
897
l.
l.
898
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s
l.
s.
d.
899
900
s.
l.
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
Mr. Grenfell
could not concur in opi-
901
Mr. Huskisson
expressed his regret, that Mr. Ellice should have so suddenly brought the House into the discussion of a subject which required to be handled with much caution.
Mr. Baring
conceived that his hon. friend had done a public good by bringing the question before the House. It was not a subject to be settled on what was called a grand debate; it required great consideration, and the House should not shrink from the avowal of the truth. He was not disposed to touch the law which had been lately made upon the subject; yet it was his conviction, that the attempt to bring about the restoration of the currency was at the bottom of the public distress. He sincerely hoped that the distress and embarrassment of the present day would operate as a solemn warning to future times, not to depart from the established standard of value. Ordered to lie on the table.
DUBLIN PETITION COMPLAINING OF THE CONDUCT OF
Lord John Russell
rose, pursuant to notice, to present a petition complaining of a military outrage alleged to have been committed by the high sheriff of Dublin, at a county meeting lately held at Kilmainham. He had, in the first place, to express his regret as well as his surprise—and it could not fail to excite the surprise of the House—that while there were so many able members from that part of the kingdom, the petitioners should have requested him to present their petition. He was sure, however, that in doing so they had been actuated by that generous feeling which was known to be characteristic of their country; that they believed the circumstance of which they
902
903
904
905
*
Colonel Talbot
said, in seconding the motion as one of the representatives of the county of Dublin, I feel myself called upon to say a few words on the subject of the petition. I was not present when the outrage complained of was committed; but I have no hesitation in saying, from every circumstance which has come to my knowledge, that the petition contains a correct
* See New Parl. Hist. vol. 1, p, 1361.
906
907
Lord John Russell then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the matter of the said petition."
Mr. C. Grant
said, he thought it right to declare on the part of the Irish government, that they had no connexion, publicly or privatety, with any of the proceedings which formed the subject of the petition. He deemed it further necessary to say, that no man deprecated more than he did the unnecessary interference of the military power: no one was more convinced that such interference was generally inexpedient; and he could say, that such was the conviction of the Irish government; appealing boldly to those who had witnessed the conduct of that government since he had been connected with it, whether they had shewn any disposition unnecessarily to resort to military force. The system of the Irish government had been, not to interfere; and he should continue to adhere to the same course on this question. He did not stand there as the defender of the high sheriff, but to state what the Irish government had done, and what, in his view, the House should do. But it was but just for him to mention what statement the high sheriff had given in. He should not remark on the degree of credit due to either of the statements; but it was fair that both of them should be before the House, and as to the main facts, it would be seen that the sheriff decisively contradicted the petitioners. The Irish government, when it had received the address had required an explanation from the sheriff, which he accordingly gave. Whenever the petitioners had alleged that he had not put the question whether there should be an address, the sheriff asserted that he did put the question, which was carried without opposition. The committee was not appointed by him, but
908
909
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, that he gave full credit to the right hon. gentleman for his desire to communicate to the people of Ireland the principles of the British constitution; but yet he must declare, that he thought his objections to the motion perfectly futile and inconclusive. The right hon. gentleman had much underrated the importance of this question, which involved nothing less than the right of petitioning, and which right it was the imperative duty of that House to assert and maintain. With respect to the reference of the case to a court of law, in what shape could such an appeal be made? Was it to be made to the grand jury, which might be impannelled by the sheriff himself, or which would most probably consist of the very persons who had approved of that conduct of which the petitioners complained? But supposing even a successful appeal to a court of law terminating in the punishment of the sheriff, would that punishment afford adequate redress to the country for the injury which this individual had done to the popular privilege of petitioning, especially in the introduction of a military force to disperse a meeting convened by his own authority? He did not mean to deny the right of the petitioners to appeal to a court of law upon this question, but be maintained that such an appeal could lead to no practical effect. The idea appeared to him. quite monstrous, of referring such a case as the present to any court of law, while that House was sitting, which ought to be the peculiar guardian of popular rights. The present question did not refer merely to the county of Dublin, but to every county, for if it were allowed to introduce the army for the purpose of dispersing a county meeting in Dublin, what was to prevent the example from being universally acted upon? With respect to the allegations in the petition, the court-house was crowded before the mover and seconder of the ori-
910
911
Mr. Ellis,
of Dublin, said, that he had not the slightest acquaintance with the sheriff; but having been at the meeting, it would be a dereliction of duty in him not to come forward and state what he knew. He would speak not as an advocate, but as a witness. It was absolutely impossible that the petitioners could have been guilty of premeditated misrepresentation; but they had stated many things calculated to mislead the judgment of the House. He himself had observed placards on the walls of the most inflammatory nature. The sheriff was attended by sixteen police-officers. He (Mr. Ellis) had heard the question put, but he was bound to say that he had not heard the negative put. But the sheriff and the noble lord who seconded the address, had both convinced him that the negative had been put. He was bound in candour to say, that he would not have acted as I the sheriff had acted. But the sheriff's situation was one of considerable difficulty. It was one of the most difficult I questions that could occur to ascertain where relevancy ended and irrelevancy commenced. It depended on the mode of the speaker, and the temper of the listener. If the sheriff had taken the wrong side of a difficult discretion, was he, on that account, to be calumniated, and to be dragged to the bar of that House without the imputation of a corrupt motive? If he had committed a great public injury, for which no adequate redress could be obtained in any other way, then such a course as this would be proper, But until such a case could be proved, it would be putting a man on his trial when be was not accused. He now came to that part of the subject which related to the calling in of the military. The facts of the case were these:—When the assembly was dissolved, the sheriff desired that the persons present should disperse. This was not met in a very civil manner. He then called for the police, not in a low inaudible tone, but in a tone of voice which was
912
molliter manus imponere,
Sir J. Newport
said, that this was a petition complaining of a gross outrage upon the rights of the people; and if the House refused to interfere, what would be the necessary inference? that the imperial parliament declined to do what the last parliament of Ireland had done. The county of Dublin complained that the right of petitioning had been invaded, and he knew of no way in which that public grievance could be so properly redressed as by an inquiry in the Commons House of Parliament. If it were possible to conceive a case in which the military ought not to have been introduced, this was the case. What freeholder would attend a count meeting, at which he was to be exposed to the violence and outrages of the military, and then to be turned round to his action at law for redress?
Sir J. Sebright
said, that when he voted for the late bills imposing restrictions upon public meetings, he certainly did not expect that the powers given to sheriffs would have been exercised as they had been by the sheriff of Dublin. He
913
Mr. Bathurst
said, that the late acts did not apply to county meetings, which stood entirely on the basis of common law. The only question which the House had to consider was, whether this was the most proper tribunal before which the inquiry could be carried on. If the sheriff had done wrong, what punishment was the House to inflict on him, or had they the same means of examining evidence which were possessed in courts of law? If they were to appoint a committee, this would not prevent individuals who thought themselves aggrieved from seeking their remedies against the sheriff in the ordinary courts of justice. Now, what a strange situation would the House be placed in, if two distinct proceedings took place on the same subject of investigation? If that House passed a resolution of censure or of acquittal, it would not prevent the parties complaining from instituting legal proceedings.
Mr. J. P. Grant
thought the House was bound not to leave the protection of the right of petitioning to the courts of law. If such outrages as those which had been committed in Dublin were to be treated as mere acts of indiscretion, there would be an end to that guardianship which the House was bound to exercise over the rights and liberties of the people.
Mr. R. Martin
contended, that even if the conduct of the sheriff were as illegal as it had been represented, still the subject was not one that ought to be investigated by a court of law.
Mr. Peel,
in voting against the motion, wished to guard against any possible misconstruction; for he certainly could not express any approbation of the conduct of the sheriff in the introduction of the military. Such an approbation would contradict the principles upon which he had uniformly acted when he held an official situation in Ireland. He had been accused of extreme severity in the measures which he adopted at that time; but he thought it better to put down the sys-
914
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that the matter of the present motion might be divided into two parts;—the first relating to the conduct of the Irish government in refusing to interfere, after the address presented; the second relating to the line of conduct which, under existing circumstances, it would befit the House of Commons to adopt. With respect to the first question he did not materially differ from the practical conclusion of the right hon. secretary for Ireland, and that of his predecessor. He thought, upon the whole, that the non-interference of the Irish government was fairly accounted for; but one of the reasons assigned for that interference struck him as a little singular. His right hon. friend contended, that it would have been improper for the government of Ireland to have removed the sheriff from his office, even if they knew that he had misconducted himself in it. That might, as a general principle, be true; but if it were true, what should be said of ministers who, without inquiry, and even without hearing removed from his post one of the most illustrious, virtuous and respectable men in England—giving him the first intimation of his dismission, too, in a way which would have been thought harsh from a private master to a menial servant, namely, by a paragraph inserted in a ministerial newspaper? If so much respect was due to the sheriff of Dublin, surely a little respect ought to have been shown to the illustrious individual (earl Fitzwilliam) to whom he had alluded. The House ought to examine into the cause of so much rigour on the one hand and so much lenity on the other: the lenity was shown to a man who cut short a proceeding likely to terminate in strictures upon the government; the rigour was exercised towards one who favoured the expression of public opinion. With respect to the second question, it had been argued that the violation of individual right was not a wrong for the in-
915
Mr. Shaw
said, he had been present at the meeting in question, and thought the conduct of the sheriff indiscreet, but not corrupt. He objected to the interference of the House, because a remedy was open at common law, and because he believed that that remedy was likely to be resorted to.
Lord Castlereagh
sincerely regretted the occurrence in question, and especially the introduction of military force. The question, however, was, what course it was prudent at present to pursue. He was by no means surprised at the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned gentleman, who had just sat down, because they were strictly consistent with those delivered by him on the Manchester question. The hon. and learned gentleman had, indeed, followed so strictly the course of
916
Lord Bective
was of opinion, that the high sheriff of Dublin had conducted himself with great judgment and propriety.
Mr. Creevey
said, he had been misunderstood in his observations on a former occasion on the right of petition. He on that occasion alluded to the year 1680. He never thought that it would fall to his lot to vindicate the conduct of a Russell and a Cavendish, in the part they had taken against such a wretch as Jefferies. It was the denial of the right of petition, seven years after that period, which caused James 2nd to lose his throne; and he hoped that should the right of the people of England be again invaded in a similar manner, the people would have spirit enough to do themselves that justice which had formerly been done under the auspices of a Russell and a Cavendish.
Mr. W. Wynn
was opposed to an inquiry into this subject as it was not strictly speaking, a breach of the privilege of parliament.
917
The House divided: Ayes 90; Noes 124. Majority against the motional 34.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Lambton, J. G.
Barham, J. F.
Lemon, sir W.
Barnard, visc.
Lloyd, J. M.
Barratt, S. M.
Maberly, John
Becher, W. W.
Macdonald, Jas.
Benett, John
Mackintosh, sir J.
Birch, Joseph
Martin, John
Blake, sir F.
Monck, J. B.
Boughey, sir John
Moore, Peter
Bright, H.
Newport, sir J.
Bury, visc.
Nugent, lord
Calcraft, J.
Noel, sir G.
Carew, R. S.
Ord, Wm.
Carter, John
Ossulston, lord
Cavendish, lord G.
Palmer, C. F.
Cavendish, Charles
Parnell, sir H.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Philips, G.
Coffin, sir Isaac
Phillips, Geo. R.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Power, R.
Curwen, J. C.
Price, Robt.
Creevey, Thos.
Rice, T. S.
Calvert, N.
Ramsden, J. C.
Cole, sir Chris.
Ricardo, David
Crawley, Saml.
Ridley, sir M.
Davies, T. H.
Robarts, Ab.
Denison, W. J.
Robinson, sir G.
Denman, Thos,
Rickford, Wm.
Duncannon, visc.
Smith, hon. R.
Ellice, Ed.
Smith Wm.
Farquharson, A.
Sebright, sir J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Talbot, R.W.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Tennyson, C.
Frankland, Robt.
Warre, J. A.
French, Arthur
Williams, Wm.
Fox, G. Lane
Wilson, sir R.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Wood, Matthew
Glenorchy, visc.
Wyvill, M.
Gordon, Robt.
Whitmore, W.
Grattan, J.
White, Luke
Grant, J. P.
Westenra, hon. H.
Griffith, J. W.
TELLERS.
Hamilton, lord A.
Fitzgerald, M.
Harbord, hon. E.
Russell, lord J.
Hill, lord A.
PAIRED OFF.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Forbes, visct.
Honywood, W. P.
Shelly, sir John
Howard, hon. W.
Lawley, F.
Hume, Jos.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Sykes, D.
Kennedy, T. F.
Mostyn, sir Thos.
Lennard, T. B.
Lloyd, sir E.
ADDRESSES FOR MONEY—STANDING
On the motion of Mr. Wynn, it was resolved, "That this House will not proceed upon any motion for an address to the Crown, praying that any money may be issued, or that any expense may be incurred, but in a committee of the whole House; and that the same be declared a standing order of the House."
918
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 23, 1821.
CONDUCT OF MR. JUSTICE BEST—PETITION OF THOMAS DAVISON.]—
Mr. Denman
said, he held in his hand a Petition on a subject highly important to the due administration of justice. The petition was from Thomas Davison, formerly of Duke-street, West Smithfield, but now a prisoner confined in Oakhampton gaol. The petitioner complained of having been fined whilst making his defence by Mr. Justice Best, before whom he was tried in October last, at Guildhall. The petitioner was tried for a blasphemous libel, and in the course of his defence he was fined three times by the learned judge. The first was a fine of 20
l
l
l
919
v
920
l
921
Mr. Hobhouse
thought that the petition deserved the attention of the House. Although he had searched with the utmost care, he had been unable to find a single case bearing on the question before the House. The absence of any similar exercise of power by a judge, amounted, he apprehended, to a proof of the illegality of the practice; for, according to lord Coke, as usage proved the intendment of the law, so non-usage proved what was not intended by the law. The strongest authority in favour of the existence of such a power was that of judge Holt, who said, that if a defendant was guilty of contempt, the judge might issue a warrant against him, if the contempt was committed out of court, or fine him if it was committed in court. This, however, was only the dictum of a judge, and as such could not be opposed to the law of the land. When judge Jeffries was on the bench, William Penn had been fined forty marks for refusing to take off his hat in court, and the jury had been imprisoned for giving a verdict contrary to the opinion of the bench. But, though Penn had insulted the bench, he was not fined for any expression made use of in his defence, but solely for refusing to pull off his hat; and surely what had been too much for judge Jeffries to do ought to be too much for any judge of the present time. In the 3rd Institute of Coke, p. 142, there was a report of the case of William Bruce, who, though he had grossly insulted the court, had not been fined for his conduct. A verdict having been found against Bruce, he addressed the judge in those words—"Roger! Roger! now thou hast thy will of me," and on being asked what he meant, he added, "what for a
922
The Attorney General
said, he did not understand that his learned friend had denied the legality of the proceeding of the learned judge; though the hon. seconder had roundly denied it. His learned friend, however, doubted the legality of the power to fine a defendant for contempt. His learned friend could not have been present when the question was fully discussed in the court of King's-bench and when all the judges gave their deliberate opinions upon it. The petition called in question the propriety of the decision of that court. The offence for which he defendant was tried, was not a political, but one of the most disgusting of blasphemous libels. He would read one short passage.
Lord John Russell
believed it was contrary to order to read any statement from
923
The Speaker
said, it was true, that no person, without leave of the House, could read from a printed paper though this rule had not been strictly insisted upon.
The Attorney-General
said, he should read a very short passage. The defendant in his libel intreated his countrymen to throw from them that book (meaning the Bible), which was full of blasphemy, lies, and uninteresting nonsense. The House must know that it was the practice of persons who were charged with such an offence, to reiterate the libel on their trial, and, indeed, to utter worse blasphemy. In that case, the judge had to determine whether he could suffer such a proceeding. The defendant had come prepared with a long written defence. In that defence, after he had been admonished by the judge, he attacked the whole profession of the law. For this he was not fined, but was checked by the judge; upon which he conducted himself with the greatest insolence, held out his hand in a menacing manner, and said, "If you wish to send me to your dungeon, here is the key." For this he was fined 20
l
l
Mr. Creevey
was of opinion, that the
924
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, that having known the learned judge, and enjoyed his friendship for the last forty years, he could not sit still and listen to the language of the last speaker. He requested to know whether such language was not disorderly.
The Speaker
said, he had not conceived at the moment that it was his duty to interfere, whatever the opinion of the House might be as to the decorum of the hon. member's observations. It had appeared to him, that the the hon. member was making reference to the motives under which the learned judge had decided, which was the gist and gravamen of the petition. He still considered, that the hon. member was not out of order.
The Solicitor General
said, that the hon. member had taken an opportunity to charge intemperate conduct on the learned judge and had referred to the proceedings of that learned person on the trial of a member of the House. He would ask, what there was in the conduct of the learned judge on that occasion, which called for such reprehension? As to the merits of the publication which was the subject of that trial, there could be no doubt that it was of a most malignant nature. All the judges of the court of King's-bench, even Mr. Justice Bayley, who differed from his brothers on the point of form, agreed that it was a malicious and malignant libel. But, on the point of form the majority of the judges concurred with Mr. Justice Best. Yet the hon. member for Appleby accused Mr. Justice Best of intemperance. When they talked of intemperance, what was the character of the hon. member who made such a serious charge upon such slight grounds? As to the petition of Davison, it contained an incorrect statement of the proceedings on his trial.
925
l
Mr. Lockhart
declared himself quite satisfied with the explanation which had been given as to the conduct of the learned judge in the case under discussion. There could be no doubt as to the power of a judge to punish for contempt; for without such a power it would be impossible for a judge to preserve order in court, or to administer justice. If a defendant, under the pretence of pleading his cause, thought proper to indulge in blasphemous, or seditious language, how was the judge to silence him? The judge could not be required to use physical force, for the purpose of restraining such an offender; and if he were to order him out of the court while the trial went on
926
Mr. Scarlett
expressed his regret that he was not present when the petition was read, as he was therefore unable to pronounce any opinion upon its merits. But, if it disputed the power of a court of law to punish for contempt, he certainly could not concur with the petitioner; for there could be no doubt of the existence of such power. He was not present at the trial referred to by the petitioner, and therefore he could give no decided opinion upon it, but could have no doubt that the judge would exercise a sound discretion in preventing a defendant or any other person in court from violating the rules established for the better administra-of justice, or from controverting every position of the law and the gospel. If, indeed, the judge did not possess such a power, a defendant might resort to any excess of irregularity; for instance, he might place himself in such a position towards the jury as would be grossly indelicate and indecent, under the pretence that he could only defend himself in such a position; and surely in such a case the judge should have the power of controlling him. If, then the judge ought to have the power of preventing personal indecency, why not that also of prohibiting the moral and religious indecency of controverting every position of the law and the gospel. With regard to what had been observed as to the deference due to the judges, no man more strongly felt that deference than himself; but that feeling should not restrain him from questioning the conduct of any one or more of the judges, where that conduct appeared to him to be erroneous. He should, however, always express his dissent from such high authority with great diffidence; but that diffidence could not restrain him from making a few remarks upon a recent case, where a fine was imposed upon a journalist for publishing certain trials contrary to the order of the judges. This was, in his opinion, carrying the doctrine of contempt much too far. The publication of a trial in any British court with fidelity was certainly no offence, and therefore could not legally be construed into contempt; yet in the case to which he alluded, the journalist was fined for publishing a trial, without a charge of any
927
Sir F. Blake
objected to this petition as being too inflammatory; but he begged it to be understood, that he was a decided advocate for the right of petitioning upon proper subjects and in adequately strong language; and what language could be stronger than
nolumus leges Angliœ mutari?
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that as no doubt appeared to be entertained upon the legality of the judge's conduct to which the petition referred, and as the court of King's-bench had solemnly adjudged that conduct to be correct, he saw no reason why that House should at all enter into the subject. If a defendant availed himself of the indulgence afforded him of making his own defence to commit fresh crimes, was his attempt to be tolerated of committing still further crimes, in the shape of a petition to that House? It would be quite inconsistent with the sober exercise of the right of petitioning to
928
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that it was too much for any minister to talk of admonishing the people upon the exercise of their inalienable and most sacred right, or that the time of the House was misapplied in discussing their petitions. As to the petition under discussion, he could not decline voting for its reception, upon the ground that it referred to the conduct of a judge; feeling, as he did, that it was competent to that House to take cognizance of the conduct of any judge, however high his character.
Lord Castlereagh
explained. If the House permitted the petition to be brought up, it would be an admission that the subject of it was matter fit for the consideration of the House.
Mr. Bright
said, that this was not to be regarded as a mere question of legality, but as an appeal to that House upon its great constitutional privilege, according to which, it was competent and imperatively bound to superintend the proceedings of the judges, and to watch with jealousy the manner in which justice was administered. It was known, indeed, from history, that judges had often acted wrong,
929
Mr. Hutchinson
said, it was not to be endured, that a minister of the Crown should declare, that a petition complaining of a grievance should not be brought up. Was it not too much that it should be assumed that the petitions of the people were so immoral, seditious, and blasphemous, that they ought not even to be heard?
Lord Castlereagh
said, it was true he was a minister of the Crown, but he was also a member of parliament, and he had yet to learn that he was to he precluded from offering any observations to the House, upon any subject before it. If there was to be no discussion allowed upon the question of bringing up a petition, it was unnecessary to have it put to the House from the Chair.
Lord Althorp
expressed a wish to have the doors of that House thrown wide
930
Mr. Wynn
thought, that a complaint of a decision in the court of King's-bench, was not a fit subject for a petition to that House. He was far from maintaining, that the conduct of a judge might not be so flagitious and unconstitutional as to be a fit subject of parliamentary inquiry. If any member was satisfied that such had been the conduct of the judge in the present case, the proper course would be, either to Jay a charge upon the table by way of impeachment, or to propose an address to the Crown for his removal. If the House sanctioned the present application, where would they draw the line?
Mr. Bernal
would put it to the noble lord, whether the present was the time when they should discourage the petitions of the people. In the present state of the public feeling he would open the doors of the House as much as possible to their petitions.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the general practice on presenting petitions was, to state their nature and object, in order to let the House see whether they were such as ought to be received. The reading of the petition would inform the House of the language; but the matter should be stated before it was brought up, and the House would decide on that matter. He understood that the present petition contained a charge against one of the judges, that the petitioner had been illegally fined by him, and that the judge having thus gained his end of preventing his defence, had remitted the fine. Now this was a gross charge; and the question was whether they would receive a petition which was admitted to contain a libel.
Mr. Denman.
—I did not say it was libellous.
Mr. Huskisson
maintained, that if the petition contained this charge, it was a libel, and it ought not to be received. It had been said that if this petition was not received, the House would be shutting its doors against the petitions of the people; but he contended, that the rejection of
931
Sir R. Fergusson
said, that the plain question before the House was, whether this petition should be rejected unheard, and unread? If the language of a petition was decorous and respectful, it was a matter of course that it should be read; if afterwards it appeared to be inadmissible, it was in the discretion of the House to receive or reject it.
Mr. G. Bankes
thought that the petition ought to be rejected. The learned gentleman had said, that be was not prepared to propose any ulterior step. Besides the petition contained an imputation against a learned judge which was false upon the face of it. Though he did not stand up in that House as the advocate of the learned judge, and it would be unbecoming in him to assume that character yet he could not help regretting that the name of that venerable person had been brought before the House, in a manner so much to be deprecated.
Mr. Curwen
trusted, that whenever a judge was found corrupt enough to pervert the laws, there would never be wanting bold and independent men in that House, who would bring their conduct before parliament. He rejoiced that the subject had been brought before the House; he was before disposed to think not very favourably of the conduct of the learned judge, but this discussion had satisfied him that his conduct had been perfectly correct. It was the right pf the people to complain to that House of the conduct of courts of justice. If, when the petition should be read, it should be found to impute to the learned judge, a desire to obtain a conviction, then he would concur in rejecting it. When the noble lord talked of reading a lesson to the people of England, not to come to that House with their complaints, did he consider the consequences of the people being compelled to look for redress by other means at the expense of the constitution? There was a point—he would not say where—but there was a point, at which resistance was a virtue and a right; and if the petition were refused to be brought up, the moment at which we should arrive at that point would be accelerated.
Sir C. Long
said, that what he understood his noble friend to mean was, that he was desirous of admonishing the people not to present petitions upon subjects
932
Sir J Newport
said, it had been urged that the administration of justice was not a fit subject for the control of that House, for what purpose, then, was the committee of justice appointed every session? He trusted that whatever might be the opinion of the House as to its admissibility when they heard the petition read, no objection would be made to it being brought in.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the only petitions which were received as a matter of course in that House, were election petitions. All other petitions were liable to be received or rejected as that House thought fit, and it would be found, upon reference to the Journals, that the House, had exercised that discretion in a variety of instances. Indecorous language was a good ground of rejection, and in this case the language was admitted not only to be indecorous, but libellous. It contained an imputation upon a learned judge which was believed to be false by the learned gentleman who presented it.
Mr. Denman
said, he had never stated that the petition contained a libel on the learned judge; he had said, indeed, that it contained a charge against him, which, knowing the learned judge as he did, he did not believe to be true; but, if the man believed the charge to be true, he had a right to state it in his own language, and if parliament was a part of the constitution he had a right to lay his grievances before that House, and if necessary, have an opportunity of proving them. If no charge was to be entertained by that House, because, if false, it might be libellous, there was an end to the doctrine of impeachment; for how would it be possible to impeach, if no charge could be made, which, in the event of its being disproved might turn out to be libellous? An hon. gentleman thought that no petition ought to be received unless some specific measure were founded upon it;
933
The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 64.
IONIAN ISLANDS.]
Mr. Hume
rose, pursuant to notice, to bring under the consideration of the House several particulars relative to the state and revenue of the Ionian Islands. Whilst the attention of parliament was so justly called to the means of effecting a reduction of our public expenditure, he was persuaded that the colonial department was that in which an immediate saving might be most easily made. This he should take an opportunity of proving most satisfactorily in the course of the session, but he should confine himself that night to a few circumstances relative to the Ionian Islands. They could not be considered in every point of view as colonies, but as a state in a great measure dependent upon us. We, in fact, had the direction of their affairs, and had bound ourselves to make good the deficiencies of their revenue; or, in other words, to pay whatever excess of expenditure might arise, or be created, by ourselves. The hon. member here took a rapid review of the affairs of these islands since the treaty of Paris, by which their independence was acknowledged. Their revenue had originally been adequate to all the charges upon it, and their government was conducted upon the principles of a regular and systematic economy. But the presence of a British force, and the influence of the British go-
934
l
l
l
l
l
935
Mr. Goulburn
said, that it had formerly been the practice to call for papers first, and to discuss them afterwards if granted; or if they were refused, to show from the best sources that could be applied to, that there existed grounds for demanding them. The hon. gentleman had reversed that order; and, even when there existed every disposition to grant him the documents required; proceeded on imperfect or erroneous statements, when by waiting a little longer he might have obtained official and certain information as the basis of his reasoning. He proceeded to state facts in a motion for papers without wailing to see whether the papers might not falsify his facts. To this novel mode of proceeding he must strongly object; for whatever the hon. gentleman might say about his unwillingness to cast imputations, the effect of his speech was, to cast the greatest imputations when he accused the lord-high-commissioner of facts which showed that he pampered his vanity and increased his patronage, to the oppression of the inhabitants, and the detriment of the public service. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to answer the different statements of Mr. Hume's speech; and contended, that so far as they impeached the character of the lord-high-commissioner, they were unfounded. He admitted a great increase of revenue and expenditure; but the increased revenue arose from a better system of collecting the taxes, and not from the imposition of new burdens. The revenue now appeared greater, because it was not diverted into the private channels in which it formerly flowed but
936
l
l
palazzo
937
Colonel Davies
said, that at a moment when economy was so indispensable, it ought to be as rigidly pursued in the colonial establishments as in any others. He corroborated the statements of his hon. friend, and lamented that matters of such moment should be discussed in so thin a House.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the House ought to be obliged to the hon. gentleman who brought forward this question because it enabled his right hon. friend to justify and defend the measures of sir T. Maitland. As the information sought for would be granted, he suggested to the hon. member, without meaning to discourage his praise-worthy industry in matters of public economy, the propriety of abstaining from attack until he had first got his information. Than sir T. Maitland there could not be a more honourable man: he had been a blunt soldier, before he became a statesman; and so far from being a person who would tolerate, there was not in existence a greater enemy to jobbing than that gallant officer.
938
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, February 26, 1821.
LAW OF TREASON—IRELAND.]
Lord Holland
, pursuant to notice, presented a bill for extending to Ireland certain provisions of an act of William 3rd, relative to trials for Treason. His lordship observed, that great part of the provisions of the act alluded to, which were undoubtedly wise and humane, had already been extended to Ireland. There remained, however, two provisions which had not been so extended; namely, one requiring an act of treason to be proved by two credible witnesses, and the other enacting, that a prosecution for treason must take place within three years after the commission of the act of treason. The latter provision rested entirely upon this act; it never having been before a part of the law of England. With regard to the former enactment, the history of it was more complicated; by an act of Edward 6th it was declared that every act of treason must be proved by two I competent witnesses; but by an act of Philip and Mary all the acts respecting treason were repealed, and it was enacted that that offence should be tried according to the common law. The question then arose, whether, under the common law, it was necessary for an act of treason to be proved by two witnesses, and I it subsequently appeared, that all the judges, with the exception of lord Coke, were of opinion, that two witnesses were not required. This question, however, I was set at rest in 1695, so far as regarded England, by the act alluded to of William 3rd; and it having been decided by; the judges of Ireland, that the common law did not require two witnesses to prove an act of treason, he was anxious to assimilate the law upon this subject in Ireland to the law of England.
The Earl of Limerick
returned his warmest thanks to the noble lord for bringing forward his measure. It was most desirable that Ireland should be placed on the same footing with England in every respect. Nothing would tend so much to conciliate the people of Ireland as the conviction that the same law and the same rule applied to both countries.
The bill was read a first time.
939
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, February 26, 1821.
SCOTCH COURT OF ADMIRALTY—COMPENSATION TO CLERKS.]
The Lord Advocate moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on the compensation to the clerks of the Admiralty court of Scotland.—On the motion that the resolution be read a second time,
Mr. Creevey
said, he should move as an amendment, that it be read a second time this day six months. The resolution stated, "that it is expedient that compensation be made to the clerks of the Admiralty courts of Scotland for any loss they may sustain by any regulations that may be made in the said court." Such a proposition as this was what he conceived the House would never agree to. There were bills before the House by which fees in other courts were taken away and salaries given; but they differed materially from the abstract declaration of the present resolution—that compensation should be given if they happened to lose their fees. The only foundation for this measure was, the fourth report of the parliamentary commission of 1814. The only thing that was said in that report was this, that the chief clerk of the Admiralty judge of Scotland had emoluments amounting to 1,200
l
l
l
l
The Lord-Advocate
observed, that in other courts of Scotland a practice had obtained of receiving great fees for suitors; for instance, it was common for a suitor to pay 200
l
940
l
Mr. Creevey
said, that from what had fallen from the learned lord, he would not persist in his motion, although he felt that no compensation ought to be granted in this case,
The resolution was agreed to.
CORN AVERAGES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee to which the Corn Averages acts were referred,
Mr. Robinson
said, that he thought he should best discharge his duty by confining himself to the immediate point to which the resolution with which he proposed to conclude would refer, without entering at all into the more important question as to our agricultural distress. With respect to the averages, as taken heretofore, it was known that a great deal of intricacy and confusion prevailed upon the subject of the laws relating to those averages. The laws alluded to were the acts of the 31st, 33d, 44th, and 45th of his late majesty. As to the latter, they had for some time been repealed in practical operation. Then with regard to the acts of 1791 and 1793, it was rather difficult, upon reference to the act of 1791, to ascertain what the state of the law really was. If the committee should agree to the resolution which he had to submit, it was his intention to propose a bill for embodying all the useful provisions of the existing law upon this subject. The
941
bona fide
942
l
l
943
Mr. Calcraft
said, he had looked upon the averages as settled by the late acts. The bill ought to be viewed with jealousy; and he would therefore watch it in every stage.
Mr. Baring
could not but express his regret that the right hon. gentleman had brought forward the subject at this particular period. It was calculated to cre-
944
Mr. Irving
said, that if the public looked for any relief from the measure they would certainly be disappointed.
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that the measure would, in his opinion, protect those who were now subjected to fraud.
Mr. F. Lewis
disapproved of joining the average amount of Irish corn to that of this country, because the Irish corn was of an inferior quality to the English.
Mr. Curwen
said, that the House was not aware of the injury which the country suffered by the frauds which had been practised in the mode of taking averages. He was sure that, within a very limited period, the country had lost at least a million by the frauds which had been committed. Large quantities of corn were imported from Denmark into the Isle of man, and from thence shipped off to England. The greatest injury resulted to the English farmer from the introduction of foreign grain.
Mr. Ricardo
conceived that the effect of the measure would be to raise the importation price. An hon. member had spoken of the injury which an accumulation of foreign corn accasioned in the English market. That might be so; but the only remedy for this evil was, for this country to lower the prices of corn nearly to the standard of the prices of the continent. The only way to keep out foreign corn, was by putting high duties upon the importation of it. Now, suppose a year of scarcity had arrived, and that a high duty had been placed on the importation of foreign corn, would any minister at such a time of distress, attempt to enforce that duty—and shut out relief from a starving people? Impossible; and, therefore, the ports would be left open and free, and the immense importation which the hon. gentleman looked upon
945
Mr. Lockhart
could not see that any alteration in the mode of taking the averages would at all relieve the agricultural distress. The high state of the taxation, at a time when the value of the land was so depreciated, was the great cause of the evil. That evil was, no doubt, greatly increased by the measure which a right hon. member (Mr. Peel) had introduced into that House. If the system which that measure sought to establish was not departed from, the consequence must be absolute ruin and convulsion.
The resolution was agreed to, and a bill ordered to be brought in.
CAPITAL CRIMES DEFENCE BILL.]
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, said, that the motion he had to make was a proposition so self-evident, that he had equal difficulty in finding arguments in its favour and against it: it was so reasonable that merely to mention it was sufficient to procure it the strongest support. It was "for leave to bring in a bill to permit persons charged with capital crimes, to make their defence by counsel." The reverse was, in his view, so utterly inconsistent with the benignity of our criminal code; it was so completely unjust to refuse to a prisoner the advantage enjoyed by the Crown, that he would not attempt to argue it. Mr. Justice Blackstone had called it one of the anomalies of the English law, for which he was unable to account. He should move for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Lockhart
said, that there were many solid objections to the measure, and dwelt particularly on the delays that might result in the administration of justice from a change of the existing system. At present, the court was counsel for the prisoner, and he was not aware that within the last century any disadvantage had resulted from the exclusion of prisoners accused of capital crimes from the use of counsel.
Mr. Martin
maintained that the court did not act as counsel for prisoners, but remained neutral. He referred to the case of Bellingham, where the court had refused to allow delay for the arrival of witnesses to prove insanity.
946
Mr. Nolan
contended, that the case of Bellingham was directly against the hon. gentleman. Counsel had there, as in all similar instances, been allowed to make and support the application for delay. He hoped the House would make no alteration in the most humane system of jurisprudence that ever existed in any country of the world. The subject of the motion had engaged the attention of the bar. It was unquestionably one that might give rise to a diversity of opinion. But the result of the opinions which he had been able to collect, was, that the purposes of justice were best attained under the present system. There was seldom or never a case in which the judge did not act as counsel for the prisoner.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, February 27, 1821.
METROPOLIS TURNPIKE TRUSTS.]
Mr. D. Gilbert
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the Turnpike Trusts in the vicinity of the metropolis. It was well known that the roads about London were the worst regulated in the kingdom; and though the dues levied on the in amounted to nearly 200,000
l
947
Mr. Curwen
expressed his jealousy of any measure which should take the management of the roads out of the hands of those who had local knowledge. The roads about London were not uniformly bad, the Uxbridge road for instance, was a very good one.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANY.]
Mr Marryat
rose to present a Petition from the merchants of London against the renewal of the charter of the West India Dock Company. The hon. gentleman addressed the House upon the impolicy as well as injustice of continuing, in an enlightened age like this, such monopolies, which were at once injurious to commerce and to the revenue of the country. He entered into a detail of the many inconveniences and evil consequences to trade generally, and to the trade of London in particular, resulting from the very high rates charged by this company.
Sir Isaac Coffin
observed, that there never appeared to be much friendship in trade. Each merchant sought his own interest, monopoly was the order of the day amongst them, and beggar my neighbour the object.
Mr. F. Lewis
animadverted on the abuses which crept into establishments of this nature, through the inattention of the legislature to the precise enactments which they sanctioned. By a clause introduced into the act for the renewal of the East India Company's charter, private traders were admitted into the East India Docks.
Mr. Robinson
said, it was undoubtedly the duty of the House to watch with peculiar vigilance the tendency of any measure which involved private interests as well as the great commercial interests of the country. There were other docks which had charters, having a longer period to run than the West India; it would be inexpedient, therefore, to make any declaration of the views of government as to the renewal of the charter of this company, until the whole question, as it respected those several charters, had been taken into consideration.
948
Mr. Baring
said, the question was one which was intimately connected with the economy of trade. It was a fact, that the establishment of these dock companies, though it was at first a sort of experiment, had proved of the greatest public utility. When they were first established, it was impossible to know how far the rates would or would not afford a sufficient compensation for the capital employed; but now that it had been ascertained that they had greatly exceeded such a compensation, it was an important question for parliament to determine, whether the charters should be renewed. The charter was granted to the West India company, with a restriction that they were never to divide more than 10 per cent. The obvious inference was, that if the rates exceeded such a sum as would afford a dividend of 10 per cent, they were bound to reduce them. They had, however, done no such thing. Instead of reducing the rates, they had, accumulated a sum of no less than 500,000
l
Mr. Gordon
said, he had heard that 500,000
l
Mr. Robinson
assured the hon. member, that no sum had been offered to be placed at the disposal of government.
Odered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, February 28, 1821.
EXECUTION OF MURAT.]
Lord Castlereagh
said, that a gallant officer had asked on a former night, whether their was an English accredited agent present at the proceedings which terminated in the military execution of Murat? He was now enabled to give the gallant officer an answer. He had referred to the dispatch of sir W. A'Court, in which he found it stated, that after Murat had been taken, with thirty of his followers, by the peasantry, for there were no troops, he was tried by his own officers, condemned by his own laws, which were yet in force, and suffered the punishment which, by a proclamation found upon him, he had denounced against the adherents of king Ferdinand. No English agent could have been present.
949
Sir R. Wilson
said, the noble load's explanation was satisfactory as far as it went; but it would be remembered, that what he had asked was, not whether a British agent was present in the military commission, but in that council at Naples, the result of which was the handing over of the late king of Naples to a military trial?
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the rumour was utterly destitute of every colour of foundation.
PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Mr. Fitzgibbon
presented a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Limerick, praying to be admitted to the full enjoyment of the privileges of the British constitution. The hon. gentleman begged to offer his testimony to the loyalty and respectability of the petitioners, and expressed an earnest hope that the result of that night's debate would determine that a large portion of the people of Ireland should no longer be excluded from participating in the blessings of the constitution.
Mr. S. Rice
supported the prayer of the petition, conceiving it to be founded on justice. No paltry question of expediency, if expediency could ever be separated from justice, ought to induce them to exclude from the full enjoyment of all constitutional rights, men who had proved by their patience under severe privations, how well they deserved them. He hoped the House would consent to go into a committee on the Catholic claims. If securities were wanted to guard the Protestant church from danger, he should vote for them. But he was satisfied that the best security the church of England could receive, would be afforded by an act of conciliation and generosity towards the Roman Catholics.
Sir T. Lethbridge
presented a Petition from Bruton, against the Catholic claims. The petitioners looked with great anxiety to the recurrence of this question, but relied on the wisdom of that House, if the subject should go to a committee, to provide suitable securities for the Protestant interest. In this feeling he agreed with the petitioners. He should be inclined to consider the appointment of a committee only a delusion; for he could not see how any thing could be done that would relieve the Catholics, and at the same time give security to the Protestant establishments. It was from this feeling
950
in limine
Mr. Grenfell
said, that so far was he from thinking that by conceding what was prayed for they would do any thing to undermine the constitution, that he was convinced the measure in question would prove one of its firmest supports.
Mr. Warre
, when an hon. baronet called on the House to oppose the claims of the Catholics
in limine
in limine
in limine
sub silentio
Mr. Barham
objected to the foul calumnies urged against the Catholics in one petition which had been laid before the House. It was stated that the prayer of the Catholics ought not to be attended to now, because the concessions formerly made were given as their
ultimatum
951
Lord Nugent
said:—I rise to present a Petition from upwards of 8,000 of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, piling for admission to certain civil privileges, from which they are now by law excluded. The petition, Sir, is signed by seven peers, sixteen baronets, and seven bishops, besides a very considerable body of their clergy, as well as laity. And if I permit myself to look forward with the sincerest and most sanguine hope to the success of its prayer, that hope is not founded upon an expectation on my part of any very extensive change in the opinions on this subject, of this House or of the country;—but it is founded upon the increased and increasing claims of the petitioners themselves upon your favourable consideration:—it is founded upon their uniform and exemplary good conduct;—upon the tone and temper of this petition;—but, above all, upon one new and most important declaration;—a declaration, not new in principle, but now for the first time thus explicitly made, which I trust the House will feel entirely removes the one great obstacle, which has hitherto presented itself to the admission of these petitioners to a community of privileges with their fellow-subjects—The House is aware, that the oath of supremacy, in the renunciation it contains of the spiritual power of the pope, now remains the one, and I may almost say the only one, great practical difficulty in their way. The declarations of the thirtieth of Charles 2nd, against the doctrine of transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, are now, I believe on all hands, allowed to be justifiable only as tests subsidiary to the declaration contained in the oath of supremacy. On the oath of supremacy, therefore, I conceive, now hinges the whole of that long-contested question of foreign influence, and of what has been called divided allegiance: and on this subject I should wrong these petitioners if I presumed to state their opinions in any terms but those in which they have themselves so admirably described them. They state in their petition, that "they have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate part of that allegiance, which is due to their rightful
952
ex vi termini,
953
954
955
956
in foro conscientiœ,
957
958
959
Lord Glenorchy
trusted, that the House would no longer deny the privilege of exercising the rights afforded by the constitution, to a numerous class of the people, merely because they did not hold the same religious opinions as themselves.
Lord Nugent
said, there was one circumstance connected with the first signatures to this petition which, he was quite sure, would speak to the feelings of the House. There were now but four of the baronies remaining, the holders of which signed Magna Charta. The rest were
960
Mr. Plunkett
said, he held in his hand a Petition signed by some thousands of Roman Catholics in Ireland. From the means he possessed of knowing the people of that country and the opinions entertained by them, he could say that the petition contained the sentiments of the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. A similar petition had been presented to that House the year before last. On that occasion the prayers of the petitioners had come forward to that House with all the eloquence, with all the experience, with all the authority of the late Mr. Grattan. In now undertaking the duty devolved on him, he felt his heart melted with the public sorrow and private regret with which he had followed to his grave that great man, by whose confidence he had been honoured, by whose wisdom he had been enlightened, by whose example he had been guided. After the unrivalled eloquence with which he had been lamented in that House, and the distinguished honours with which the justice and liberality of Englishmen had accompanied his remains to the tomb—for at his death, as during his life, he had been the bond of union between the two countries—after these tributes to his virtues, he would not disturb the solemnity of his obsequies by his feeble praise and unavailing sorrow. Yet be could not avoid to mention his name when presenting this petition. The subject was one on which his departed friend had deeply meditated; it had taken early and entire possession of his mind, and held that possession to the last hour of his life; he would have willingly laid down his life in advocating the rights and liberties which he believed to be due to the Roman Catholic subjects of the king, and beneficial to the whole empire. It had been his deliberate conviction, that there could be no sympathy of feeling between the two countries, until this question should be set at rest. He had always been alive to the desire of fame, and showed in the various actions of his life, that love of the approbation and esteem of the wise which clung to every aspiration of a good man, while on earth. But never man had treated with more absolute disdain the hollow and faithless popularity which is obtained by
961
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Mr. Plunkett
then rose. He said, that it now remained for him to discharge his duty, by bringing under the consideration of the House the subject of the petitions which the House had just heard, and on behalf of the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Ireland, to call the attention of the House to the relative state of both; a state which, on the one hand, justified an imputation of harshness and oppression, and, on the other, excited a feeling of that injustice and oppression, which, if it were suffered to continue, must in its consequences prove equally dangerous to the party which oppressed, and to the party which suffered. His object was, to attain an end of public good by doing an act of public justice. It was such an act of justice, as, he was persuaded, would lay the foundation of ultimate concord, for concord was the necessary consequence of justice. He believed it would be received with the warmest feelings of gratitude and satisfaction, though this was in his judgment an inferior and secondary consideration. To suppose that he brought forward this question, merely as a palliative to allay temporary discontents, and to get rid of accidental ill-humours, would be not only greatly to undervalue the measure, but wholly to misconceive its bearing. The Roman Catholics of Ireland had nobly disentitled themselves to the supposition of its being a measure to allay discontent. Determined as they were to persevere in their efforts to obtain redress of grievances and restoration of rights, they were equally determined never to seek them but as the result of wisdom and justice in the legislature, in which they knew that they could not be ultimately disappointed. That there did exist among them an eager desire for immediate redress, and instant restoration to the freedom which their fellow-subjects possessed, he should be ashamed to deny. That there was felt by them that sickness
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
nil ultra;
jus civitatis
jus suffragis
jus petitionis
jus ho-norum
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
nati natorum et qui nascentur ab illis,"
985
986
987
988
"That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider the state of the laws by which oaths or declarations are required to be taken or made as qualifications for the enjoyment of offices, or for the exercise of civil functions, so far as the same affect his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; and whether it would be expedient, in any and what manner, to alter or modify the same, and subject to what provisions or regulations."
Mr. Denis Browne
seconded the motion.
Mr. Peel
said, that nothing but the mode of argument pursued by the right hon. member, and the direct personal interest which he took in a mode of attack so novel and unusual, induced him to rise at that early period of the debate. He was aware that he should justly incur the charge of presumption by following the right hon. member under other circumstances, but the necessity of defending himself on an occasion when he was so directly assailed, would be his apology to the House. He knew well, that under any circumstances, his adversary would be an overpowering antagonist, but under the present, when he replied to a speech which he (Mr. Peel) had made four years ago, and which he, having the power of tearing it to pieces then, by that extraordinary faculty of reasoning which he possessed, chose to leave unanswered until that night, when, besides his great talents, he had every other advantage, the difficulty was beyond calculation increased; but whatever the disadvantages might be he was resolved to attempt a reply to the, right hon. gentleman, who had ushered in his arguments by reference to the opinions of so humble an individual as himself. In attempting to follow him, he would first allude to that subject with I which the right hon. gentleman, had pre faced his powerful speech, when he paid that feeling and eloquent tribute to the memory of the departed senator under whose auspices this question had been first brought before the English parliament. He felt it his duty to state, that all which that eulogium said of the late Mr. Grattan, had his full and heartfelt concurrence. There was not a word of it to which he did not fully subscribe. It might seem presumption in him to follow the orator who had so well characterised departed worth, and arrogate to himself the right of praising so great a man.
989
necessitudo sortis
990
991
992
993
994
995
now
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that if the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down felt he had reason to allude to the disadvantages he laboured under in having to follow so powerful a speech as that of the
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
Lord Bury
said, he could not but consider any law in the nature of exclusion, directed against so valuable a body of men as the Catholics of England and Ireland, to be a most intolerable grievance. In England, the Catholics were not in sufficient numbers to be dangerous, while their steady loyalty and patient obedience under the hardships to which they had been subjected gave a pledge for their good conduct when those hardships should be at an end. If the Catholics of Ireland were more numerous, the political arrangements of that country called still more loudly for the change; for no kingdom could be equitably ruled under laws which, of themselves, drew a line between the governors and the governed. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that disaffection to the government prevailed, he would ask, was the present system calculated to diminish it?
Mr. Denis Browne
then presented himself.
Mr. Wynn
apprehended it to be a fixed rule of the House, that a member who seconded a motion without addressing the House, could not afterwards speak in the debate.
The Speaker
observed, that unquestionably the strict rule of the House was such as had just been laid down; but it was sometimes the custom of the House to allow, as a matter of courtesy, a gentleman who had seconded a motion to speak at a future period.
Mr. Denis Browne
was loudly called for. He said, that the motion was for a committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations contained in the petitions of five millions of people, who paid the taxes, who supported the establishment, who had defended the country in times of danger, and who were nevertheless debarred the enjoyment of the constitution.
1014
in limine
Mr. Dawson
, of Londonderry, said, it was with great reluctance that he obtruded himself upon the attention of the House, being conscious of his inability to offer any observation which had the charm of novelty. Before he proceeded upon the discussion of the question, he wished to guard himself against the consequences of any hasty or indiscreet expression. It was far from his wish to encrease the animosities which had already been engendered; he would much rather live with his Catholic countrymen, many of whom he loved and honoured, as a friend and a neighbour, than be regarded with an eye of suspicion. In private matters he had never made any distinction between a Catholic and Protestant, but in public matters there was much to complain of, and he should express his opinion with boldness, but without bigotry, and resist their claims with firmness, but without hostility. Prom the contents of the petition which the right hon. gentleman had presented, and from the speech of that right hon. gentleman, a person unacquainted with Ireland might be induced to suppose that the Catholics were in the lowest state of political and even personal degradation. No argument at all calculated to excite the feelings had been spared to win over the reluctant and hesitating, to what they termed the cause of liberality and justice. When their advocates assumed the pathetic tone, we were told that they were aliens in their native soil, that the penal code obstructed them in every situation of life, that it damped the industry of the peasant, chilled the ingenuity of the mechanic, and blasted the ambition of the nobility and gentry—that they enjoyed their property by sufferance and cultivated their religion as a boon. These were the arguments applied to the feelings. They had often been successful; and if they failed re-
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
Mr. Charles Grant
said, he would now trouble the House with the few observations which he had to make, because, from the advanced stage of the night, he might otherwise be precluded from delivering his sentiments on this important question; the delivering of which, in the situation in which he stood with regard to Ireland, he esteemed a solemn and imperative duty. He had listened with the utmost attention and the greatest delight to the eloquence with which the motion had been introduced—an eloquence which, while it called to the support of the policy which it recommended the names of the illustrious statesmen and great geniuses of former times, evinced the possession of a high portion of kindred talent. He had, indeed, heard the speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman with wonder and admiration, esteeming it worthy of the cause which it defended—of the principles which it advocated—and worthy of the petitioners whose claims it stated and enforced. He presumed to think that their cause had made some progress, not only from the powerful eloquence and convincing reasoning of the right hon. and learned mover, but from the observations of his right hon. friend, who had spoken on the question as became the frankness and candour of his just and manly mind. His right hon. friend had, however, argued
1022
1023
1024
"Non ego, nee Teucris Italos parere jubebo, Nee mihiregna peto: paribus se legibus amba Invictæ gentes æterna in fœdera mittant.
1025
Mr. Luke White
said, he merely rose to make his acknowledgments to the right hon. secretary for Ireland, for his excellent and manly speech in behalf of his suffering country.
Mr. Bankes
proceeded, amidst very general cries of question! to oppose the motion, but was altogether inaudible.
Mr. Hart Davis
said, that upon a question of such vital importance, he should consider it right to move an adjournment, if any member was prevented from delivering his opinions.
Mr. Bankes
said, that he felt no inclination to persevere against the sense of the House.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
rose merely to state a fact connected with the present question. The circumstance to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was, the insertion in the Gazette of an address, purporting to come from an association of Orange-men in Ireland. He J understood that from among the addresses presented to his majesty, a selection was made for publication in the Gazette by the minister whose duty it was; and he was bound to say, in justice to ministers, that the individual who selected that address must have done so without the sanction of his colleagues, as it was nothing less than an insult to the sovereign. It was not perhaps generally known, that this class of individuals had been pronounced by the judges of the
1026
"pro patria"
Sir G. Hill
said, he had had the honour of accompanying the lord may or of Dublin. He should oppose the present motion, because former concessions to the Catholics had failed to produce conciliation.
Lord Castlereagh
could not suffer the question to go to a vote, without troubling the House with a few observations. The present was a subject on which he had frequently expressed his sentiments; but it was one which he never approached without great pain, because it compelled him to differ from those friends with whom he usually agreed on other political and national questions. Another circumstance that gave him pain was, that from what had passed he saw no great prospect of a more favourable issue to the question at the present moment than had formerly attended it; but still he conceived it to be his duty to express himself candidly and without reserve. He had often wondered that the extent of the question now remaining for discussion had so much importance attached to it. He could
1027
1028
1029
1030
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, begged to oppose to the theory of the right hon. member for Oxford something that flowed on his mind from experience. Instances as likely to excite the Catholics against the Protestants, had occurred, as any that might be expected to rouse the Protestants against the Catholics; but the result had been satisfactory. The Derry Journal being prosecuted by the Catholics for a libel, a Catholic jury had given a verdict against a Catholic priest, and when Mr. O'Gorman brought an action against the Dublin Evening Post for calling him "a dishonourable blockhead," what did the jury tell him? Why they told him, that he was entitled to sixpence damages. This served to prove, that Catholics were bound by their oaths, and ready to perform their duty. He should certainly vote for going into the committee. If they wished to withdraw all the benefits that had been conferred on the Catholics, they might consistently negative the present motion; but having paid 999
l
The House divided: Ayes 227. Noes 221. Majority in favour of the motion 6.
List of the Majority; and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Althorp, vise.
Acland, sir T.
Anson, sir G.
Alexander, Jos.
Anson, hon. G.
Allen, J. H.
Arbuthnot, rt. Hon. C.
1031
Brandling, C. J.
Ellison, C.
Baillie, J.
Evans, Wm.
Bagwell, rt. hon. W.
Farrand, Robt.
Barham, J. F.
Farquharson, A.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Fergusson, sir R.
Baring, sir Thos.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Baring, Alex.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Barnard, visc.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Barratt, S. M.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Beaumont, T. W.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Bective, earl of
Fleming, J.
Becher, W. W.
Forbes, lord
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Frankland, R.
Bentinck, lord W.
French, A.
Benyon, Ben.
Finch, G
Blake, sir F.
Gladstone, John
Binning, lord
Gaskell, Ben.
Birch, J.
Glenorchy, vise.
Blair, J. H.
Gordon, Robt.
Browne, D.
Graham, S.
Browne, P.
Grant, C.
Browne, J.
Grant, J. P.
Browne, Dom.
Grant, J. M.
Broadhead, T.
Grant, F. W.
Bury, visc.
Grattan, J.
Benett, John
Grenfell, Pascoe
Butler, hon. C. W.
Griffiths, J. W
Byng, George
Holdsworth, T.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Harvey, C.
Calcraft, J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Calvert, C.
Hamilton sir H. D.
Calvert, N.
Hamilton, Hans
Campbell, hon. J.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Carew, R. S.
Harding, sir H.
Cavendish, lord G.
Heathcote, G. J.
Cavendish, H.
Hill, lord A.
Cavendish, Charles
Hobhouse, J. C.
Carter, John
Hollywood, W. P.
Castlereagh, lord
Hornby, E.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Howard, hon. W.
Chichester, A.
Howard, hon. F. G.
Clifton, vise.
Hughes, W.L.
Clifford, capt.
Hume, Jos.
Cocks, J. S.
Hurst, Robt.
Coffin, sir I.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Coke, T. W.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Colborne, N. R.
Hartopp, G.
Concannon, L.
Joliffe, Hylton
Courtenay, W.
Johnson, C.
Courtenay, T. P.
Kennedy, T. F.
Crompton, Saml.
Kingsborough, vise.
Crosby, J.
Lamb, hon. W.
Creevey,Thos.
Lambton, J. G.
Daly, J.
Latouche, Robt.
Dawson, J. M.
Legge, hon. H.
Denison, W. J.
Lennard, T. B.
Penman, T.
Lewis, T. F.
Douglas, W. K.
Lloyd, sir E.
Doveton, G.
Lloyd, J. M.
Dundas, hon. T.
Lloyd, Sam.
Dundas, Charles
Lushington, Steph.
Dunlop, J.
Lawley, F.
Don, sir A.
Metcalfe, H.
Dunally, lord
Mackenzie, T.
Ellice, Edw.
Maberly, W. L.
Ellis, C. Rose
Macdonald, Jas.
Hill, hon. G. A.
Mackintosh, sir J.
1032
Mahon, hon. S.
Stuart, lord J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Sykes, Daniel
Martin, John
Staunton, sir G.
Martin, R.
Talbot, R. W.
Mildmay, hon. P. St. J.
Taylor, M. A.
Milton, vise.
Tennyson, C.
Monck, J. B.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Money, W. T.
Twiss, H.
Moore, Peter
Upton, hon. A.
Moore, Abraham
Vernon, G.
Morland, S. B.
Wilmot, Robt.
Mostyn, sir T.
Wall, C. B.
Neville, hon. R.
Ward, hon. W.
Nugent, lord
Warre, J. A.
Nugent, sir G.
Warrender, sir G.
O'Callaghan, Jas.
Western, C. C.
O' Grady, Standish
Wharton, J.
Ord, W.
Whitbread, S. C
Palmer, C. F.
Whitbread, W. H.
Palmerston vise.
White, Luke
Pares, Thos.
Whitmore, W.
Parnell, sir H.
Williams, J, P.
Pierce, H.
Wilson, sir R.
Phillimore, Dr.
Wood, Ald.
Philips, G.
Wortley, J. S.
Philips, Geo. R.
Wynn, sir W. W.
Plunkett, rt. hon. W.
Wynn, C. W.
Pole, rt. hon. W.W.
Wyvill, M.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
TELLERS.
Power, R.
Duncannon, vise.
Powlett, hon. W.
Freemantle, W.
Prendergast, J. S.
PAIRED OFF.
Price, Robt.
Belgrave, lord
Pringle, sir W.
Bourne, rt. hon. S.
Pym, Francis
Colthurst, sir N.
Plumber, John
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Ramsay, sir A.
Croker, J. W.
Rice, T. S.
Cumming G.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Curwen J. C.
Robinson, sir G.
Ebrington, lord
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Evelyn, L.
Rowley, sir F.
Guise, sir W.
Rumbold, C.
Gurney, Hudson
Russell, lord W.
Lester, B. L.
Russell, R. G.
Maule, hon. W.
Scott, James
Maxwell, John
Sebright, sir J.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Sefton, earl of
Phipps, hon. Ed.
Shaw, R.
Pryse, Pryse
Smith, Geo.
Ramsden, J.C.
Smith, J.
Russell, lord John
Smith, W.
Scarlett, John
Smith, Robt.
Scudamore, R.
Smythe, J. H.
Tavistock, marq.
Somerville, sir M.
Tichfield, marq.
Stanley, lord
Wilkins, Walter
Stewart, A. K.
MINORITY.
Apsley, lord
Ancram, lord
Archdale, M.
Bankes, H.
Ashurst, Wm.
Bankes, G.
Astell, Wm.
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Astley, J. D.
Bathurst, hon. S.
Attwood, M.
Beckett, rt. hon. J.
A'Court, E. H.
Bent, John
Alexander, J.
Bentinck, lord, F.
1033
Beresford, sir J.
Fetherston, sir T.
Beresford, lord G.
Fleming, John
Bernard, lord
Folkes, sir M.
Blackburne, John
Fox, G. Lane
Blair, J.
Fynes, H.
Bouverie, hon. B.
Gascoyne, J.
Brogden, J.
Gifford, sir R.
Brownlow, C.
Gilbert, D. G.
Brudenell, lord
Graham, sir J.
Bright, H.
Grant, A. C.
Bruce, Rt.
Greville, sir C.
Burrell, sir C.
Gossett. W.
Burrell, Walter
Grosvenor, D.
Buxton, J. J.
Handley, H.
Claughton, Thos.
Hart, General
Calvert, John
Harvey, sir E.
Cawthorne, J. F.
Hill, sir G.
Cecil, lord T.
Holford, G. P.
Chaplin, C.
Holmes, W.
Cheere, E. M.
Hotham, lord
Childe, W. L.
Heygate, Ald.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Hodson, J. A.
Clerk, sir G.
Innes, John
Clements, hon. J.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Clinton, sir W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Clive, hon. R. H.
Irving, John
Clive, Henry
Knox, hon. Thos.
Cockerell, sir C.
Keck, G. A. L.
Cole, sir Chris.
Kinnersley, W.
Cole, sir L.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Collet, E.
Langston, J. H.
Congreve, sir W.
Lemon, sir W.
Copley, sir John
Lenox, lord G
Cotterell, sir John
Leslie, C. P.
Corbett, P.
Leigh, J. H.
Cranbourne, lord
Leagh, F.
Crawley, Sam.
Lewis, W.
Cripps, J.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Curtis, sir W.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Curteis, J. H.
Lowther, vise.
Curzon, hon. Rt.
Lowther, hon. H. C.
Cust, hon. W.
Lowther, J. H.
Cust, hon. E.
Lucy, G.
Cust, hon. P.
Lushington, S. R.
Cooper, R. B.
Luttrell, H.
Dickinson, W.
Maberly, John
Dalrymple, A.
Macknaghten, E. A.
Davenport, D.
Magennis, R.
Davies, T. H
Manners, lord R.
Dawkins. H.
Manners, lord C.
Deerhurst, lord
Mansfield, John
Divett, Thomas
Martin, sir T. B.
Dodson, D.
Mills, C.
Douglas, John
Mitchell, John
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Monteith, H.
Downie, Rt.
Morgan, sir C.
Drake, T. T.
Morgan, G. G.
Drake, W. T.
Munday, E. M.
Dugdale, D.
Munday, G.
Egerton, W.
Musgrove, sir P.
Elliot, hon. W.
Mountcharles, earl
Ellis, Thos.
Nightingale, sir M.
Fairlic, sir W. C.
Ommaney, sir F.
Fane, John
O'Neil, hon. J.
Fane, Vere
Onslow, Arthur
Fane, Thos.
Pakenham, hon. H.
Fellowes, W. H.
Palk, sir L.
1034
Pechel, sir Thos.
Thompson, W.
Peel, rt. hon. R.
Ure, M.
Peel, W.
Valletort, lord
Pellew, hon. P. B.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Penruddock,—.
Vivian, sir H.
Pitt, W. M.
Webbe, Ed.
Pitt, J.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Pollen, sir John
Westenra, hon. H.
Portman, E. B.
Wells, John
Powell, sir J. K:
Wemyss, J.
Price, Richard
Wetherell, C.
Paxton, W. G.
Whitmore, Thos.
Pearse, John
Wigram, W,
Pole, sir Peter
Wilbraham, E. B.
Rogers, E.
Wildman, J.
Robarts, Ab.
Williams, Robt.
Rice, hon. G.
Wilson, T.
Ricketts, C. M.
Wodehouse, hon. J.
Rickford, Wm.
Wodehouse, Ed.
Robertson, A.
Wilson, sir H.
Russell, J. W.
Wyndham, W.
Raine, J.
TELLERS.
Ray, sir W.
Dawson, G.
Scott, hon. W.
Long, sir C.
Scott, S.
PAIRED OFF.
Seymour, Hugh
Bradshaw, T. H.
Seymour, Horace
Campbell, A.
Shelley, sir John
Cartwright, R.
Shiffner, sir G.
Clive, lord
Smith, T. A.
Dent, John.
Smith C.
Estcourt, T. G.
Smith, S.
Goulburn, H.
Sneyd, N.
Lockhart, J.J.
Somerset, lord G.
Lowther, John
Somerset, lord E.
Luttrell, John
Stewart, W.
Montgomery, J.
Strathaven, lord
Newman, Rt.
St. Paul, sir H.
Nicholl, sir John
Stopford, lord
Noel, sir G.
Strutt, J. H.
Northey, W.
Sumner, G. Holme
Powell, Ed.
Suttie, sir J.
Ryder, hon. R.
Stewart, sir John
Scott, sir W.
Taylor, sir H.
Swann, H.
Taylor, G. W.
Ward, Robert.
Thynne, lord John
Walker, S.
Townshend, lord C.
Worcester, marq.
Townshend, hon. H.
Wynne, Owen
Tremayne, J. H.
Yarmouth, earl
Tulk, C. A.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 1. 1821
STATE OF EDUCATION IN IRELAND.]
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice relative to the Education of the lower Orders in Ireland. The subject of education in general had already been so largely canvassed, and, as far as it related to England, had been so ably illustrated by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham), that it would be presumptuous in him to do any more on the present occasion than allude
1035
l
l
l
l
l
1036
l
l
l
Mr. C. Grant
observed, that the greatest credit was due to the labours of those commissioners, of the results of whose exertions the right hon. gentleman spoke so
1037
Sir H. Parnell,
though in general an enemy to aids of the nature which this subject was likely to call for, from the liberality of government, thought that it was one which might justify such a grant.
Mr. Spring Rice
hoped it was not necessary to offer any arguments at the present day to shew that the advantages to be derived from the principles of general education more than counterbalanced the disadvantages. Should any one, however, doubt it, it would be satisfactory to its advocates to find, on reference to the Statute books, that our forefathers had recognised the principle. By a statute of Henry 8th it was enacted, that parochial schools should be established in Ireland for the instruction of the Irish youth generally. The preamble of that act set forth the necessity of such establishments, as calculated to bring a barbarous people into a coincidence of language and manners with a people who were civilized. He did not quarrel with the terms of the act, but he greatly regretted that its spirit and its enactments were not more strictly observed. By that act it was enjoined, that every clergyman who possessed a benefice in Ireland, should teach or cause to be taught, a school in this parish, and that the youth of the place should be instructed in the English language. For an omission of this duty, the act imposed a fine for the first offence; a large fine for the second; and for the third, the loss of his benefice. It was also enacted that every clergyman on his appointment to a benefice should take an oath to the following effect:—"I swear that I will teach, or cause to be taught, the English language, in a school in my parish." Now, he was sorry to find, that, notwithstanding the strictness of the act and the solemn pledge of an oath, which every clergyman was obliged to take at this day, so little attention seemed to be paid to this subject. There were 1,125 benefices in Ireland, out of which 736 only, had made returns to the orders of the committee in 1810, and of which 549 only had scholars in conformity with the regulations of the statute. Now, it was a fair presumption that those
1038
1039
Mr. W. Courtenay
bore testimony to the disposition of the Catholics to support schools which were conducted on a liberal system.
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 2
NAPLES—CONDUCT OF THE ALLIED
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose, pursuant to his notice, to call the attention of their lordships to the transactions which had been, and which he feared, were still carrying on in the South of Italy. However strong his personal opinion on the subject he hardly knew whether he should have had the courage to introduce a subject of such importance, if he had not felt, after what had passed in that House, and in another place, that he was supported by the universal voice of the people of this country. With that conviction on his mind, he should have thought it an omission of duty, if he had not endeavoured to give to the general feeling the most effectual expression. He was the more inclined to do this, when he perceived by the latest accounts from the head quarters of the allies, that a most extraordinary delusion still prevailed amongst them as to the real sentiments of the British government. Notwithstanding the circular written by the secretary for Foreign affairs, and the explanations given to the continental powers, it appeared from the contents of the declaration lately arrived, and of the authenticity of which no doubt could be entertained
1040
1041
exposé,
1042
corpus delicti
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
"Be to their faults a little blind,
Be to their virtues very kind,
And clap the padlock on the mind."
Earl Bathurst
said, that the whole ar-
1050
1051
Lord Ellenborough
said, that his noble friend's objection applied merely to the latter part of the address. The first part stated the satisfaction felt by the House, that his majesty had declined becoming a party to measures of which ministers had expressed their disapprobation. If ministers were right in expressing their disapprobation of the principles of the allies; it could not be wrong for their lordships to record their approbation of the conduct of ministers. He thought such a proceeding necessary, because it would give weight and authority to the remonstrance of the British government. The address did not go to recommend a war with Austria. It called upon ministers to do that, which, if they declined to do, they would deserve to be impeached, namely—to endeavour, by all the means
1052
1053
1054
1055
The Earl of Westmoreland
said, that notwithstanding the temporary distress under which this country was labouring, he had no doubt of its possessing abundant resources for any war in which justice or honour might require it to engage; but, in the present instance, he contended, that both justice and policy demanded that we should maintain a strict neutrality. He denied, both on the general principle, and with reference to the particular instance of Naples, that we had any right to interfere in such a case as the present; and, with respect to the address proposed by the noble marquis, it would be altogether inefficient and nugatory, unless accompanied by an address to his majesty to prepare an armament to enforce it.
The Earl of Darnley
maintained, that his noble friend's proposition was in no way calculated to break in upon the neutrality which his majesty's government were disposed to preserve. But he thought it due from that House to make a declaration on the subject, conformably to the principles of their ancestors. England was peculiarly entitled to remonstrate against the recent movements of Austria. For how did Austria pay her army? With English money. To this country she was indebted at least seventeen millions.
Lord Calthorpe
supported the motion, on the ground that it was highly important there should be no possible misunderstanding of the opinion of this country on a subject in which the rights and liberties of an independent people were so deeply involved. We owed it to Austria herself, to exert over her all the moral influence that we possessed, and to show her how full of danger her present course was, even if it should prove successful; and how destructive, if the result should be disastrous. In the latter case, how would the Austrian government, with a diminished army, an exhausted treasury, and a dishonoured name, be able to meet the demands made upon it by its own people, who might perhaps require a constitution less monarchical even than that which they were now endeavouring to destroy?
1056
The Earl of Aberdeen
deprecated the adoption of the address, in the absence of all satisfactory information, with respect to the real state of the case between Austria and Naples. For his own part, he was not ashamed to confess, that he placed great confidence in the good faith of the declaration which had been issued by the allied sovereigns. This confidence was confirmed by the former conduct of Austria, who, when put in possession of the fortified places of Naples, evacuated them, even before the period prescribed by the treaty which put them into her hands. In saying this, however, he begged to be by no means understood as expressing any approbation of the principle of what was called the Holy Alliance. Although he sincerely believed, that the motives of the sovereigns by whom it was formed were pure, yet it was a system liable to so much abuse, that he could not too strongly reprobate it. At the same time, he was convinced that the present invasion of Naples was not considered in a just light by those who attributed it to the Holy Alliance. This was not candid. The interests of Austria were alone concerned in the affair. Unquestionably no roan could contemplate the attempt of a military despotism to beat down the infant independence of any state without emotion. In a contest between a strong and a weak power, a generous mind naturally sympathised with the latter. There was also something extremely captivating in the very name of liberty. But it was not absolutely necessary that the weaker power, in any contest, must therefore hare justice on its side. It was not absolutely necessary that what was called liberty must therefore really be so. With respect to the conduct of Austria towards Naples, he was not prepared positively to pronounce that that conduct was justifiable; neither did the transactions which had occurred at Naples warrant any one in pronouncing that the conduct of Austria was unjustifiable. The revolution in Naples was incontestably the work of the Carbonari. The principles of that sect were not confined to the assertion of constitutional liberty in opposition to despotic government, but directly aimed at the destruction of every standing government. No doubt could be entertained of the despotic influence of that sect over the parliament at Naples, and that there was not a single; movement of the government now existing there, which was not controlled by
1057
Lord Holland
said, that the noble earl who spoke second in the debate, had objected, that the motion of the noble marquis was indistinct and unintelligible, whereas it appeared to him that the noble earl had himself misunderstood that which was distinct, and misrepresented that which was intelligible. The noble earl commenced by observing, that the noble mover had mistaken the manifesto of the allied sovereigns; and to prove this, he referred to the circular note of lord Castlereagh, and not to the manifesto itself. His noble friend, in consequence of the language and conduct of Austria, called upon the House to vindicate the honour of the country; he did not then enter into the question, whether such a vindication of our honour was likely to end in hostilities or not. And why was this done? Because the allied powers—because Austria itself—had misrepresented to the world the principles upon which this government acted, or at least professed to act. It was said in the declaration of the allied sovereigns, that Great Britain fully coincided in the general principle upon which they acted, but that considerations of state prevented that power from co-operating with them in the prosecution of their plans. This appeared upon the face of that monstrous, disgusting, and hypocritical paper which had been put forth by the amiable and pacific congress of Laybach. The noble lords on the other side said, that the interference with the affairs of Naples was in support of the cause of Austria: but Austria said no—that their sole object was, the peace and safety of the whole of Europe, which were threatened by those proceedings. The noble lord, after quoting some passages from the declaration of the allied sovereigns, asked the noble lord opposite (Liverpool), to stand up and say whether his majesty's ministers coincided in the principles and feelings by which the allied sovereigns were actuated? The noble earl who had just sat down said he believed Austria to be sincere in her professions. Did the noble earl, or did his majesty's ministers believe her sincere, when she, in that odious and disgusting document, declared the government of this
1058
1059
1060
"Aliis occasio, aliis animus, nemini voluntas deficit."
1061
1062
1063
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that a great part of the noble lord's speech had been occupied with eloquent declamation against the interference of the allied powers with Naples; and he could not help remarking, that when they had seen other independent states attacked in a similar manner, they had heard no eloquent declamation from the noble lords opposite. The noble lords on those occasions had, on the contrary inculcated the necessity of peace, and the impolicy of interfering. The only exception was, in the case of the invasion of Spain, against which his noble friend opposite had certainly expressed an opinion. The present motion he believed to be without precedent. The constitution invested the Crown with the power of making war or peace, and of negotiating with other states. The right of parliament to refuse the supplies, he believed to be equal to the right of the Crown to declare war; and he was not prepared to deny that parliament might advise the king to resort to war. It was an admonition improperly applied, and if fit to be applied, improperly expressed. There were two modes in which a great nation could interfere. Its influence might be exercised in private by its accredited agents; but, when its sentiments were recorded by a public declaration, they must make up their minds to enforce their declaration by arms, if it should be disregarded. If there was any doubt, whether this motion was a motion of war, the speech of his noble friend had removed all doubt. The noble baron avowed that he looked to war; he hoped, perhaps, that war might not be necessary: the noble baron should have credit for those hopes, but war was at one alternative on which he relied. But if this was the sentiment of the supporters of the motion, they should say so distinctly, and give advice to the king accordingly. The question which the
1064
1065
After a short reply from the marquis of Lansdown, the House divided: Contents, 23; Proxies 14–37. Not-Con-'tents 42; Proxies 42–84. Majority against the motion 47.
1066
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 2, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The order of the day being read for the House to resolve itself into a committee to consider of this subject,
Mr. Plunkett
said, that previous to moving that the Speaker should leave the chair, he had a few observations to make, in which he should not occupy much of the time of the House, as he saw no reason to anticipate objection to the course he was about to propose. It was highly gratifying to him to observe the feeling which prevailed on all sides in that House throughout the late discussion on this subject; a feeling which assured him that those who were bound by their sense of duty to contend against the measures which he proposed, would scorn to act upon a vexatious spirit in opposing the bill. He deemed it a duty which he owed both to the friends of the measure and to those gentlemen who were conscientiously opposed to it, now to state to the House the course he proposed to pursue, which was, to propose in the committee certain Resolutions, which he would presently read to them; and after they were carried, and leave given to bring in the bill which he intended to found upon them, to fix the first reading of the bill for Tuesday next, and the second reading for the Monday following; which arrangement, he conceived, would afford ample time for every member to enter fully into its merits. The Resolutions which he intended to propose were:
1. "That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned.
2. "That such parts of said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and that the sacrifice of the Mass, as used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may, therefore, safely be repealed.
1067
3. "That it appears to this committee, that, in several acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, a certain oath, commonly called the oath of Supremacy, is required to be taken, as a qualification for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights, therein mentioned.
4. That in the said oath and declaration is contained, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms.
5. "That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects with respect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word 'spiritual' being inserted therein; and that for the purpose of removing such scruples, it would be expedient to declare the sense in which the said word is used, according to the injunction issued by queen Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, and recognised in the act of the fifth of her reign, and which is explained by the thirty-seventh of the articles of the church of England, imports merely, that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doer.
6. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that such act of repeal and explanation, should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant Succession to the Crown, according to the act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject and for maintaining inviolate the Protestant episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and discipline thereof; and the Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline thereof, as the same are by law respectively established."
Mr. Peel
said, that after the vote the House had come to, it was not his intention to oppose the motion for the Speaker leaving the chair. With respect to the Resolutions proposed, he could only acquiesce in them on condition that the right hon. gentleman only demanded a formal adoption, and that those gentlemen who differed from him should in no way be precluded from offering any oppo-
1068
The House went into the committee. The resolutions were agreed to; a bill was ordered to be brought in thereupon; and the House, on the motion of sir George Hill, was ordered to be called over on the 16th.
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT
On the motion of lord J. Russell, the House went into a committee to consider farther of the report of this bill.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
objected to the amount of the qualification for voting which was proposed for Leeds, that qualification being for such persons as rented houses at 10
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Milton
begged leave to express his entire approbation of the mode of reform which had been introduced by his noble friend. It proceeded strictly upon constitutional principles, and for this reason he preferred it, both to the proposition for extending the elective franchise to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and to that for transferring it to the hundreds in the neighbourhood of Grampound. There was one point, however, on which he was inclined to differ, both from his hon.
1069
Sir R. Wilson
begged to observe, that the conduct of the electors of Westminster had been distinguished by the greatest purity. Their example, there-
1070
l.
l.
Mr. Courlenay
said, that there never was an instance of ascot and lot borough having been created by act of parliament. As to the purity of the electors of Westminster, upon which an hon. member insisted, he could only say, that the inhabitants of the city of Westminster had been grossly calumniated, if a great deal of corruption had not existed in former elections. The kind of corruption to which he alluded was, the paying up of arrears of taxes, in order to enable a man to vote.
Mr. Baring
said, that the particular mode of adding two members to that House was not in itself a question of great importance. At the same time, as this was the first instance in which parliament was called upon to apply a general principle of legislation, in that view it was material that the House should weigh maturely what it promulgated upon this subject. In framing a system of representation, experience proved the necessity of looking to property as an essential principle for the permanence of social order. At the same time, it was undoubtedly essential, that the interests of the poorer classes of society should be mixed up with those considerations. It would be unwise to take property as the simple basis of representation, as the French had done. It was true, that the basis of property was sufficient, as a security; but then the consequence would be, as in France, a total indifference on the part of the people as to the election of their representatives, or their conduct after they were elected. The representation in America, on the other hand, furnished an example of the defects of the popular principle, when taken as the principal basis. He thought, therefore, that the plan of representation best adapted
1071
l.
Sir R. Wilson
rose to order. He apprehended that no member had a right to say that another member had not only talked nonsense, but used such language to his constituents as he would be ashamed to use in another place. If his hon. friend would attend some of the meetings where the members he had alluded to spoke to their electors, he would have ample opportunity to correct his opinion.
Mr. Baring
said, he should be extremely sorry if any thing which had fallen from him should be ascribed to a want of respect for his gallant friend, and to the hon. baronet, who was not now in his place (sir F. Burdett). There was no man for whose talents he had a greater admiration, or whom he should be so sorry to lose, as a member of the House, than that hon. baronet. At the same time he must maintain, that any man who would complain of great public grievances, and enlarge upon the sufferings of the people—any man who would talk the greatest nonsense upon legislation and good government was most likely to succeed at such elections as those for Westminster and Southwark. Under all the circumstances, he felt inclined to support the amendment.
1072
Mr. C. Calvert
bore testimony to the disinterested conduct of the electors of Southwark. No application, during the five contested elections which he had stood for that borough, had ever been made to him for the payment of rates or taxes.
Lord Milton
considered, that it would be better to adhere to the constitutional practice, and say that the borough of Leeds should be a scot and lot borough, than to make any fanciful deviations, under the notion of forming a good representation. The absurdities which even men of the clearest understandings fell into, when they abandoned experience and took up theories, was but too frequent. He was not a little surprised at the argument of the hon. member for Taunton for a graduated scale of votes, rising according to the property of the voter; for his part, he thought it much better that the poor man should go into the county hall to give his vote upon a footing of perfect equality with his richer neighbour. If that principle were entertained, it would lead to discussions similar to those which had agitated France in the first period of her revolution. He trusted that when they were endeavouring to infuse new life into the constitution, the committee would see the necessity of proceeding on some recognised principle, and he therefore should wish to recommend the payment of scot and lot as that principle, and should therefore move that all the words after "the sum of be left out.
Mr. S. Wortley,
in order to take the sense of the committee on his noble friend's amendment, agreed to postpone the consideration of the amendment which he had proposed until that should have been decided.
Lord Althorp
observed, that he was decidedly friendly to that alteration in the representation, which gave the people a greater share in the deliberative proceedings of that House. He should support the amendment of the noble lord.
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, though he disapproved of every part of the bill, would support the increase proposed in the amount of the qualification. Without inquiring whether the imputations thrown out against the electors of Southwark and Westminster were true or not, he, could not help observing that the opinions of the members for those places, and he might add for Middlesex, were not usually
1073
Mr. Lockhart
contended, that all boroughs were not originally scot and lot. He was decidedly adverse to the amendment of the noble lord, though he should not object to some moderate composition. In his view, any change in the representation ought to be bottomed on property.
Mr. Hurst
expressed his hope, that when the House was creating a new right, they would not overlook the claims of the poorer classes, who so largely contributed to the burdens of the state, and bore with such patience their unexampled privations. The introduction of any sum as a qualification in a scot and lot borough, was an innovation.
Mr. Peel
admitted, that whether the sum was 10
.
l.,
l.
l.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he had formerly been of opinion that the better mode of disposing of the elective franchise of Grampound, would be, to give it to the West Riding of York, but he had altered that opinion, and should support the transfer to the town of Leeds, which he conceived would be adhering strictly to the principle of the constitution.
Mr. Monck
observed, that all were agreed in principle, and differed' only in degree. The object was, to give to the
1074
Lord Castlereagh
said, that whilst he was a friend to the principle of the bill, he should have preferred founding it upon, the county representation, and giving it to the East Riding of Yorkshire. That he, thought would have been the safer principle; but as the House had decided upon that subject, the question now was, when was the best of the three propositions before the committee. If the noble lord's amendment were adopted, it would be a precedent that when a borough offended, the right should be given to a large and populous town, and vote by scot and lot. Now, if future offences could be contemplated, a great addition would be made to that representation, upon which he looked with the leas favourable eye. He had objected to the selection of Leeds, because it was an arbitrary principle, and one which he apprehended would put the bill in jeopardy; however, the noble lord had decided; but why he had chosen scot and lot in preference to burgage tenure, or calling upon the Crown to grant a charter, did not clearly appear. Granting that the House ought to give a popular representation, they were not bound certainly to go to the extreme of the principle; and between the two rates of voting, he should give the preference to the 20
l.
Mr. Denman
regretted the doubts which the noble lord had expressed as to the fate of the bill; as he feared it was of the nature of those doubts to verify themselves in some other quarter. He thought that those who talked of the danger, should have shewn that it was the
1075
Mr. Courtenay
thought that by adopting the proposition for limiting the right of voting, they would come nearest to the principles on which the scot and lot right was originally granted. He should wish Leeds to have a large constitutional body; but when he voted for that course, which would secure it a body of from 2,500 to 3,000 voters, he thought he voted for that proposition which would be found most beneficial to the town itself, and most conformable to the constitution.
Mr. Scarlett
objected to the proposed limitation, as calculated to throw too much power into the hands of the overseers of parishes, and as being likely to cause much litigation with respect to the varying value of houses. He wished it to be thrown open to scot and lot voters.
Lord John Russell
said, he was desirous of adhering to the ancient principles of the constitution, but thought it better to endeavour to catch their spirit, than to suffer themselves to be bound down by the mere forms and terms of their practice. The privilege given to scot and lot voters was evidently intended to be given to those who paid the taxes; and therefore when he took a person holding a house worth 10
l.
l.
l.
1076
l.
l.,
The Committee divided:
For lord Milton's Amendment
66
Against it
182
Majority
116
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Lushington, Dr.
Althorp, lord
Macdonald, Jas.
Anson, sir G.
Martin, J.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Monck, J. B.
Benett, J.
Moore, Peter
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Newport, sir J.
Benyon, Benj.
Noel, sir G.
Bright, H.
Orde, Wm.
Calcraft, J.
Pares, Thos.
Calvert, C.
Parnell, sir H.
Crompton, S.
Palmer, C. F.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Power, R.
Denman, Thomas
Price, R.
Dundas, Charles
Ramsbottom, J.
Ellice, E.
Rice, S. R.
Farquharson, A.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Folkestone, lord
Robarts, A.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Robarts, col.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Robinson, sir G.
Fitzgerald, sir M.
Scarlett, Jas.
Gordon, R.
Sefton, earl of
Grant, J. P.
Smith, W.
Grattan, James
Stanley, lord
Griffiths, J. W.
Stuart, lord J.
Harbord, hon. E.
Sykes, D.
Honey wood, W. P.
Tennyson, Charles
Hornby, Ed.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hill, lord A.
Wharton, J.
Hume, J.
Whitbread, S.
Hurst, R.
White, Luke
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Wilson, sir R.
Johnstone, W. A.
Wyvill, M.
Lennard, T.
TELLER.
Lloyd, J. M.
Milton, lord.
The Committee next divided on Mr. Stuart Wortley's motion, for inserting 20
l.
l.
1077
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 5, 1821.
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. Stuart Worthy
l.
l.
bona fide
l.
Mr. Hobhouse
felt that many who had supported this bill while it was in the hands of the noble lord who had brought it into the House, now that they saw it had got into the hands of those who were unfavourable to reform, might reasonably oppose it. From the first he had felt that this measure was not that which would satisfy the wishes of the country: nevertheless he had ^supported it, to show that those who supported radical or any other reform were not so uncompromising in their character as to accept of nothing because they could not get all they desired. He then noticed the reflections thrown on the people of Westminster on a former night, and declared that for propriety of conduct, integrity and discernment (except in the choice of one of their representatives), he knew of no body of men who better deserved the approbation of their countrymen. The objections which had been made to popular elections he regarded as a calumny, not on the people of Westminster, but on the people of England generally. The hon. member who had thrown out the reflections on the people of Westminster, had taken his information from a source that was false and infamous, on which he hoped he would place no future reliance. The hon. member for Taunton had said it was notorious that that individual would be most favoured who could talk most nonsense.
Mr. Bankes
spoke to order, and objected to any reference to what had passed on a former night.
1078
The Speaker
said, it was disorderly to refer to what had passed on a former debate.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that as the rule of the House was imperative, he must, without receding from his argument, adopt a different mode of enforcing it. He should now only suppose it to be the case, that language or sophistry which had been employed by him should appear sense to one man, whilst in the judgment of another it was mere nonsense. Was it any thing remarkable that this should happen at Westminster? Had no such contradiction ever been heard of at Taunton It had been rumoured that the people of Taunton, who had not scot and lot, but who, some of them, being in the interest of the opposition candidate, had not scrupled to draw along as his ensign, a loaf almost as big as a mountain, adorned with four cupids. He mentioned this anecdote at least on as good authority as that on which the hon. member for Taunton had attributed to the electors of Westminster a love of annual nonsense. The course which the question of reform had taken, was to him satisfactory, as the people had now been taught round whom they ought to rail, and who, when the time of trial came, would not be found wanting in their cause.
Mr. Hume
said, he had inspected the accounts of a Westminster election some years ago, and could bear testimony to the correctness with which every shilling of the money expended on that occasion was accounted for. He knew of no instance of the poor rates being paid for any elector who favoured the popular candidates, and believed every voter for sir F. Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse on the late election would have been insulted by such a proposition. He would accept the present bill as a boon, small as it was, compared with what had originally been intended by the noble lord who brought it into the House.
Mr. Gurney
supported the bill in its present shape, but regretted the alterations that had been made in it.
The report was then received, and the bill re-committed.
HUSBANDRY HORSES.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Husbandry Horses Duties Acts.
Mr. Curwen
said, that under the present general distress of agriculture, he thought it impossible that the House
1079
Sir C. Burrell
supported the motion, contending that it would be quite as just to tax the farmer's plough, his cart, or even his labourer as his horse. He considered the abolition of the husbandry horse tax as but a small boon; the whole amount of the tax did not exceed 480,000
l.
Mr. Lockhart
wished to press upon the consideration of the House the different circumstances under which the duties had
1080
Mr. Grenfell
said, that in every loan act was a clause that no stamp duty, whatever, shall be paid upon the transfer of stock. Now, he would ask the House if, after such a compact, it could be guilty of such a breach of public faith, as to consent to any tax upon this species of property?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the object in going into the committee was not to propose any new tax, but to continue for a certain time the mitigated duty which had been regulated a few years ago. The repeal of a tax which produced half a million of money was a serious question hi the present state of the country. He would not say that some substitute might not be found for it; but the present was not the time for discussing the question.
Colonel Davies
was of opinion that the tax might be got rid of altogether. He could not but express his surprise that in, the discussion of the present question, no mention had been made of retrenchment; and economy. He should soon have an opportunity of shewing, in the discussion of the army, estimates, that, by an economical arrangement, the amount, of this tax might be saved upon that branch alone.
Mr. Monck.
was convinced; that, ministers would never begin the long promised work of retrenchment, until the House refused them some of the taxes, It was not by placing high duties, upon foreign corn that adequate relief, could be expected; for that would, be only transferring the pressure from the grower to the consumer. The real evil was in the pressure of excessive taxation, added to the improved, state of the currency.
Mr. Huskisson,
before the question went to the vote, wished to call the attention of the House to its real nature. A
1081
Mr. Bright
complained, that some hon. members were disposed to take off taxes from themselves and lay them upon their neighbours. He would support any proposition for the reduction of a tax, but never for transferring it from one interest to another. He thought it would be highly desirable that country gentlemen should come to a determination not to vote for any of the estimates until something had been done towards relieving the distress of the country.
Mr. Ellice
wished to follow up the remarks of the hon. gentleman by suggesting, that the sinking fund ought to be made applicable to the public service, and that taxes of an equal amount should be taken off.
The House divided: For the Instruction, 65; Against it, 122. The House then went into the committee.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Barham, J. F.
Harboard, hon.
Barnard, lord
Hobhouse, J. C.
Bernal, R.
Hotham, lord
Bennet, hon G.
Hume, J.
Bennett, J.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Boughey, sir J.
Lambton, J. G.
Burrell, sir C.
Latouche, J.
Bury, lord
Lawley,
Calcraft, J.
Lennard, F.
Calvert, C.
Lockhart, T. B.
Calvert, N.
Lushington, S.
Cawthorne, J. F.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Cheere, C. M.
Marjoribanks, J.
Claughton,
Monck, J. B.
Coffin, sir J.
Newport, sir J.
Golborne, R.
O'Grady, S.
Crespigny, sir W.
Ord, W.
Cripps, J.
Pitt, J.
Curteis, E. J.
Powlett, hon. W.
Denison, W. J.
Ramsay, sir A.
Ellice, E.
Rice, R.
Farquharson, A.
Rickford, W.
Folkestone, lord
Robarts, A. W.
Glenorchy, lord
Roberts, col.
Gordon, R.
Robinson, sir G.
Grant, M.
Shelley, sir J.
Grattan, J.
Sykes, D.
1082
Webb, col.
Wilson, sir H.
Western, J. C.
Wyvill, M.
Whitbread, S.
TELLERS.
White, L.
Creevey, T.
Wilson, sir R.
Curwen, J.
TRANSFER OF STOCK.]
Mr. Curwen,
in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice, would not shrink from saying, that he did so with the view of calling the attention of the House to the propriety of imposing a duty on the Transfer of Stock. He contended that the right and foundation of all government rested on the principle, that every man should pay for the protection of his property. If that were a general law which could not be disputed, then he maintained, that any exemption in favour of a portion of the community was a fraud upon the public. There was, however, at the present moment exempted from all direct share of the public burthens, a property equal in amount to the whole real property of the united empire. If this exemption had hitherto existed, lie was prepared to contend that circumstances might now exist to warrant the removal of that exemption. But he was not without very great authority when he stated his opinion to be, that this property was not legally exempted from a share of the public burthens; for he thought he was justified in saying that it had been ruled by the late chief justice of the court of King's-bench, that funded property was available for the support of the poor, under the 43rd of Elizabeth: and if liable to be taxed for the support of the poor, it ought surely to be taxed for the support of the public credit. [The hon. gentleman was here rendered inaudible by the coughing of members.] He begged pardon of the House for detaining them so long; but surely it was due to an individual who had been accused of making a proposition little short of robbery, to be allowed to explain himself. If the whole country was at present borne down with the public burthens, was it unfair to ask the fund-holder to take a share? He would ask hon. members to compare the present state of this country, with that of France at the commencement of the disturbances there, and to say if those disturbances did not arise from-the exemptions claimed by the clergy, the nobles, and other privileged orders. He would move, "That there be laid before this House, an account of all Stock transferred at the Bank of England for the ten years ending
1083
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he would, at once, meet the principle of the motion, and he could not but observe, that although he was far from charging the hon. member with intending to bring down destruction upon public faith, and ruin upon individuals, the measure proposed would certainly have that effect, and therefore deserved every reprobation. The hon. member appeared to confound two principles entirely different in their application and effect: he confounded that burthen which the stockholder was bound to bear in conjunction with the rest of the community, with the imposition of a specific tax on the stockholder peculiarly. From the common burthen the stockholder claimed no exemption; for twenty years he had submitted to the property tax without complaint; but to a specific tax he did, and fairly did, object. It was said, that the stockholder bad in fact bought in considerable sums under a depreciated currency, which he now claimed to be repaid in gold. Certainly, during those years of depreciated currency nearly one-fourth of the present debt had been contracted; but how was it possible to separate that particular portion from the whole mass, or to distinguish the individuals who had profited by that temporary state of the circulating medium? Even if such a line could be drawn, what possible justification could the fact in question afford for an attack upon the public creditor? It would be just as reasonable to release and unbind every private bargain which had been made and entered into at the same date. He knew there was a feeling in the country, that the rich stockholder ought to contribute largely towards the public expenditure. To contribute certainly; but not to contribute specifically. Let the House recollect that funded property was not difficult of removal; it might easily be transferred to other countries; and it would be so, but that the security of England was preferred. Once let a breach of faith be suspected, and that preference was at an end;
sauve qui peut
1084
The motion was negatived.
MR. ELLIS—DUTIES OF A MASTER
Dr. Lushington,
in bringing forward his promised motion, trusted he should be honoured with the attention of members, and particularly of those members interested in the prosperity of the sister kingdom; for he hoped to convince them that the rejection of his motion would be, to a very large class of the inhabitants of that kingdom, pregnant with the most serious injury. It needed not to be stated that over every description and over every form of property courts of equity now held jurisdiction. Wherever an account was to be taken, or a doubtful title investigated, a contract to be enforced or cancelled, or a disputed fact ascertained, courts of equity exercised an extensive, if not an exclusive jurisdiction; and the paramount importance of celerity and despatch in all the proceedings arising in such courts must be obvious to every one. Now, it was a general complaint, that although justice might upon the whole be fairly dealt out in courts of equity, yet, that the expense and delay attendant upon their decrees was a most intolerable grievance: that delay and expense was an inconvenience equally lamented by suitors and by lawyers; and the House would be imposing upon the already heavily burthened suitors of the Irish courts of equity an additional load of distress, if they permitted that practice which it was the object of the present motion to set aside. The duties united in the person of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Ellis), the duties of member for Dublin, and of master in chancery in Ireland, were so incompatible with each other, that either the first or the last must necessarily be neglected. He did not mean to say that the hon. and learned gentleman might not with perfect regularity discharge his functions as a member of the House of Commons—for the House had a paramount right to the service of its members and a power to compel their attendance; but lie wished
1085
l.
1086
1087
ex post facto
1088
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1089
1090
Mr. Lennard
seconded the motion; It seemed that the learned member for Dublin had, in effect, stated in his examination, that he considered himself only entitled to the benefit of his office, so long as he conscientiously and diligently performed the duties of it—duties which he had admitted required his own personal attendance. There was pretty sure evidence of his diligence in his office, allowing the increase of his fees to be a criterion. The learned member had bought his place on a calculation of 2,500
l.
l.
1091
Mr. Ellis was about to address the House, when—
The Speaker
interposed, and said, that a doubt arose in his mind, whether or no the hon. and learned gentleman should rise before or after the question was put from the chair. If the question were considered by the House as implicating the hon. and learned gentleman in any thing like a distinct charge, then the course would be, for him to speak before the question was regularly put, and then to withdraw during the subsequent discussion. If this motion were, however, not meant to be inculpatory, but merely to relieve the hon. and learned gentleman from the duties of a particular office, then he might reserve himself until after the ques-
1092
Mr. Wynn
rather thought, that where, as in this case, the motion named the individual to whom it referred, it ought to be considered as in some measure inculpatory, and as one of those subjects which the House, in delicacy, were in the habit of discussing in the absence of the individual. It would be, therefore, he thought, more consonant to the ordinary rules, to hear the hon. member before the question was put. He spoke, however, without having had any opportunity of consulting authorities.
The Speaker
thought, that the safer course would be, if any doubt prevailed, to hear the hon. and learned gentleman before the question was put.
Mr. Ellis
began by expressing a hope, that no sense of delicacy towards him personally, or to his feelings, would prevent the House from going into the fullest discussion upon the subject of the motion. He could only lament that that delicacy had not been observed by the hon. and learned gentleman, but that charges had been made against him, exaggerated in their nature and exasperated in the detail, while they were meant to affect that question which alone related to himself. If a long and diffuse dissertation of the grievances of Chancery suitors, and supposed dereliction in other offices with which he (Mr. Ellis) had nothing to do; if all this had been done, he felt himself excused in saying, that those exaggerated statements had been made by the hon. and learned gentleman, with no delicacy towards his (Mr. Ellis's) own peculiar situation: If the present question referred only to his own feelings, he would much rather have at once withdrawn from a contest, where his name, accompanied with every circumstance of exasperation, had been held up, day after day, and week after week, to public obloquy. But, humble as he was, he felt that his case was now mixed up with that of a constituent body of the empire; and that, however his own inclinations might tend, he-could not abandon his own rights with-
1093
1094
1095
Mr. Peel
said, he was prepared, even admitting the impossibility of the effectually fulfilling the duties of a member of parliament, and of the office of master in chancery, at one and the same time, according to the argument of the hon. and learned doctor, to maintain this position, that, supposing the hon. and learned member who had just quitted the House should select his alternative and prefer the duties of his office, yet, that it was contrary to the uniform practice of that House to interfere on the general presumption of the incompatibility of the two situations. The House had a certain way of enforcing the attendance of its members; namely, by a call of the House, and by punishing defaulters; but, in this instance, upon a mere previous supposition of the difficulty or impossibility of their execution, the House was called upon to enforce the performance of certain duties, which it had never been customary so to interfere in. Numerous were the cases in which officers in the navy or army, being called to attend their duties or commands abroad, neglected their attendance in that House; yet no measure was ever proposed for the purpose of enforcing such attendance. But, the constituents of those gallant officers might with some show of reason complain of such neglect; seeing that they returned
1096
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the right hon. gentleman had not stated one single argument against the incompatibility of the two offices. The right hon. gentleman had triumphantly appealed to the case of ambassadors at foreign courts. Who were injured in that case? The constituents. Who were injured in this case? Not the constituents, but the suitors in the court of Chancery. The right hon. gentleman again argued upon the supposition that Mr. Ellis was performing his duty in the court of Chancery. Whence I this inconsistency, but from the misconduct of Mr. Ellis? Was it possible that the House could sanction such inconsistency? The evidence of Mr. Ellis before the commissioners had been precise and decisive. He could not perceive that his explanation touched it at all. He said that he had three colleagues. But his colleagues might be as ambitious as he was, and might vote as zealously against the Catholics as he had done. As to the complaint of
ex post facto
1097
Mr. Brownlow
expressed a hope, that the feeling of the House would be against the proposition, which in his opinion was not only a cruel proceeding towards an individual, but placed the Crown in an embarrassing situation. Last session this attempt was made in a clause introduced into the Chancery bill, which was stopped by those who stood between the king and the people. After that clause had been thrown out of the bill by the advisers of the king, how could they vote an address to his majesty to do what his advisers had refused to do? There was no pretence for the proposition. They might as well attempt to disqualify the right hon. and learned gentleman who recently astounded and bewildered the House upon the Catholic question. Mr. Ellis had proved that the duties of the office were not neglected, and the House had nothing to do with the transaction.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he should propose to consider, first, what was the general impression with respect to the course which ought to be pursued with the duties of Irish masters in Chancery; secondly, what was the case applicable to Mr. Ellis; and thirdly, what was the situation of the House with respect to the sentiments of the individual who had the honour to address them? This question was brought before the House on a former day, by the proposition of a right hon. baronet for instructing a committee to regulate the office of master in Chancery. The House came to a decision, the effect of which was, that the proposition should not affect the present situation of any individual. He had supported it for reasons which he stated to the House: but a he question was, what was the view of
1098
l.
1099
Mr. Plunkett
warmly supported the motion. He said, he entertained a high respect for the integrity and learning of his hon. friend; but he thought that if he retired from parliament, neither himself nor his constituents would suffer a very grievous calamity. The right hon. gentleman had denied the incompatibility of the two offices, because they were not enumerated in the act of 1803. The object, however, of that act was, to exclude those who were under the control of the Crown, and had no reference to the incompatibility of the offices which it interdicted, being held in common with a seat in that House. With respect to the incompatibility of the two offices, it appeared to him that the situation of master in chancery in Ireland, was one of the last which ought to make a man wish for a scat in that House, or which was compatible with it. This would appear obvious, when it was considered, that he had to decide upon cases without appeal from his
dictum;
1100
ex post facto
ex post facto
ex post facto.
ex post facto
The House divided: Ayes 52: Noes 112; Majority against the motion 60.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, March 6, 1821.
STATE OF THE REVENUE—REPEAL
Mr. Maberly
rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a comparative statement of our Revenue and Expenditure. The object which he had in view, was to lay before the House such an exposition of the present financial embarrassments, and of those permanent demands for which the country must provide, as to induce them
1101
1102
Army
£9,443,000
Navy
6,586,700
Ordnance
1,204,600
Miscellaneous Services
2,100,000
£19,313,300
Sinking Fund on Exchequer Bill
410,000
Interest on Exchequer Bills
1,000,000
£20,723,300
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
Annual Malt Duty
£5,000,000
Excise Duties
2,500,000
Lottery
240,000
Old Stores
260,000
£6,000,000
Deficiency of Ways and Means to meet Supplies voted
£14,723,300
l.,
1103
l.,
l.
l.
Army, as estimated for 1820.
£9,422,000
Navy, ditto
6,586,700
Ordnance, ditto
1,204,600
Miscellaneous, ditto
2,100,000
£19,313,300
Ordnance Old Stores, as they are deducted from Estimate improperly, the
£
s.
d.
Estimate would he this amount in addition
285,000
0
0
*
1,800,000
0
0
Civil List, &c. &c. on Consolidated Fund of Ireland, estimated the same as preceding year, because Accounts for 1820 are not
576,215
13
4
Quarantine & other charges, Irish Packet Establishment, estimated as before
114,463
17
7½
Collection of Revenue of the United Kingdom, estimated as before, nett revenue
226,735
2
11½
Militia, Deserters' Warrants, &c. paid out of gross Revenue, estimated as before
133,911
0
0½
Pensions, ditto
36,815
19
4¾
Expenses incurred in securing and improving Woods and Forests, paid out of gross Revenue, estimated
96,674
15
10
Civil Administration of Scotland, nett Revenue, estimated as before
194,006
7
7½
Payments made in Ireland on account of half-pay in Great Britain, estimated as before
97,174
3
9¼
£26,874,297
0
7
1104
Memoranda—Additional Payments.
Re-payments out of gross Revenue for Discounts, Drawbacks, Bounties, &c &c. estimated as before
3,726,715
16
1¼
Bounties for promoting Fisheries, Linen Manufactures, &c, &c.
308,849
15
6½
4,035,505
11
7¾
Less in 1820 than in 1819, about
*
37,471
0
0
Russian Dutch Loan
120,000
0
0
157,471
0
0
Total Expense for the Civil and Military Government of Great Britain and Ireland for the year 1820
26,716,826
0
7
He came, then, to refer to the establishment of 1792. In that year Mr. Pitt made an estimate of income and expenditure, including permanent and annual duties upon an average of four years preceding. The income he estimated at 16,212,000
l.,
Supplies
£4,128,000
Interest and management of funded debt
9,325,866
Civil list and charges on consolidated fund
1,065,134
Reduction of dept
1,200,000
£15,719,000
Leaving a balance of 493,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
He was now come to the fourth division, namely the expense of the Civil and Military Government in 1792. Ireland was then certainly a separate kingdom from England, but in order to make his analogy hold good, he should be
1105
Army
£1,474,000
Do. Extraordinaries
277,000
£
1,751,000
Navy, for 16,000 Seamen
832,000
Do.—Ordinary
672,000
Do.—Extraordinaries
350,000
1,854,000
Ordnance, Ordinary.
221,000
Do.—Extraordinary
157,000
378,000
Miscellaneous—For Colonies and Plan
31,000
Other Services
114,000
145,000
Total of Supplies voted Feb. 1792
4,128,000
Civil List, and sundry Charges on the Consolidated Fund
1,065,134
Estimate of the whole Expense and Charge of Ireland, it being then a separate Kingdom, viz.
The Military and Civil Government, Management of Revenue, &c. &c. not including Interest of National Debt about
1,200,000
Collection of Revenue of Great Britain, estimated at Six Guineas per Cent on
1,021,356
Estimate of various Sums paid out of the Gross Revenue
300,000
Total
£7,714,490
The following is a comparison of the Expense of Governing the Country in the years
1792.
Army
£1,751,000
Navy
1,854,000
Ordnance
378,000
Miscellaneous Services
145,000
£4,128,000
£
s.
d.
Estimate of the whole Expense and Charge of Ireland, it being then a separate Kingdom
1,200,000
0
0
Collection of Revenue of Great Britain, estimated at £16,212,000, at Six Guineas per Cent
1,021,356
0
0
Civil List and sundry Charges on the Consolidated Fund
1,065,134
0
0
1106
Estimate of various Sums paid out of gross Revenue
300,000
0
0
Total Charge of Governing, 1792
£7,714,490
0
0
1820.
Army
£9,422,000
Navy
6,536,700
Ordnance
1,204,600
Miscellaneous Services
2,100,000
£19,313,300
£
s.
d.
Ordnance Old Stores
285,000
0
0
Civil List, &c. &c. on Consolidated Fund of Ireland
576,215
13
4
Collection of Revenue of the United Kingdom
4,226,735
2
11½
Civil List, Courts of Justice, Salaries, Commissioners, &c. &c, for the year 1820
1,800,000
0
0
Quarantine and other Charges, Irish Packet Establishment
114,463
17
7½
Militia Deserters' Warrants, &c. &c. paid out of gross Revenue
133,911,
0
0½
Civil Administration of Scotland
194,006
7
7½
Pensions Administration of Scotland
36,815
19
4¾
Expenses of Improving Woods and Forests, paid out of gross Revenue
96,674
15
10
Payments made in Ireland, on account of half-pay in Great Britain
97,174
3
9¼
Total Charge of Governing, 1820
£26,874,297
0
7
Our whole charge, therefore, was now 26,874,297
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1107
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
He now came to the sixth view of the question. A committee of finance had been appointed by the House, which made its report in 1817, upon the amount of the charges which they thought would be required for the government of the country in the year 1818. That report stated to the country that the estimates for the civil and military government of the country for the said year amounted to
Army
£8,500,000
Navy
6,000,000
Ordnance
1,150,000
Miscellaneous Services
1,700,000
Total
£17,350,000
He apprehended that when that report was made, the commissioners had in view all that was necessary for the security and honour of the country. He was aware that the right hon. gentleman
1108
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1109
1110
"That the finance committee appointed by this House, having stated in its fourth report, dated 5th June 1817, that it had estimated the amount of Supplies:
For the Army, at
£8,500,000
Navy
6,000,000
Ordnance
1,150,000
Miscellaneous Services
1,700,000
Making a total of
£17,350,000
for the year 1818; and that the supplies voted for the same services in the year 1820, having exceeded that estimate by 1,963,300
l.,
It was his intention to follow up the resolution by a motion for a reduction of 50 per cent upon all duties on inhabited houses and windows, from and after the 5th of January next; thus giving a year's intervention before the change could operate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it appeared to him extraordinary that the hon. gentleman should have closed his elaborate observations by proposing a reduction in duties upon which he had not in the very ample details he had given of the general taxation of the country—details, many of which might be spared, and to which, indeed, he was not prepared to reply, in the absence of those official documents which were calculated to elucidate such parts of the public accounts. Had he thought the hon. gentleman meant to go into so wide a detail, he certainly would have been prepared with re-
1111
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
1112
l.
1113
l.
l.
l.
l.
1114
l.
1115
Mr. Calcraft,
adverting to the pleasant observations of the right hon. gentleman on a change of administration, observed, that the right hon. gentleman told the House, that whenever he and his colleagues were of opinion that another administration were capable of managing the affairs of the country with more advantage, and with greater public confidence, they would give up their places. If the country were to wait until the gentlemen opposite entertained that opinion, it would wait until the right hon. gentleman grew old indeed in office. The right hon. gentleman also said, that there were political charlatans who would outbid one another, as at a Dutch auction, to manage the affairs of the country. He did not know if the right hon. gentleman meant to include his hon. friend in that assertion; but he concluded it by saying, that there were those who would undertake to manage those affairs cheaper than the Whigs. Now he should like to know how long it was, since the right hon. gentleman had learned to talk so contemptuously of the Whigs. He recollected the day when the right hon. gentleman was a very active and industrious and able secretary under the administration of the Whigs. He had had repeated communications with the right hon. gentleman at that period, and he had never heard him complain of his masters. He had no doubt that at that time the right hon. gentleman would also have said, "whenever we find any persons capable of forming an administration more advantageous to the country, we, the Whigs will resign." As, however, he could not equal the right hon. gentleman in joking, and indeed as he thought the subject too important for laughter, he would commence his observations by returning his thanks to his
1116
l.,
1117
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1118
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
1119
Mr. Huskisson
did not think that with all the misrepresentations, founded, of course, in mistake of the hon. gentleman who spoke last, he had added much to the stock either of pleasantry or argument. His right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, had fairly enough alluded to a Dutch auction; but it never could be expected that the government should be knocked down to the Whigs on the score of economy, even though the auctioneer might be honest enough to declare, that he himself would not bid for the article. Certainly the hon. mover had displayed great research and perspicuity; but he was not aware that there was any practical utility in referring back to the year 1792, and comparing the establishments then with the establishments now. In 1792, we were in the ninth year of peace, after a war of only seven years' duration; so that the situation of the country was widely different. But, independently of this fact, the hon. mover seemed to have forgotten, that the pay of the army, the navy, and the ordnance had since that date been greatly increased. The difference in the numbers at the two periods was also worthy of consideration. He contended that the hon. gentleman ought to have made the comparison, if at all, not with the last, but with the estimates of the present year, with all their reductions; and the comparison ought not to have been with the year 1792, but with 1817, when the re-
1120
l.
l.
1121
l.,
l.
l.
1122
l.,
l.,
l.
Mr. Ricardo
reminded the right hon. gentleman, that the proposal of this night was not to reduce the Sinking Fund two millions, but to reduce the taxes to that amount; not by taking from the Sinking Fund, but by increased economy. The object was, to relieve the country from a part of the burdens under which it at present laboured. If, however, the motion had been to reduce the Sinking Fund, it should have met with no opposition from him. He considered it a delusion which was encouraged and made to amount to a certain sum, that ministers might be enabled finally to lay their hands upon it and devote it to purposes of unnecessary expenditure. Though the loan of last year amounted to 24,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1123
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l
l.
l.
Mr. Lushington
said, that the hon. gentleman had totally mistaken the substance of the propositions before the House, if he imagined that they did not tend to reduce the Sinking Fund. The taxes proposed to be repealed formed part of that income, the surplus of which above the expenditure constituted the Sinking Fund: and therefore the reduction of those taxes must, to that extent, diminish the Sinking Fund; and if the hon. member thought that fund a delusion now, his concurrence in the motions before the House would tend to make it more so. It would, in fact, reduce the four millions which the chancellor of the exchequer anticipated as the Sinking Fund to two millions, that being one half of the duties upon inhabited houses and windows which the hon. mover proposed to repeal. The first part of the hon. member's proposition for reducing the expenditure of 1821, to the amount limited by the finance committee in 1817, was quite unnecessary for the reasons so clearly detailed by his right hon. friends below him; and he should have no difficulty in shewing to the House, that if it were expedient to remit or reduce any of the taxes, the selection made by the hon. mover, was the worst that could have been chosen in the present state of agricultural distress; for the duty on inhabited houses was not paid at all by the farmer occupying as a tenant; and if he occupied as an owner, he was likewise exempt under the acts imposing that duly, unless the annual value and rent of his house exceeded 10
l.
1124
l.
s.;
l.
s.;
Mr. Ellice
said, that if he had come into the House with the determination of supporting the resolutions on the table, every thing which had passed in debate, and more particularly the speech of the right hon. the surveyor of Woods and Forests,—who admitted it was possible, and actually intended by government, to reduce the army and navy estimates to the amount recommended by the report of 1817—confirmed him in that opinion;—but when he was told, that in consequence of such intention, these resolutions were unnecessary, he would ask, why the reductions now proposed had not been made before the sixth year of peace?—or whether they could trust to the good faith of ministers to retrench, after the experience they had of their profusion
1125
l.
1126
1127
Captain Maberly
supported the resolution.
Mr. J. Smith
supported the resolution. At the same time, he hesitated not to state his conviction that a reduction of the tax on salt would, of all reductions, be the least injurious to the revenue, and the most beneficial to the community. He believed there were calculations to show that if this tax were done away with altogether, other branches of the revenue would be considerably increased by such a measure.
Mr. Wilmot
opposed the resolution. He was decidedly hostile to the plan of appropriating the produce of the Sinking Fund to the service of the year. That fund ought to be preserved as a nucleus, to accumulate for the ultimate liquidation of the national debt.
The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 109: Majority against the Resolution, 26.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Barratt, S. M.
James, W.
Becher, W. W.
Johnson, col.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lennard, T. B.
Benyon, B.
Lambton, J. G.
Birch, Joseph
Lloyd, J. M.
Bright, H.
Lushington, S.
Bury, visct.
Lockhart, J. J.
Campbell, hon. J.
Maberly, J.
Calvert, C.
Macdonald, J.
Coffin, sir Isaac
Martin, John
Crespigny, sir W.
Monck, J. B.
Crompton, Sam.
Marjoribanks, S.
Creevey, Thos.
Neville, hon. R.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Newport, sir J.
Denison, W. J.
Nugent, lord
Duncannon, visc.
Ord, W.
Dickinson, W.
Ossulston, lord
Ellice, Ed.
Palmer, C. F.
Evans, Wm.
Parnell, sir H.
Farquharson, A.
Price, R.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Pym, Francis
Folkestone, visc.
Rice, T. S.
Farrand, Rebt.
Ramsden, J. C.
Gordon, R.
Ramsay, sir A.
Graham, S.
Ricardo, D.
Grant, J. P.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Grenfell, P.
Robarts, A.
Griffiths, J. W.
Robinson, sir G.
Hamilton, lord A.
Rowley, sir W.
Harbord, hon. E.
Rumbold, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Russell, lord W.
Honywood, W. P.
Smith, John
1128
Smith, hon. R.
Webbe, Ed.
Smith, Sam.
Western, C. C.
Smith, Abel
Wharton, J.
Scarlett, James
Whitbread, S. C.
Sefton, earl of
Williams, W.
Stanley, lord
Wilson, sir R.
Shelley, sir J.
Wyvill, M.
Talbot, R. W.
TELLERS.
Taylor, M. A.
Calcraft, John
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Maberly, W. L.
Warre, J. A.
The second Resolution, viz. "That Taxes to the amount of the said difference of 1,963,300
l.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 7, 1821.
PETITION OF NATHAN BROADHURST.]
Mr. James
rose to present a petition from Nathan Broadhurst, at present a prisoner in Lancaster castle. The petitioner represented "That he had been, originally, arrested upon a charge of high treason, which charge being afterwards abandoned, he had been tried for a misdemeanor, and sentenced to two years' confinement; that on the day of his arrest he was eon-fined to a cold, damp, stone room, for seventeen hours out of the twenty-four; that all letters written by him were obliged to be unsealed and opened to the inspection of the gaoler, before they could be dispatched; and all letters addressed to him were, with the same view, broken open, and brought to him in that state; that on one occasion, without any provocation whatever, the gaoler came to the petitioner and told him that for the good order and government of the prison it was necessary that he should be immediately committed to a place called the Ditch, which is a place of marked and peculiar degradation; that he was accordingly forced thither, and hurried down a flight of several steps, by which means his ancles were very much injured; and that he was so severely fettered, that finding himself unable to bear the extreme suffering to which they exposed him, he sent for a surgeon, who, upon seeing the state he was in, instantly ordered the fetters to be taken from him, thinking it most cruel that they should remain." The petition enumerated various other grievances to
1129
Mr. Hornby,
as one of the visiting magistrates, felt himself called upon to say a few words upon the subject of this petition. The rules complained of by the petitioner were sanctioned by two of the judges. He himself was one of those who disapproved of the rule excluding all newspapers from the prisoners; but he was opposed by the majority of the magistrates, whose decision was approved by that humane and constitutional judge, Mr. Justice Bailey. As to the petitioner's complaint about the rule with regard to work, reform being one of the main objects of imprisonment, it was better to employ prisoners in some branch of industry, than to allow them to spend their time in listless inactivity; and yet no prisoners were compelled to work in this prison but such as received the county allowance. The restrictions as to communication by letter he thought necessary for the purpose of securing the safe custody of prisoners. With regard to the character of the gaoler of this prison, he could declare from personal knowledge that he was a most humane man, whose removal would be a serious grievance to the prisoners themselves.
The petition having been read,
Lord Stanley
said, that this was the third time the conduct of the gaoler had been a matter of complaint to this House; and after an- investigation into his con-
1130
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
declared, that after what the House had heard from local magistrates with respect to the conduct and character or the gaoler, the statement of the petitioner must be deemed a foul and infamous calumny, which ought not to be circulated with the sanction of that House.
Sir R. Wilson
observed, that testimonies equally high, had been borne in that House to the conduct and character of governor Aris, who had nevertheless been indisputably proved to be a confirmed knave and tyrant.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that he knew something of this Mr. Higgins, the gaoler; for some time ago, a petition was transmitted to him, to present to that House, from several prisoners, who complained of his misconduct; but after he had received this petition, some of the parties wrote to him not to present it, because the county magistrates had rectified the matters complained of. From this circumstance it appeared, that this gaoler was not deserving of the unqualified panegyric which he had received.
Mr. Lockhart
deprecated the doctrine that that House, by receiving a complaint of oppression from any petitioner, made itself a party to that complaint, or to the charges which it imputed. From the admission of such doctrine, another proposition would naturally follow—that if the House received the complaint, and instituted an inquiry upon the subject, the case would be referred to a partial tribunal. He was an advocate for the reception of any petition couched in decorous language. It was the undoubted right of the subject to state his grievances to that House, and the duty of that House to receive such statements.
Mr. Wynn
was quite astonished at the doctrine which had been held on tins subject. There was a proper tribunal, before which all matters with respect to gaola might be brought, namely, the visiting magistrates. The House therefore ought not to interfere in the present case.
Mr. Bernal
contended, that after an ineffectual appeal to the proper tribunal, it; was competent to any subject to present a petition. The noble lord who opposed) the motion; bad not attempted to contra-
1131
Mr. Lambton
asked his noble friend, whether it was his private opinion that the petition should not be received?
Lord Stanley
replied, that it was certainly his intention to oppose the receiving of this petition.
Mr. Lambton
could not help regarding it as monstrous doctrine, that a statement of great oppresion from a prisoner should not be laid on the table of that House, because it referred to a gaoler of whose character two or three of its members entertained a favourable impression. If any gaoler were charged with inhumanity by a prisoner, the charge should, in his view, be investigated. He had a good opinion of the gaoler of the county of which he had the honour to be a representative; and yet if such charges as the present petition contained were preferred against him, he would certainly be an advocate for the investigation of that complaint, if a petition complaining of oppression, especially by a prisoner, were presented against the representative of the county, or the whole body of the magistrates, he would vote for its reception. In this case, the petition was from an unfortunate prisoner, whose character he did not know or care about. But he would say of him, as lord Chatham had said of Wilkes, that he neither cared about his private character or public principles, but considering him as an English subject, possessing rights which the law gave him, and the law alone could take away, he would resist any attempt to subject him to oppression.
After some further conversation, the question being put, "That the Petition do lie on the table," the House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 86.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hutchinson,hon.C.H.
Bernal, R.
James, W.
Bright, H.
Lambton, J. G.
Byng, G.
Latouche, R.
Calcraft, J.
Lockhart, J. J.
Calvert, C.
Markham, Adml.
Creevey,T.
Monck, J. B.
Denman, T.
Palmer, C. F.
Dickenson, W.
Power, R.
Duncannon, Visct.
Ricardo, D.
Ellice, E.
Rice, T. S.
Gordon, R.
Robinson, Sir G.
Guise, sir W.
Rowley, Sir W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Smith, W.
Hughes, W. L.
Tulk, C. A.
Hume, J.
Western, C.C.
1132
Wilson, Sir R.
Wyvill, M.
Wood, M.
RIGHT OF JUDGES TO FINE A DEFENDANT DURING THE COURSE OF
Mr. Hobhouse
rose to present a Petition which was signed by 1,500 of the inhabitants of London and Westminster. The petition, he observed, referred to a most important subject which had already been brought under the consideration of the House. The petitioners expressed their regret that the recent petition of Thomas Davison, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Best in having fined him three times in the course of his defence, should have been thrown out without having been read, and they added that the lining of a defendant during the course of his defence, by a judge, was contrary to the spirit of our laws; and that the House was the place to which applications ought to be made when grievances were complained of arising from what was conceived to be the mal-administration of justice in the courts: and they stated this the more confidently, as they understood that there was a standing committee of that House called the committee for superintending the administration of justice. They also said, that if the House neglected to superintend this administration of justice, they would lose what respect remained for them in the country. The prayer of the petition was, that the House would refer this important point, to the consideration of the committee of justice. He hoped that as this petition did not at all refer to the conduct of the judge, but merely to an abstract question, and as it was couched in most respectful language; that he should not hear complaints against it from hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member contended, that that House was the proper place to which applications ought to be made where parties were aggrieved by the conduct of judges. It might be said that, if the party was injured, he ought to apply to the courts of law. He would say, as Home Tooke had said on this subject—"The courts of law were open to all: so was the London Tavern;" or as Goldsmith had said of the sign at the public-house, which; "Invites each passing stranger that can pay." Courts of law and their decisions were not always regarded with such reverence in that House; for when the great question as to the power of un-
1133
1134
1135
1136
—"Quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura."
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
maintained, that the case of Davison was one in which the right of the judge had been legally exercised. The judge at
Nisi Prius
l.
sub silentio.
Mr. Wynn
thought the present petition not liable to the same objection as the former. He was sorry for the manner in which the hon. member had prefaced the introduction of the petition. His speech had been made up of charges, formally prepared as it were, against the judges, which were incapable of being then answered. If the petition, on being read, should appear to attack the opinion pronounced by the House on the petition of Davison, he should oppose its reception.
The petition was then read.
Mr. Wynn
expressed a doubt, whether it could be received, inasmuch as it alluded to what had been said by a member of that House on another occasion.
The Speaker
decided, that where such an allusion was noticed by any member, the petition could not be received.
Mr. Hobhouse
consented to withdraw the petition, in order to rectify the point of form, and to present a similar one so corrected.
Mr. Denman
said, the House might have been saved all this trouble, had they received the petition he presented some evenings back. It was rejected without being read. This he believed was quite unprecedented. Of all the subjects that could come before them, the most important perhaps was the conduct of the judges of the land. The case became a very important one, if it was indeed true,
1137
Lord Castlereagh
approved of the decision to which the House had formerly come, and was of opinion, that the grounds of it had not been fairly stated. The learned gentleman had said, that this was the first time in which the House had rejected a petition without hearing the contents of it read, and in so doing had assumed that the House had rejected the petition without taking any cognizance of it. But this was not the case. The learned gentleman had himself stated the substance of Davison's petition; and it was owing to the statement made by the learned gentleman that the House had not permitted the petition itself to be read. If the learned gentleman had said, that he had presented it for the purpose of proposing some mode of remedying the evil complained of, he (Lord C.) should have had no objection to have had it laid upon the table; for the House was undoubtedly a tribunal capable of deciding upon the policy or impolicy of the existing laws: but as the learned gentleman had presented the petition as a complaint for illegal conduct against a learned judge, whose conduct had subsequently been solemnly reviewed and approved of by the Court of King's-Bench, be had thought it his
1138
Mr. Denman
said, that the noble lord had mis-stated him, for he had informed the House on the former night, that there were three distinct propositions, which he meant to propose in following up the petition.
Mr. Wynn
trusted that, if the petition were brought up again, other points besides those which had been insisted on that night would be omitted, as they were highly objectionable. He had said, on a former night, that the rejection of a petition without reading it was strictly conformable with precedent. He would quote two cases in confirmation of his assertion. In 1781, there were two petitions brought up of which the reading was negatived
nem. con.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that as the courts above could not review any proceeding which had arisen out of a contempt in the courts below, the House of Commons was the fit tribunal to review it. If any subject of the realm considered himself aggrieved by a fine or any other punishment inflicted on him in a court of justice, he could have no remedy for the grievance unless he obtained it in that House. In the case of Davison, the fine which had been inflicted upon him had been stated
1139
The petition was then withdrawn.
MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Mr. Gooch,
in pursuance of notice, rose to move for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the distress of the Agricultural Interest. If the committee were granted, he hoped it would be allowed to enter with full powers into an examination of the causes which had produced that distress, and would be permitted to report its opinion thereon to the House; and to state whether any and what remedy could be found for the grievances complained of. He well knew the delicate grounds upon which the question rested; and he could therefore have wished that it had been placed in more competent hands. He was happy, however, to observe, that upon all former occasions on which this question had been discussed, no party feeling had ever exhibited itself; and he therefore trusted that the gentlemen who usually opposed the agricultural interest—and especially that individual amongst them who was so highly distinguished for his knowledge of political economy (Mr. Ricardo), would permit the committee to see what good they could effect by their deliberations. Trade and agriculture were so interwoven with each other, that they appeared to him but as one interest; and he had always deemed it wicked to consider them as jarring with each other. He did not know whether it was attributable to his education and his early habits, but he was accustomed to consider the agricultural interest as the basis of all the other, and as the foundation on which the superstructure of public prosperity was invariably reared. If ever there had been a time in which that interest required public assistance, the present was the time. He therefore trusted that the petitioners would not be allowed to petition in vain. The petitions now on their table were signed by more than 100,000 persons, and were not got up in the streets and alehouses, as had too often been the case recently; were not signed by women and school-boys but by the yeomanry of the country, the heart's blood of the state, the
1140
s.,
1141
l.,
l.,
l.
nation boutiquiere,
Sir E. Knatchbull
seconded the motion. He observed, that although his majesty's ministers had declined to take any step on this subject, he by no means imputed any blame to them on that account. He was convinced that the petitions of the distressed agriculturalists had not been treated with neglect or inattention, either by that House or by ministers. But the fact undoubtedly was, that the question was one full of difficulties. The first difficulty was the natural jealousy entertained by the mercantile interest upon it. That jealousy would, he trusted, however, not induce them to oppose the motion. The object was a practical object. It was not the wish of the supporters of the motion to enter into any questions of political economy. For such discussion their habits were unfit; and he trusted that none of the gentlemen who might speak on the motion would be drawn into such a discussion. Another difficulty attendant on the ques-
1142
s.
1143
1144
Mr. Robinson
said, he was seldom anxious to offer himself to the attention of the House; but he owned that on this particular question he was very desirous to take the earliest opportunity of making a few observations. When a proposition similar to the present was made last year, he had felt it his duty to explain the grounds on which he thought it inexpedient to comply with it. He had opposed that proposition, because he did not think the distress at that time was attributable to the existing laws, and because he thought, unless some clear and distinct view were taken of the specific remedy which it might be practicable to apply to the distress, a compliance with the proposition would be at that time inexpedient. He certainly felt that those general objections made by him last year might be said to be applicable to ail times. But still, when the interests, lie would not say of one class, but of the whole community, through one class, were deeply affected, it became a question of feeling as well as of expediency, whether an inquiry might not be consented to at one particular time, though not on every occasion when it was proposed. In that situation he felt himself at the present moment. It would be strange, indeed, if he or any one could hear of distress, which, whatever might be its degree, was universal throughout the country, without being greatly interested in the subject. He did not know how that man's mind could be
1145
1146
l.
1147
Mr. Curwen
said, that the subject was undoubtedly one in the treatment of which party feeling ought not to interfere. He, for one, should not reproach the right hon. gentleman for any inconsistency which there might be between his present course and that which he pursued last session. He was not disposed, however, to augur very favourably of the result, after what had fallen from him. The right hon. gentleman was mistaken if he attributed to him any wish to exclude the foreign grower from the home market: he desired only to place him on a level with the English grower. It must be concluded that ministers were ignorant of the real extent of the distress. Had they known it, it would have been their imperative duty long ago to have interposed relief. To such an extreme had it been carried, that unless a remedy were quickly applied, it would come too late. He did not want to repeal any of the taxes to pay off the national debt; the amount rendered it impossible; but he called upon ministers to remove some of the existing burdens, to prevent the complete and irremediable ruin of the nation. In the most flourishing times the income of the whole empire could never be placed higher than 400,000,000
l.,
l.
l.,
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1148
l.
s.
1149
s.
s.
l.
1150
Mr. Whitmore
observed, that he thought it would be the best policy to abrogate all the duties which restricted commerce in Ireland, except perhaps that which related to corn, where perhaps some protection was necessary for the English grower. In his opinion, the main cause of the present distress was taxation. It was idle, when particular interests were affected, to fly to legislation, or to look at the laws affecting any one species of commerce. Unfortunately that had been the course pursued; and it had raised a vicious and artificial system which could not now be altogether laid aside. Of this description were the laws for keeping corn above its natural price. It was, however, material, in considering this subject, to bear in mind that rents had increased in proportion to the rise in the price of the produce. He held in his hand an account of the average value of 100 acres of land in the years 1790, 1S03, and 1813. In 1790 the rent was 88
l.,
l.,
l.
1151
Mr. Honywood
trusted that the expectations of the public would not be too much raised by the appointment of this committee. Indeed, he felt convinced that if every system of economy and retrenchment was not enforced, the inquiries of the committee would be worse than useless. It had been truly said, that, id referring to the corn prices of 1790 and 1795, they ought to take into consideration the expenditure of the country at that period. The interest of the national debt was, at that period, 14,000,000
l.,
l.
Mr. Walter Burrell
was of opinion that the present agricultural distress arose chiefly from the great importation that had taken place in 1818 and 1819. He was aware that the pressure of taxation was severely felt by the agriculturist. An hon. gentleman had talked of throwing the thin lands out of cultivation; but he apprehended the hon. gentleman could not be aware either of the situation or of the extent of lands of that description. If such a plan were carried into execution, the country must inevitably be plunged into a state of insurrection; for there would be no possibility of finding employment for the numerous hands that would thus be deprived of labour. Every possible retrenchment should be effected, in order to reduce the present rate of taxation; and some restraint should be placed on excessive importation.
Mr. Tremayne
said, that if any assistance could be afforded to the agriculturist, it must be by extending relief to all branches of the community. He wished that gentlemen would consider the impropriety of voting large grants, without previously inquiring into the practicability
1152
Mr. Wodehouse
was convinced that the gentlemen on the ministerial side of the House were just as sincere in their wishes for every possible retrenchment as the hon. gentlemen opposite. He and his friends around him were equally aware of the effects of taxation; for a man must be worse than an idiot not to perceive that every class was pressed down by the burthen of taxation. But that the balance of taxation was not equally adjusted he was prepared to deny; nor could he believe that any relief could be given to the agriculturist, without at the same time relieving the other classes of the community. It was on this principle that he had voted against the resolutions proposed last night, and also against the repeal of the horse tax.
Mr. Bennet
said, that he for, one should oppose the appointment of a committee, unless they were to go into the fullest inquiry into the causes of the present distress. Unless the committee inquired into the pressure caused by the taxation, and into the effects of the existing state of the currency, the proceeding would be worse than a delusion upon the public; for, unless such an inquiry were entered into, it would be evident that the appointment of the committee had for its only object the raising of the price of bread, increasing the rent of the landholder, and supporting the revenue. The report of the committee would not be got up as some finance reports were at the Treasury. It was evident that taxation was one of the main evils which pressed upon the country. The existing state of the currency operated also to produce considerable distress. He hoped that those gentlemen who complained of this distress would exert themselves to prevent the voting a single shilling of supply without the most rigorous inquiry. In the present state of unexampled distress, when every, individual was anxious, by oppressing his fellow, to shelter himself from ruin, it was not by parading a paltry, pitiful saving of a million a-year that ministers
1153
Mr. Western
said, he could not help repelling the censure which his hon. friend had endeavoured to cast upon the
1154
s.
s.
s.
1155
Mr. Dennis Browne
said, that the members for Shrewsbury and Kent seemed desirous of forming a committee of passion and prejudice rather than one of practical benefit. He was one of those who considered that the main cause of the existing agricultural distress was the want of protection of British produce against, the produce of the continent. The system of averages, as already established, had greatly failed, and he feared that any new system founded upon the same principle, could not be permanently beneficial. He thought the only way to accomplish the great object of the committee was to prohibit the importation of foreign corn altogether, leaving it to the discretion of parliament to decide when it was proper to remove the restriction. Nothing was more mischievous than the abstract philosophical notions which so much prevailed on all points of political economy.
Mr. Barham
said, he had always been of opinion that bread and corn might be furnished cheaply to the people of this country, without maintaining the importation of foreign corn on its present footing. It was manifest, that the great object of the continental powers was the improvement of their manufactures. Every man must see that without some material alteration in the state of things, a famine was rendered probable. It was obvious that a large proportion of the lands now employed in the growth of corn must soon be thrown out of cultivation. If the agriculture of England was not protected, the country would soon be ruined.
Mr. Ricardo
disclaimed any intention of imputing unworthy motives to any of the various patties whose interests were concerned in the question; but he would
1156
1157
s.
1158
1159
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.,
1160
1161
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that on a former occasion he had opposed the appointment of a committee upon this subject, but he had now no hesitation in saying that his opinions were changed. He would willingly go into the committee, yet he could never sanction the enactment of higher protecting duties. He had thought the former, duty too high, yet he was willing to assent to it, in order to afford protection to the Irish farmer, and to give encouragement to the consumption of Irish corn in the British market.
General Gascoyne
said, that lie should feel extreme jealousy at any measure at all calculated to raise the price of the necessaries of life. The only consolation lie had with respect to the proposed committee was, that the opinion of its members would be much at variance on the means of affording relief, that the whole would, come to nothing.
Mr. Wilson
confessed, that he was an advocate for the commercial and shipping interests, but lie did not feel the less for the agricultural. He considered that a rise in the price of corn would enable the landlord to pay his labourer better, and keep him out of the workhouse.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND.]
Mr. S. Rice
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
1162
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 9, 1821.
COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE MORNING CHRONICLE"—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
rose to call the attention of the House to a gross breach of its privileges. He was among those who approved of the publicity given to the debates and proceedings of that House. But, while those reports were allowed by connivance to go forth to the world, it was material to guard against any misrepresentation, especially with respect to the decisions or votes of the House; and it was a misrepresentation of this nature which he felt it his duty to submit to the House. That misrepresentation appeared in "The Morning Chronicle" of the 26th of February, and contained a very foul libel upon a majority of that House. The terms of this libel were as follows:—"List of the minority of 37 who voted on Friday last, the 23rd, for hearing the petition of Thomas Davison read before it was rejected, and against lord Castlereagh's admonition to the people of England, not to trouble and take up the time of the House of Commons any more with their petitions [Hear, hear.] After hearing such a libel, he could not but express his surprise at the cheers on the other side. Did any gentleman mean to assert that the majority who voted upon the occasion alluded to, did decide in favour of the admonition which lord Castlereagh was alleged to have given? If any gentleman were so disposed, he would say to I him, look at the Journals, do you find there that any such proposition was ever brought forward as this paragraph implies was supported by the majority?'* He would dare any man to prove that the decision of the House was here fairly described. The statement, then, was a libel The statement to which he referred imputed to a majority of that House a decision which it never pronounced, and a motive upon which it never acted. Such a proposition was never made, and was it not then most unwarrantable to charge a majority of that House with voting in favour of words to that effect, not one of those words appearing in the motion upon which this majority decided? Some such words were, it was said, made use of in the course of the debate. But, whether such words were made use of or not, they formed no part of the motion upon which
1163
Mr. Bennet
said, that as to the passage complained of, he was led to believe that every word of it was true. Since he had heard of the intention to bring forward the complaint under consideration, he had taken the trouble of inquiring with respect to the practice of publishing lists of the names of members who voted in majorities and minorities of that House, and he had found, that it had prevailed for above a century. The first instance was that of a division in the House of Lords in 1703; next, that of a division in 1714, upon the expulsion of sir It. Steele. Then followed the lists upon the proposition of the Excise laws, and upon the employment of foreign troops in 1742. From that period down to the present this practice had prevailed; and now, for the first time, a complaint was preferred against it, and that too, upon very untenable grounds; for, although the House did not distinctly come to a vote upon the extraordinary admonition of the noble secretary for foreign affairs, from all that he had heard the paragraph complained of contained a correct description. Whether any gentlemen Were; ashamed of what, they did, or how they voted generally in. that House, he should not pretend to say. But he should be at all. surprised, to find some gentlemen unwilling to have it
1164
Sir Charles Long
said, that the ground of his hon. friend's complaint was not against the practice alluded to, but against a particular paragraph, imputing improper motives to a majority of the House upon a certain occasion. By this paragraph' that majority was charged with supporting an admonition to the people hot to trouble that House any more with their petitions; which charge was contrary to the fact. His noble friend had been accused of admonishing members of that House net-to present the petitions of the people. But what was the fact? Why, that some gentlemen, declaring that they felt it their duty to present any petition, couched in decorous and respectful language, his noble friend had observed, that it was the duty; of every member, not merely to examine the style or expressions, but the matter or object of any petition which he was called upon to present.
Sir R. Wilson
expressed a hope, that as the publication alluded to did not contain any direct censure upon the House, or upon the majority alluded to, the hon. gentleman would have the liberality to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Creevey
said, that the first part of the statement in the paragraph complained of was literally true, while1 the second was, according to his impression, substantially correct. The noble lord, after he gave the admonition referred to, certainly attempted several explanations; but still his conception of the noble lords original meaning remained unchanged Upon such a declaration then from any minister, or any member of that House, with respect to the right of petitioning, it was the duty of the public press to animadvert. If gentlemen thought the printer had been betrayed into indiscretion, he trusted to the liberality of the House that such indiscretion would not be made the subject of punishment. The printer have; been indiscreet; but
1165
Mr. Wallace
observed, that the question was not whether his noble friend had made an indiscreet declaration, but whether a gross libel had been published upon the conduct of a majority of that House? For himself, he was anxious that his acts and votes in that House should be fully made known; but as to the declaration imputed to his noble friend, he denied that he had uttered any such words as those imputed to him.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the noble lord had used words with respect to the presentation of petitions, which at first struck him as bearing the construction put upon thorn, but the noble lord had afterwards qualified them. As well as he could recollect the words of the noble lord, they were these—"I would really request gentlemen to admonish those who bring them petitions, not to burthen the House with them in the manner they do." As to what had been contended that this House was not the proper tribunal for hearing complaints relative to the administration of justice, he declared, that if a petition were offered to him to-morrow, complaining, of the conduct of a court of justice, he should feel it his duty to present it: for to what purpose was a committee of justice appointed, hut to enable the people to bring before that House such grievances as they might suffer from malversation in the administration of justice?
Sir M. W. Ridley
conceived, that if the noble lord had used words to the effect stated, he had afterwards, by his explanation, done away the impression which they had made. After all, as the first indiscretion had been on the part of the noble lord and then an indiscretion on the part of some other hon. member who put the title to the minority, he thought it would be advisable to let the matter rest.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he was one of those who did not object to the publication of lists; but he must object to the introduction of such lists, with misstatements of the nature of the vote. The insinuation here was against the majority; for the minority Was described
1166
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, it had not been his intention to persist in his motion. for bringing the printer to the bar of that House, for he believed he was not person who was most to blame; but, after the hon. gentlemen opposite had thought proper to defend the act of which he complained, he would put it to the House whether it would be consistent with their., dignity to pass it over without animadversion. Still, however, as far as he was personally concerned, he was perfectly ready to withdraw it, provided gentlemen On, the other side would admit that it was an, unjustifiable proceeding to impute motives to members in the way in which they had been imputed in the paper complained of If they persisted in defending such conduct, he thought the House could not do less, in vindication of its own dignity, than call the printer to the bar, that he might at least receive some admonition.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that certainty a more detestable and wicked libel had never been published. If he had himself called the attention of the House to subject, it was perhaps no more then ought to have done; and he could justify himself for having abstained from taking that course, by that self-indulgence which might be allowed to a minister. Now, however, that it was brought before, the House, he must say, that to impute him a desire to prevent the people from exercising the right of petition was not only wicked, but absurd certainly had admonished the people not to present petitions, complaining of grievances,, in which that House could afford them no relief: and such an admonition he apprehended, was an act of great kindness to the people of England. But, when he
1167
Lord A. Hamilton
thought the best course would be to withdraw both mo-lions. He must say, however, that it appeared to him, that an unfair interpretation was given to the paragraph in question; that there was no assertion whatever that the majority had voted for the admonition to the people; and it was unfair to argue that motives were imputed to them by implication.
Mr. Hutchinson
did not mean to defend the paragraph in question, but rose in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord opposite. The noble lord had said, that no fair man could possibly have misconceived his meaning. Now he apprehended that he had the character of being a fair man; yet he certainly under-Stood the noble lord on that occasion to have read a lecture to petitioners approaching that House. The noble lord had indeed subsequently explained his expressions; and he was bound to give him credit for that explanation.
Mr. Monck
said, he had heard the paragraph read, and certainly did not think that it deserved the censure of the House. It did not say that the House had sanctioned an admonition to the people, but threw the blame of such admonition on the noble lord. If it had said that the minority were against the motion of the noble lord for an admonition, it might be blameable; but surely no one could think that the House would vote on an admonition.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that if the hon. member was counsel for the editor of the paper, he was not a very judicious one; for if he meant to say that the attack was not on the House, but on an individual member of it, and because it was
1168
Mr. S. Wortley
said, he had put it on the footing of a libel on the majority of that House; but still he was prepared to withdraw the motion, provided the libel was not defended. If, however, he found even one member defending it, he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that the paragraph complained of did not, in fair construction, admit of the interpretation which had been ascribed to it. It was stated, that the minority voted against the admonition of the noble lord, not against any proposition made to the House, but against the principles and sentiments of the noble lord. He hoped both motions would be withdrawn.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he did not think that the House had the power to commit the printer.
The Speaker
said, that the power was not to be questioned by any member, when a case of privilege was brought before them. The hon. member might submit the consideration by itself; but it was clearly disorderly to question the power on the present motion.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he would only observe, that the paragraph appeared to have been totally misapprehended. It was very possible that the minority might have voted under an impression which did not at all influence the votes of the majority. Nothing whatever was imputed to the majority. At the same time, he must say, that he did not think this was a fit subject for the deliberation of the House. It was quite clear, that this was nothing more than a political squib. Scarcely a day passed in which the worst motives were not imputed to public men; for his own part, he was constantly held up, by a certain portion of the press, as a man desirous of overturning the constitution. He thought the hon. member had better withdraw his motion, and unconditionally, for he really could see nothing wrong in the paragraph complained of.
Mr. S. Wortley
said, that the question had now assumed such importance in his mind, that he could not consent to withdraw it.
Colonel Davies
said, that if the printer should now be called to the bar, if would not be for any offence of his own, but because the hon. member would not withdraw his motion.
1169
Mr. Bennet
said, he was not at all inclined to persist in his motion for adjournment, if the hon. gentleman would also withdraw his motion.
Mr. Barham
said, that in point of fact what the printer had stated was strictly true, for the minority had voted against the admonition of the noble lord.
Mr. Bathurst
contended, that there could be no other ground for withdrawing the motion than the admission required, of the passage being an unjustifiable attack on the majority of that House. The complaint could not be abandoned on the ground that it was unfounded. It was impossible not to consider the passage a breach of privilege, but it was not his desire to proceed farther, if the offence was not justified.
Sir R. Fergusson
hoped the hon. member would withdraw his motion. He deprecated any libel upon that House; but he looked upon the paper in question with a different eye from the hon. member.
Mr. S. Wortley
asked, whether he was to understand that the gentlemen opposite made a virtual acknowledgment that the passage was indefensible. [Cries of "no, no."]
Mr. Denman
hoped that both motions would be withdrawn, tie however, was not sorry that the question had been agitated, since it was an illustration of the mischief which must inevitably result from rejecting the petitions of aggrieved persons, without reading them.
The question being put, "That this House do now adjourn," the House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 155.
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
Ossulston, lord
Bernal, Ralph
Ord, Wm.
Curwen, J. C.
Parnell, sir H.
Crespigny, sir W.
Palmer, C. F.
Denman, Thos.
Rice, T. S.
Denison, W. J.
Robarts, Ab.
Ellice, Ed.
Robarts, G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Ricardo, D.
Glenorchy, lord
Sefton, Earl
Hobhouse, J. C.
Taylor, M. A.
Harbord, hon. E.
Whitbread, Sam.
Honywood, W. P.
Wyvill, M.
Hutchinson, hon.C. H.
Wilson, sir R.
Hume, Jos.
Western, C. C.
James, Wm.
Wood, M.
Lambton, J. G.
TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Monck, J B.
Creevey, Thos.
Martin, John
Mr. Lambton
then moved the previous question upon Mr. Wortley's motion;
1170
ILCHESTER GAOL—PETITION OF
Mr. Alderman Wood
presented a petition from Charles Hill, a person 74 years of age, who had been confined in Ilchester gaol for 15 years. Having been appointed a. collector and assessor of taxes in 1796, he went on in that capacity until 1804. In 1806, he was charged with a deficiency of. 719
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
Mr. Creevey
requested that gentlemen would attend to this fact, that Charles Hill, 74 years old, had been confined 15 years for owing 31
l.
l.,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the Treasury had nothing to do with the case; the Crown had merely instituted the process for the benefit of the parish that had been defrauded. It was for the parish therefore, and not the Treasury, to show mercy.
1171
Mr. Dickinson
said, he bad often heard that Hill might have been liberated, if he would give up certain property. He had driven the trade of an attorney in the gaol, and had made considerable profits by his practice. There were two visit-ring magistrates to the gaol, and before every quarter session a number of gentry surveyed the prison; and if any man had a complaint to make, it was heard by them. He had heard that it was once a part of the worthy alderman's duty to go down to Ilchester gaol to examine it, but that, instead of going into the prison, he had made his report to the city of London from a printed book put into his hands.
Sir T. Lethbridge
was satisfied that if the state of the gaol were inquired into, it would be found to be conducted in a most perfect manner.
Dr. Lushington
said, that as one of the members for Ilchester, he had investigated the case, and found, that though many of the facts stated in the petition were true, they assumed a different colour when accompanied by the explanation. It was true that this unhappy man had been confined ever since 1806, for only S4A; and that if he had executed certain deeds, he would have been discharged long ago. Four years had, however, elapsed since he had consented to execute those deeds. If he had been originally to blame, surely he had expiated Ids offence. The prison being below the bed of the river, was necessarily damp and unwholesome. The greatest pains were nevertheless taken to obviate these evils. The gaoler had been highly successful in introducing a variety of beneficial reforms.
Sir I Coffin,
knowing perfectly well the character of the gaoler, bore testimony to his humanity and good conduct.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that with another magistrate of London, the town clerk, and a surveyor, he had visited the prison, and had remained in it for some hours. At the time that the petitioner was treated in the way described, a person charged with fraud, Mr. Kinnear, was living in the house of the gaoler.
Mr. Baring
said, he had received a statement from one of the magistrates of Somerset upon this subject. It appeared that the city of London sent out a sort of pilgrimage to inspect the gaols of the kingdom—that a city deputation, consisting of two aldermen and the town Clerk, visited the town of Ilchester; they
1172
Mr. Dickinson
said, he had received a statement of particulars confirming what had just fallen from the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Wilmot
asked the hon. alderman, whether he had in fact visited the interior of the prison?
Mr. Bernal
objected to this mode of interrogation.
Mr. F. Buxton
observed, that the information he had received from the gaoler was that he had been sent for by the hon. alderman and his colleague, who made inquiries of him relative to the state and system of the prison. As far as his own experience went, he had never seen any place of confinement under such excellent regulation. The gaoler had introduced a system of labour, by which the prison discipline was aided and enforced to a degree which did honour to the country.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the hon. member (Mr. Baring) should not have harshly contradicted a member of that House who stated that he had been in the gaol for two hours. One hon. member had said, that the gaoler had been sent for to the inn; he denied it. He had been appointed, with others, to inspect the different gaols in the kingdom, under the authority of lord Sidmouth. The inspectors did not feel that they were bound to find fault: their principal object was to state the size of the rooms, the conduct of the prisoners, the hours of locking up the gaol, &c.
Ordered to he on the table.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved, "That the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider further of the supply granted to his majesty be now read,"
Mr. Creevey
said, he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. They had hitherto
1173
l.
l.
1174
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that if he really could think the hon. gentleman serious in pressing his motion in the shape in which lie had put it, he should be disposed to enter more fully into reply than he was now about to do; but, as he rather thought the motion was intended to record upon the Journals the opinions which he held, he did not mean to enter at length into the merits of the questions which the motion involved. If the hon. gentleman was serious in meaning to stop the whole supplies for the service of the country, until all the great questions to which he had referred were satisfactorily adjusted, then, indeed, the motion was a plain indi-
1175
Colonel Davies
wished to know from his hon. friend, whether it was his intention to press his resolution of refusing all supply until the reform stated in his amendment should take place, or until the House pledged itself to the measure?
Mr. Creevey
said, he was not prepared to state in what supplies he should concur, until he saw the fate of his motion, upon which he should certainly take the sense of the House.
Mr. Bennet
said, that the object of his hon. friend's amendment was, that parliament should give some pledge to the people, that as, on the one hand, they took away the people's money, so, on the other, they would endeavour to gratify their wishes and relieve their distress. He hoped he would repeatedly bring such questions before the House.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he was not prepared immediately to decide upon so important a question as that which his hon. friend's proposition involved: neither was he prepared to take a step, which went to embarrass, not the particular administration, but the general government of the country. Strong as was his hostility to ministers, he could not take this mode of gratifying any party feeling. He yielded to no man in a desire for strict economy and a constitutional reform in that House. He concurred in many of the observations made by his hon. friend; but he could not vote so extensive a measure without having had an opportunity of hearing it fully discussed. With respect to the army estimates, he should object to the amount of force proposed, thinking it too large for the exigencies of the country; but as he knew that there must be some army, and as that army must have some pay, he could not oppose going into the committee.
Mr. Creevey
explained, that his only object was to pledge the House to take into its consideration the number of official persons sitting among them, who were directly interested in the estimates.
Sir J. Newport
said, that though he sincerely wished the whole of the econo-
1176
Mr. Huskisson
reminded the House, that if the motion were carried, that could not that night go into the committee of supply.
Mr. Monck
declared his readiness to support the motion. He saw nothing in it to prevent their going into a committee of supply. All it involved was a pledge on the part of the House to retrenchment and reform, which he thought they were bound to give to the people.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be put stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 38. Majority against Mr. Creevey's motion, 134.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, viscount
Lambton, J. G.
Barrett, S. M.
Lushington, Dr.
Benyon, B.
Martin, John
Birch, Jos.
Monck, J. B.
Bury, viscount
Ossulston, lord
Cavendish, Henry
Palmer, C. F.
Coffin, sir I.
Pares, Thos.
Crespigny, sir W.
Parnell, sir H.
Denison, Wm. J.
Phillips, W. R.
Duncannon, visct.
Ricardo, D.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Sefton, earl
Glenorchy, lord
Talbot, R. W.
Guise, sir Wm.
Webbe, Ed.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Whitbread, Sam.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.
Honywood, W. P.
Wood, M.
Hornby, Ed.
Wyvill, M.
Hughes, W. L.
TELLERS.
Hume, Jos.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Creevey, Thos.
James, Wm.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. Hume
said, that in rising to object to the motion, he could assure the House that he did not adopt this course with any wish to oppose unnecessarily the business of the committee of supply. His object was to place upon record the present state of the military force and expenditure of the country compared with its state at former times. He reminded the House that the committee of finance of 1817 recommended the adoption of the same military expenditure that was estimated for 1792, and which the committee deemed sufficient, or nearly so, for every exigency. It was impossible, without the most, rigid economy, to afford relief to
1177
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1178
1179
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
1180
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1181
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1182
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1183
l.
l.;
l.
1184
Sir R. Wilson,
in seconding the amendment, coincided with his hon. friend in his views of general retrenchment, but deprecated any sudden diminution of the military force of the country.
Mr. Tierney
thought that the value of the resolutions proposed by his hon. friend would be lost by the course just proposed. At that late hour it would be out of all question, to go into the army estimates. The better way would be, to adjourn, and so give his lion, friend an opportunity of shaping his motion on this important subject.
The question "that the Speaker do leave the chair" was then put and negatived, and the committee was deferred till Monday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 12, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Mr. Butterworth,
on presenting a Petition against the Claims of the Catholics, from the parish of St. Dunstan's, London, said, that having been unable to attend the late debates upon this subject, he would briefly mention some of his reasons for concurring with the present petition. With all possible respect for the motives of those who supported the resolutions, he conceived them to be grounded on mistaken principles. It was not because Roman Catholics held the doctrines of transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and the sacrifice of the mass, &c. that our ancestors excluded them from high offices and seats in parliament; but on account of! their intolerant spirit in civil and religious
1185
1186
Ordered to lie en the table.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
Mr. Hume
stated, that he had on a former night submitted certain resolutions to the House, but the forms of the House prevented them from being entered on the Journals, and he was anxious that his opinion on this subject should be put upon record. He would therefore offer them now, without any further observation than that they contained only matters of fact, and pledged the House to no immediate extent of reduction, but only to the general principle of economy. He would move, "That there were in the service of Great Britain and Ireland in 1792 (exclusive of the regular cavalry and infantry) 25,757 troops; namely, 3,730 of royal artillery, 4,425 of the royal marines, and 17,602 of disembodied militia; and in 1821 (exclusive of regular cavalry and infantry) the number of 125,492 troops; namely, 7,872 engineers and artillery, 8,000 royal marines, 51,998 disembodied militia, and 57,622 yeomanry cavalry and volunteer infantry, being in number a larger force by 132,367 men, available for purposes of government in the year 1821, than the government had in 1792; that the supplies for the expense of the military establishment of Great Britain and Ireland in 1792 were 2,331,149
l
l
l
Lord Castlereagh,
before he gave his vote upon the question, wished to know what was the object of the hon. member in submitting his resolution to the House.
1187
Mr. Hume
wished the noble lord to consider, that he moved this resolution in the way of an instruction to the committee, or as a principle laid down upon which the committee should act. And of what use could such a resolution be, after the committee was appointed? The noble secretary at war ought to assign a reason why his proposition should not be adopted; and if he could assign no reason, the House ought to adopt it.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was not his intention to go at any length into the argument of the hon. member, because it would be improper to enter into a discussion of it before the consideration of the army estimates. With respect to any reductions which it might be proper to make in them, the proper time for proposing them would be in the committee of supply; and as to the hon. gentleman's resolutions of fact, he must assert that that name could not be truly given to them. In summing up the number of men employed in 1792, he had summed up 3,200 men twice over. In the resolution now proposed, he had stated the number of troops in service, exclusive of the regular cavalry and infantry, to be 25,757, in which he included 17,602 of disembodied militia. Now, he had not included in his list 19,000 militia-men, who were afterwards embodied. The hon. member had likewise said that in 1821 the force available to government was greater by 132,367 men than it was in 1792; but if he would cast up his own totals, he would discover that the difference did not amount by some thousands to the numbers which he had mentioned. The hon. member was not more exact as to his money accounts. He had excluded from them all the charges for the disembodied militia, and was wrong in certain items, which the noble lord proceeded to point out. Thus he was incorrect both in his historical and arithmetical facts. He recollected that he
1188
Mr. Hume
rose to explain. With regard to the blunder which he was said to have committed in reckoning the number of troops employed in 1792 at 48,474 men instead of 45,274 men, he had told the noble lord that he had taken the full estimates of the year, though he knew that the number of effective men was not so great as was stated therein. It was therefore too much for the noble lord to charge him with inaccuracy upon that point. As to the number of irregular troops for the year 1821, which he had calculated at 125,492 men, he must likewise say that if the noble lord would add up the items, he would find the difference between the numbers employed in 1792 and 1821 to be what he had stated. He likewise maintained that he had correctly stated the number of militia embodied in 1792; and that the money accounts to which he had referred, were to be found in the 47th volume of their journals, just as he had inserted them in his resolutions. With regard to another observation of the noble secretary, he begged leave to assert that he had drawn up the resolutions himself, and had afterwards submitted them
1189
Lord Palmerston
proceeded to open the estimates for the military service of the ensuing year. He began by observing that it was not his intention to trespass on the attention of the House, further than to draw a general outline of the proposed service. There were two principal points which offered themselves as characteristic of the estimates which he was now about to unfold, and these were a reduction of establishments and a diminution of expense. Wherever an increase of expense appeared on some particular head, it was to be ascribed to the operation of some fixed and certain rule laid down by parliament itself, and entirely withdrawn from the control of the executive government. He should endeavour to explain to the committee the mode in which these reductions had been brought about, and the principles observed in accomplishing them. One of the chief branches of our military force to which the operation had been applied was that known by the name of veteran battalions, a force raised at a period when the country was threatened with imminent danger, and which the government therefore stood pledged to lay down whenever the altered state of the country should permit them to do so. It would be found that government had been faithful to its pledge. As compared with the force and military expenditure of last year, the estimates would discover a reduction of upwards of 9,000 men, and a saving of 145,000
l
l
l
1190
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1191
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1192
1193
1194
1195
l
l
1196
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Hume
said, that he had compared the estimates of December, 1792, with the estimates of Dec. 1802.
Lord Palmerston.
If so, it only showed that the hon. gentleman was wrong in both cases. But although the estimate of 1803 was made out as low as had been mentioned, yet it never had been carried into effect; for the war breaking out, the reduction proposed was found impracticable. Unless, then, the House was prepared to say, that the country must go back to the military system, or rather no system, of 1792, it was nothing for the hon. gentleman to get up and assert that such and such was the expense of the staff at that date. No man, competently informed, would really wish to see the army reduced to the state it held in 1792. Some persons might think we ought to have no army at all:
1197
l
Mr. Hume
observed, that the time he had mentioned was not 5, but 15 or 20 years.
Lord Palmerston
was ready to take it so, but still it was a monstrous proposition whether taken at 5, 15, or even 25 years. At the same time, the secretary at war was invested with a discretion on the sub-
1198
l
Colonel Davies
said, that although the particular details given on a former night by his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) might in particular instances be incorrect, they were perfectly true in substance. It was not his intention to follow the noble lord
1199
l
1200
l
1201
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1202
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1203
Mr. G. Dawson
felt anxious to record the reasons which induced him to entertain the opinion which he was about to state to the House, and which would prove to gentlemen opposite, that it was possible to support the general policy of ministers, and yet to be friendly to economy. During the five years in which he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he had, with very few exceptions, supported the measures of ministers, from a conscientious conviction that they were the best that could be adopted for preserving the peace and security of the country. He, however, differed from them on the subject of our military establishment. At a period, when distress faith stared them in the face, it would be practising worse than a delusion to deny that economy, in the strictest sense of the word, was not imperatively necessary. Not only did he conceive economy necessary, but he would say, that the most rigid parsimony alone could save the country. He for one thought the sum of 6,643,968
l
l
1204
Mr. J. Macdonald
said, he had come down to the House strongly impressed with the arguments urged on a former evening by the hon. member for Aberdeen. Those impressions had not been at all weakened by any thing which he had heard since he entered the House. Indeed it was painful to come down and listen to the plausible but empty apologies which were annually made for keeping up the expenditure of the country. The noble lord had stated, with much self-gratulation, that the estimates of this year fell short of last year's charge by 145,000
l
1205
l
1206
1207
vide
1208
Mr. C. Grant
agreed with his hon. fiend (Mr. Dawson) in thinking that Ireland was at present in a state of tranquillity. He rejoiced to hear this admission, because he recollected that some months ago his hon. friend had, in prophetic tones, anticipated a very different result, and had pointed his severest shafts at him because he had presumed to express a hope that Ireland would continue in a tranquil state. He might therefore appeal to his hon. friend to reconcile this apparent inconsistency of conduct; but passing that by, he hailed the concession with pleasure. He could assure the House that he was as anxious as his hon. friend could be to reduce the military force kept up in Ireland, and to recede from a system which in that country had been pursued to too great an extent. That reduction, however, must be gradual; and the hon. gentlemen, if they reflected on the various duties which the military had to perform in that country, would see the impossibility of fixing on a definite number of men, from which the government was not to have the power of receding.
Sir H. Vivian
remarked upon the in-
1209
Mr. Bernal
called upon those gentlemen who were termed the neutral party, and who were constantly professing themselves the advocates of retrenchment, to support those professions by their votes on this occasion.
Mr. Bennet
declared that it was impossible the country could support such an establishment as they were now called on to agree to. He would say, and say it boldly, that the country could not afford to pay the taxes which would be required to maintain such an establishment, and the whole country was of the same opinion. The noble lord told them it was impossible to return to the standard of, 1792, but what said their own finance committee of 1817? In that opinion he concurred, and he should therefore vote for the reduction of 10,000 men from the present estimates. He proposed a return to the standard of 1792, because we had now on foot a large force which was not then in existence, and which rendered: unnecessary so large an establishment of; regular forces. The yeomanry cavalry, volunteers, marines, and artillery, in this country and Ireland, amounted to 168,000 men and upwards. These, in addition to a regular force on the scale of 1792, was sufficient to take away from the minds of the most timid any apprehension for the security of the country. A considerable reduction of expense might be effected by pulling down the useless fortifications which had been erected in different parts of the country. The noble lord talked of
1210
Lord Castlereagh
said, that with respect to the military grounds of the question, it appeared that the hon. gentlemen opposite did not object to the scale proposed for our foreign possessions, but only to the magnitude of the home establishment. All questions of this nature must be examined with a view to the exigencies of our situation; but he did not agree in opinion with the gallant officer, that there was any thing in the affairs of Naples which could require the addition of a single man to our establishment, and he expressly disclaimed any view of that nature. Government had not been influenced in the slightest degree by any regard to the aspect of affairs in that quarter in proposing the present estimates. With respect to the reduction of our forces at home, he would remind the House, that the establishment of last year was thought necessary to preserve the tranquillity of the country, and he must say he thought it would be highly imprudent to reduce the force all at once below the scale at which it stood before that necessity existed. They had reduced the amount which was on that occasion added to the scale; and that he contended was as rapid a reduction as was prudent;
1211
l
l
l
l
l
1212
Mr. Calcraft
said, that when the force was infinitely greater than it was at present, and reductions were pressed by himself and others, the noble lord then as now, "with honeyed words framed to make senates false," said, that if they took away any part of it, the duty of the country could not be done. He was as far from wishing to practise any delusion on the country as the noble lord himself, and he would not so insult the good sense of the people of the country as to offer to them any statements which he would not seriously propose to that House; but, if the people continued to place any confidence in the statements and arguments of the noble lord, he should feel much surprised. He denied that the noble secretary at war opened his estimates by stating a reduction of 707,000
l
l
l
1213
Mr. Huskisson
insisted, that his noble friend, when he opened the estimates, had stated, that reductions were made to the amount of 707,000
l
l
Mr. Maberly
said, that it was not his intention to delay the committee by any lengthened observation, but, having been so personally alluded to by the noble lord,
1214
l
l
l
l
1215
List of the Minority on the last Division
Barratt, S. M.
Bury, visc.
Bennet, H. G.
Calvert, Charles
Blake, sir F.
Creevey, Thos.
1216
Crespigny, sir W.
Ricardo, D.
Denison, Wm. J.
Rice, T. S.
Duncannon, lord
Robarts, Abr.
Ellis, Ed.
Robarts, G.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Robinson, sir Geo.
Gordon, Robt.
Rowley, sir W.
Harbord, hon. E.
Sefton, lord
Hill, lord A.
Talbot, R. W.
Hughes, W. L.
Taylor, M. A.
Hume, Joseph
Whitbread, S. C.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Whitbread, W. H.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, sir R.
Lushington, Dr.
Wood, ald.
Maberly, J. sen.
Wyvill, M.
Martin, John
TELLER.
Palmer, C. F.
Bernal, Ralph
Philips, G. jun.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 14, 1821.
VAGRANT LAWS.]
Mr. Chetwynd
rose pursuant to the notice which he had given respecting the Vagrant Laws. The subject, he observed, was of very considerable importance, whether considered in a moral or pecuniary point of view. It was notorious that the county rates had of late years increased to a very great extent in every part of the kingdom, and it was equally notorious that the great burthen of them fell upon the already distressed agriculturists; for, by several decisions in the courts of law, it seemed now settled, that money lent on interest on mortgage, or vested in the funds, was not liable to poor or county rates. Among other items by which the latter had been considerably increased, was that of the passing and maintaining of vagrants. To show how this branch had increased, he would mention only one fact. In the very able work on Indigence, published by that enlightened and accurate magistrate, the late Mr. Colquhoun, it appeared that the expense incurred for passing vagrants in the year 1806 was 15,000
l.
l.
l.
1217
1218
l.
s.
1219
s.,
s.
l.
s.
s.
s.
Mr. Harbord
seconded the motion. As a proof of the deficiency of the present law, he mentioned that in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, there were not less than 18 officers for the purpose of detecting vagrants, and in the last year they apprehended only 23, while 6 officers belonging to the Mendicity Society, who had other parishes besides that to look to, had apprehended in that parish alone, 273 vagrants in the last year.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
AUSTRIAN LOAN.]
Mr. Robert Smith
(Bucks) rose to make his promised motion. In stating his reasons for proposing to institute an inquiry into our claims upon Austria, the hon. member spoke to the following effect:—I shall, in the first instance, recall to your memory, that in 1794, application was made by the court of Vienna, to the monied interest of this country, to raise a loan for the purpose of carrying on the war, and that the
1220
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1221
bonâ fide
1222
1223
l.
l.,
1224
1225
Lord Castlereagh
said, he had no intention to oppose the motion. He could not, however, help remarking, that the hon. member had not acted altogether fairly in stating the debt due from the
1226
l.
l.
l.
Sir J. Newport
protested against the House being bound by what had occurred in another place in 1817. Besides, there was all the difference in the world between the circumstances in which Austria was placed in 1817 and those in which she stood at present. Austria was then avowedly in a state of great pecuniary embarrassment; but she had since promulgated her ability to make good all her engagements. The principles of the self-called Holy Alliance ought to teach the powers who were parties to it, that one of their first duties was to keep, faith with their creditors.
The motion was agreed to.
1227
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, the chairman read the resolution, the debate on which was adjourned yesterday morning, namely, "That the land-forces for the service of the present year should consist of 81,468 men, &c."
Mr. J. Macdonald
rose, to redeem the pledge which he had given on a former evening, to propose a reduction of 10,000 men in our military establishment. Feeling that the discussion of the other night was most conclusive in support of the proposition with which he should conclude he would confine himself to a very few words upon the subject. It was his firm conviction, that the case on the other side of the House, even as it had been stated and argued by the ministers themselves, would not justify the House in voting a larger force than 60,000 men. That would leave 25,000 men for the colonies and 35,000 for home service, exclusive of the artillery and marines, which being estimated at 5,000, would make the whole number 65,000 men. What apology was there then for voting any number of men larger than that amount? None. But members on his side of the House felt that it was necessary to look at what was immediately practicable as well as at what was desirable; and it was on that consideration alone that he was induced to limit the reduction to 10,000 men. In moving this amendment, he by no means intended to fetter the discretion of his majesty's government as to the points in which the reduction should take place; whether in the new colonies, or in the old colonies, in Ireland or in England; or proportionally in all. On that subject they would judge for themselves. But he hoped the committee would concur with him in thinking that the time had arrived when it was their duty to endeavour to effect a real reduction of every useless expenditure. The only mode in which it was possible to meet the endless demands upon the purse or the country of a military nature was, to come to some distinct determination that the House would provide for a certain amount of force, and no more. Lest, however, any gentleman should entertain apprehensions that by acceding to the amendment, the executive government would, be stripped of the force
1228
1229
l.
l.
Sir H. Vivian
opposed the motion. He considered it to be impossible to keep up the garrisons abroad if so large a reduction were agreed to. The hon. member then entered into some details to prove his proposition and contended that if only 5,000 men were kept for reliefs, the troops would be nine years abroad and only three at home. Besides, if we had a squabble with a foreign power, we could vindicate our honour better by interfering with an effective army, than by merely sending our navy against it. Alluding to what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen on a former night, he said that he was a sincere supporter of the noble lord's administration, and added that if the hon. member continued his present line of conduct, he would increase the number of the noble lord's friends, not only in, but out of the House.
Mr. N. Calvert
supported the amendment. There were three reductions of considerable magnitude, which, in his opinion, might be advantageously made. In the first place, he thought we might very beneficially divest ourselves of Gibraltar, which cost us half a million annually in peace, and double that amount in war. Gibraltar had no harbour; it did not command the entrance of the Mediterranean, and he was persuaded that we should be much better without it. In the second place, he thought we might save a very considerable expense, by getting rid of all connection whatever with the Ionian Isles. In the third place, he thought that we
1230
Mr. Hume
said, that although he would not give up the Ionian Islands, he would be for making them pay for their own protection. A gallant general had declared that he was one of the noble lord's best friends. He admitted it. If the noble lord would reduce the expenditure of the country to the rate which he would point out, the noble lord would place himself in a situation stronger than that of any preceding minister, and one whence it would be impracticable to dislodge him. If the gallant general, however, alluded to the proceedings of the other evening, he could not allow that his deduction was a fair one. It should be recollected, that to those proceedings there were two parties. Which was the resisting party? That of which the gallant general made one. Which was the reasonable party? That which he (Mr. Hume) had joined. Could any one deny that it was reasonable that men should retire to their beds at one o'clock in the morning? The party, therefore, which wished to put off entering into an important discussion at one o'clock in the morning, was the reasonable party. The party which was desirous to vote away three or four millions of the public money after one o'clock in the morning, was the unreasonable party. The gallant general had said the other evening, "Can you think of reducing the military force of the country, at the present moment, to the level at which it was in 1792 and 1817, when every thing was perfectly tranquil? in the present state of Italy you must keep up a force which may enable you to meet any demand that may occur." The noble lord opposite, however, had said, that it was the intention of government to remain perfectly neutral with respect to Italy; and he must prefer the authority of the noble lord to that of the gallant general. The gallant general talked of the tranquillity of 1792. If he would look back to that period, and to the measures then proposed by Mr. Pitt, the gallant general would find that it was not so tranquil as he supposed.—The noble secretary at war had maintained, that a principal reason for keeping up the proposed force was for the defence of the colonies. Now, he (Mr. H.) and the hon. member for Wareham, had the other night contended, that the household troops might be reduced;
1231
l.
ad captandum.
l.
l.
l.
1232
l.
l.
l.
l.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1233
1234
l.,
l.:
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1235
l.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, the system of the guards had been inquired into by the committee of 1817, who had recommended no change. If they were remodelled, without the additional pay to which the men were entitled by the terms of their enlistment, they would not be more expensive than the regiments of the line, except by 250
l.
1236
d.
1237
d.
d.
d.:
d.
d
Mr. Goulburn
said, that the objections of the gentlemen opposite seemed to be particularly directed to the expenditure for the colonies in the Mediterranean and St. Helena. This branch of the expenditure had certainly been increased since 1792, and necessarily so, from the additional possessions in the Mediterranean which the country had since that period to maintain. They had now Malta in addition to Gibraltar. In 1792, there were 3,335 rank and file for the garrison of Gibraltar, and there were now only 7,000 for Gibraltar, Malta, and the Ionian Islands; intact, the whole of the Mediterranean. This addition, considering the nature of the service, was any thing rather than excessive. The other station objected to was that of St. Helena. Inspecting that island, he had only to call their attention to the great importance of the object of that garrison. If, in guarding the individual there placed, any overcaution was incurred, he thought, considering the importance of that trust, it ought not to be rigidly scrutinized or complained of. The amount of the force required at St. Helena arose from the nature of the confinement of the individual, and to avoid the necessity of any thing like personal rigour while keeping him in safe custody. He was permitted, if he pleased, to traverse the whole island, and this indul-
1238
l.
Sir R. Fergusson
explained what he had said; that, in 1795, when the Cape fell into our hands, general Craig who acted as governor, stated to the government that he had found no salary fixed for him, but that he had appropriated 3,000
l.
Mr. Goulburn
observed, that even in
1239
l.
l,
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that looking at the force demanded for the new colonies—looking at the continued mis-government of Ireland, which made it necessary to maintain a greater force there than was formerly called for—allowing for these, and looking at the situation of the country, it appeared to him that there was an excess over the establishment of 1792, of 21,000 men. He contended, that where a force of 42,000 men had been found
1240
prima facie,
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he would repeat his statement, that sir J. Craig being governor of the Cape in 1796, and finding that no allowance was made to him by government, did assign to himself 3,000
l.
l.
1241
Colonel Wood
vindicated the British cavalry against the imputations cast upon that corps by the gallant general, by quoting the opinion expressed by Buonaparte to a friend of his at St. Helena, with respect to the merits of this portion of our force. This opinion, from an authority which he presumed the gallant general was not disposed to disrespect, was peculiarly favourable to the conduct of the Scotch Greys, the Household troops, and to the Hussars also; at the battle of Waterloo, the latter having broken through a solid square of French infantry, while the French cavalry had never been able to make a breach in any similar square of the infantry of England. Yet the gallant general would have our hussars reduced, if not done away with, from considerations of economy. But it was most extraordinary to what excesses some gentlemen would urge government to go, under the profession of economy. One gentleman, indeed, seriously proposed to give up that great feather in our cap, Gibraltar, because, truly, we were unable to pay the expense of keeping it. But, whatever might be our national distress, he trusted that this great fortress would never be given up. The hon. member here took
1242
l.
Sir R. Wilson
said, he had understood his gallant friend merely to say that our light cavalry were rendered less efficient on foreign service by the smallness of the horses on which they were mounted. In that opinion he concurred, and he thought that the light cavalry of this country was not a description of force that ought to be sent abroad. With regard to the Cape, he thought that the possession of it in time of peace was no benefit to England in a commercial point of view. But, even if it was to be retained, he was convinced that the British force stationed there at present was by far too considerable; 1,200 infantry and 300 cavalry could protect it just as effectually as the present force. He had also reason to believe that the governor of that fort was in the receipt of an enormous sum: he knew not what the present emoluments of the office were, but for several years they had been returned at 18,000
l.
1243
Mr. Evans
said, he would support the amendment, because the distress of the nation was great, and he saw no prospect of its being relieved by the removal of any of the taxes. While the public expenditure exceeded the public income, and taxation was consequently oppressive, it was impossible that the population of the country could be contented and happy. Great Britain had a yeomanry force of 35,000 men, and with these he conceived that a small regular force, merely for the purpose of supplying reliefs to the troops on foreign stations, was sufficient. In the number of regulars employed in the colonies, a great reduction might also be made by means of a force analogous to our yeomanry and militia. This system had been tried in the West Indies, and he saw no reason why it might not be extended to our other colonies.
Sir F. Blake
intended to support the reduction of the army; but he would agree to vote for the larger number of men, if ministers would pledge themselves to a saving on the whole military expenditure, equal to the maintenance of 10,000 men. This would be a saving of 300,000
l.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he did not rise for the purpose of entering at length into the details of the question, but for the purpose of making a few observations upon what had been urged by those who supported the amendment. According to the returns it appeared that, exclusive of India, we had a force of 70,350 men, rank and file. Supposing that from this number 10,000 were to be deducted, there would remain 60,350 men. Allowing the army deficiencies to be 5,000 men, there would remain an effective force of 55,350 men for the home and colonial service. I Deduct from this the number of men ne-
1244
Mr. Calcraft
rose solely for the purpose of correcting the palpable mistatements of the noble lord. He was surprised the noble lord could risk his credit upon assertions directly in the face of the returns. The Army Estimates proposed 81,000 men; from this number it was proposed that 10,000 men should be reduced, leaving 71,000 men to do the duty of the country. The noble lord had next gone to the exploded story about reliefs. Did not the noble lord take the dépâts of foreign stations into account? These depots amounted a short time ago to 5,500 men. As to India, it was out of the question, as the India Company were annually raising recruits in this country.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that when he stated the numbers of the original proposition to be 71,000, he had distinctly said rank and file, and was perfectly aware that, with the officers, it would amount to 81,000.
Lord Palmerston
, in allusion to the men necessary for reliefs, stated, that at this moment there were 1,900 troops on their pa>sage home from foreign stations, and 2,500 going out. This was a practical illustration of the arguments he had laid down to prove the necessity of allowing men for reliefs. The non-effectives at the present time also amounted to 3,000, and recruits 2,000, making upon the whole 9,000 men unfit for duty. It had been argued, that the militia might be called in aid of the public service, but every man who had read the Militia act, must know, that the militia could only be called out by proclamation.
Mr. Macdonald
briefly recapitulated the principal features of his opening speech; after which, he declared, that still retaining the opinion that a force of 100,000 men, after the reduction should be made that he contemplated, would be available to ministers at the shortest notice, he did consider that so strong and
1245
The Committee then divided: For the Amendment, 115. Against it, 211. Majority against the Amendment, 96.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Lester, B. L.
Allen, J. H.
Lloyd, J. M.
Althorp, visc.
Lloyd, S.
Baillie, J.
Lushington, Dr.
Barham, J. F.
Maberly, John
Barnard, visc.
Maberly, W.
Barrett, S. M.
Martin, J.
Beaumont, T. W.
Mildmay,hon.P.St.J.
Becher, W. W.
Moore, Peter
Benett, John
Neville, hon. R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Newport, sir J.
Benyon, Ben.
Nugent, lord
Bernal, R.
Ord, W.
Birch, J.
Ossulston, lord
Blake, sir F.
Palmer, C. F.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Palmer, col.
Bright, H.
Pares, Thos.
Bury, visc.
Parnell, sir H.
Buxton, T. F.
Phillips, G. B.
Calvert, N.
Phillips, G.
Calvert, C.
Power, R.
Carew, R. S.
Pym, Francis
Cherry, G. H.
Ramsbottom, J.
Clifton, visc.
Ricardo, David
Coffin, sir I.
Rice, T. S.
Colburne, N. R.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Corbett, P.
Robarts, G.
Creevey, Thos.
Robertson, A.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Robinson, sir G.
Crompton, Saml.
Rogers, E.
Davies, T. H.
Russell, R. G.
Denison, W. J.
Rowley, sir W.
Duncannon, visc.
Scudamore, R.
Dundas, hon. T.
Sebright, sir J.
Ellice, Edw.
Sefton, earl of
Evans, Wm.
Smith, hon. R.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Smith, Robt.
Glenorchy, visc.
Smith, Geo.
Graham, S.
Smith, W.
Grant, J. P.
Smith, S.
Griffith, J. W.
Smith J.
Guise, sir W.
Smythe, J. H.
Hamilton, lord A.
Stanley, lord
Harbord, hon. E.
Stuart lord J.
Hill, lord A.
Sykes, D.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Taylor, M. A.
Honywood, W. P.
Tennyson, Charles
Hornby, E.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Howard, hon. W.
Tremayne, J. H.
Hume, J.
Tulk, C. A.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Warre, J. A.
James, Wm.
Webbe, Ed.
Jervoise, G. P.
Western, C. C.
Lambton, J. G.
Whitbread, S.
Lemon, sir W.
Whitmore, W.
Lennard, T. B.
Williams, T. P.
1246
Williams, Wm.
TELLER.
Wood, M.
Macdonald, Jas.
Wyvill, M.
A second division took place upon an Amendment moved by Mr. Dawson, for a reduction of 5,000 men: Ayes, 130. Noes, 195. Majority 65. The original resolution was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, March 15, 1821.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
Sir R. Fergusson
said, it was with great reluctance that he, at any time, made a complaint of a breach of the privileges of that House. He was, however, induced to rise, in consequence of paragraphs of a most gross nature which had appeared in The Morning Post. An article which appeared in that paper of yesterday, libelled his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey), and all those who had acted with him the other night, in terms of the most unwarrantable nature, representing them as Jacobins, and people whose only object was to overturn the constitution. Today this was followed up by a libel of a different character, in the shape of a letter signed "An Englishman." The writer of this letter accused his hon. friend, by innuendo, of a species of cowardice, in a transaction which had occurred betwixt him and an hon. baronet (sir G. Warrender). With respect to that transaction, he had to state, that he was the person consulted by his hon. friend; and if there was any dereliction of duty, or any point of honor unsatisfied on that occasion, it was he himself who was dishonored. As soon as he had had an interview with the noble lord opposite (lord Binning), who acted for the hon. baronet, he had no further communication with his hon. friend till the final arrangement of the affair; and he would assert, that a more base, false, or malicious libel never was inserted in any paper, than that of which he now complained. In consequence of some words which were, dropped in the course of debate by the hon. baronet, seeming to reflect on his, hon. friend, he had applied to the hon. baronet for an explanation. An explanation did eventually take place of a nature the most satisfactory. A similar, libel had appeared in a Sunday paper, called "John Bull." As to that paper, he considered it a stain upon the public
1247
Lord Binning
assured the gallant general, that he most readily complied with his call. He participated strongly with him in opinion, that matters of this sort, when once concluded, ought never to be disturbed. He had no hesitation in saying, that there was nothing connected with the transaction which was not perfectly honorable to both parties.
CARLISLE ELECTION—INTERFERENCE OF THE MILITARY.]
Mr. James
rose to bring forward his promised motion on this subject. It was a subject, he said, which involved not merely the rights of his constituents, but the rights of the British people. The fate of his motion would decide whether elections for members were or were not to be violated at the will or caprice of one or more country magistrates; whether, in fact, they were in future to be regulated at the point of the bayonet? It would be recollected that during the last session, he had presented a petition from the freemen of Carlisle, complaining of the conduct of three magistrates, who introduced a military force, when the freeholders were peaceably assembled, for the purpose of electing a member to serve in parliament. The question, it was clear, affected the very essence of the constitution: if, indeed, the constitution was not wholly to be dissolved, such conduct could not pass without reprehension. He would remind the House, that a noble lord, the member for Westmorland (lord Lowther) had stated that the charges in the petition were unfounded calumnies.
*
*
1248
1249
Sir P. Musgrave
opposed the motion. He said, that there was much rioting, that the civil power was quite unable to keep the peace, that the mayor was treated with the greatest contempt, that three of his own voters were so intimidated, that they thought it prudent not to give their votes at that time, and that the military were not called in until the necessity for their interference was clearly established. The hon. baronet read some letters and depositions to substantiate his positions, but so inaudibly, that a great part of the House itself could not have understood their contents.
Sir J. Mackintosh
wished to make a
1250
1251
1252
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the troops had not been kept in Carlisle for the purpose of interfering with the election. The cavalry had been withdrawn and sent to a town in the neighbourhood; but sir John Byng, not knowing how to dispose of the infantry, had ordered the Castle to be shut upon them during the election. This order had been complied with, and no soldiers would have been allowed to go beyond the gates, unless they had been called for by the civil power. Though the law prohibited the presence of troops at elections, yet it recognized, and committees of that House had acknowledged, the interference of the military to protect the privileges of electors. The commanding officer, in this case, had brought out the troops at the request of three magistrates, after the riot act had been read. The three magistrates had called upon the officer to recall the cavalry who had been sent out of town; but the officer refused to do so without the order of the mayor; and the mayor having declined to order it, the cavalry were directed not to come. It was after the election that the two companies had been called out to quell a riot, after great care had been taken that there should be no military in the town during the election. It was plain that there was a very great riot. ["No riot whatever," from Mr. James.] Certainly it might be a question of privilege, but he was sure that it would be found that neither the magistrates nor the government wished to excite an unfounded alarm to justify the use of the military. If there was no cause for the alarm, upon which the magistrates called out the military, they must have acted erroneously; but he was convinced they had no designs hostile to the free exercise of the right of election. If they wished to overawe the freemen of Carlisle, they would have called out the military before or during the time of the election; but it appeared that the troops were not sent for until the polling was over, at least for that evening. However
1253
Lord Lowther
maintained that there had been a most malignant riot, calling for the interference of the military power to quell it, which military power was not introduced into the town until after the close of the election. The inquiries he had made led him to the conclusion that the magistrates had done no more than their duty. No case had been made out against them, and he entirely denied that the military had been resorted to with a view of overawing the voters and influencing the election. He would therefore move the previous question.
Mr. Curwen
observed, that this was not a question between certain individuals of the town of Carlisle, but one which affected the privileges of that House and the rights of all the people. He maintained that there had been no riot, and not even as much blood shed as would cover the point of a pin. If there had been any riot, some person, he should suppose, must have been indicted by the magistrates in justification of their own conduct. But was that the case? One man, who asked the magistrates whether the Riot act was read, had, indeed, been committed, but had not been prosecuted. They had, indeed, wished to turn him out of the prison without any further proceedings against him; but the man had refused to go, stating that a gross violation of the law had been committed in his case, and that he would not stir, unless he was discharged by law. He was of opinion that if the House failed to notice the conduct of the magistrates, there never could be a case in which it could again interfere in vindication of its privileges. He should certainly vote for inquiry; and thought that if the magistrates were convinced of the rectitude of their conduct, they, more than any other persons, ought to wish it to be instituted.
Mr. Wynn
observed, that the present was a subject which the House always regarded with the greatest jealousy. Unquestionably, that House was the tribunal before which all complaints of an infringement of the rights of the people, as respected the election of their representatives, ought to be brought. To call in the military during an election was an infringement of those rights, which nothing
1254
*
*
1255
Mr. Beckett
denied that the case of Westminster, and the present case were parallel. In the case of Westminster, the troops were placed near the hustings before the commencement of the election, and remained there the whole time. In the case under consideration, the military had not been called in until the poll had closed [No, no!]; at least, so it was stated in the petition. This was a very stale proceeding. If the conduct of the magistrate; of Carlisle had been blameable, why was it not sooner inquired into? But was it blameable? Had there not been a considerable riot?—had not several men been knocked down, and some of their legs broken?—had not the Riot act been read three times? Were not those of the mob who remained, guilty of felony? and were not the magistrates, who acted on their own responsibility, justified in, at length, calling in the military, to put an end to that which they could not put an end to without them? But even if the magistrates were wrong, had the hon. mover taken the proper course on the occasion? Ought he not rather to have moved, that the petition should be referred to the examination of a select committee, or rather, ought not the whole business to have been submitted to the court of King's-bench? The courts of law were open to any one who had to complain either of this or of any other act of the magistracy. For his own part, he must state it as his opinion, that if the hon. member had been influenced by better feelings, or had been better advised, he would rather have taken a course very different from that which he had thought it his duty to pursue.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he had never heard any question in which the clearest privileges of the House and the most valuable rights of the constituent body were implicated, treated, in the manner in which the present question had been treated by the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last. He was sorry that there should be any member in that House so lost to the love of liberty, so regardless of the privileges of that House, and so neglectful of the dearest rights of the subject, as that right hon. gentleman was on his own showing. The right hon. gentleman had said, that this complaint was now stale. Stale! A breach of the privilege of parliament, an interference of the military
1256
Mr. Bennet
said, that a noble lord had declared that there never was a more malignant riot than at the election for Carlisle. Now he could assure the House, that he, for one, had seen a more malignant riot, and that at the noble lord's last election. He had there seen a slave dealer from Liverpool heading a body of bludgeon-men whom the noble lord kept in pay, and had seldom been more gratified than on seeing them routed and deprived of their
spolia opima
Lord Lowther
observed, that it was easy to call special constables bludgeon-
1257
Lord Castlereagh
said, that finding there was a doubt on the point whether the military had been called in before or after the close of the poll, he certainly felt no longer any disposition to resist inquiry on the subject.
Sir J. Graham
maintained, that there had been a great riot on the occasion in question, of which fact, no less than seven affidavits had been made, and that it was on that ground that the magistrates had issued orders for the troops to interfere.
The previous question was withdrawn, and the original motion agreed to.
BREAD.]
Mr. Harbord
rose, to move for the appointment of a select committee to take into consideration the existing regulations relative to the making and the sale of Bread, with a view to repeal the same. When it was considered that two-thirds of the population of the empire lived almost entirely on bread, it behoved the House to see that they were supplied with it at the cheapest possible rate, of the best possible description, and in just measure. That was not now the case. The existing law on the subject was pernicious in its tendency, inasmuch as it held forth to the poor the expectation of a protection which it did not realise, and prevented them from using that caution to which they would otherwise resort. He had referred to all the acts on the subject which had passed during the last 553 years. He would trouble the House, however, only with the general result which he had drawn from those acts. All that he now felt it his duty to do was, to point out the defects of the law as it existed. With regard to the remedy, some might think that there ought to be no legislative interference at all; others might be of opinion that this or that provision would be desirable. He intended to move for the repeal of the 59th of Geo. 3rd, c. 36, containing a clause which enacted, that in all cases of complaint against bakers, the complaint should be made within 24 hours after the bread was made, and should be supported before the magistrate by one
1258
onus probands
Mr. Littleton
observed, that he had, heard many complaints of the futility of the law in its present state. He was inclined to think that unrestricted competition would afford the public, greater security than any legislative enactment, but was of opinion, at the same time, that there should either be an entire repeal of the law, or that bread should in future be sold by weight.
Sir C. Burrell
observed, that the circumstance of the quartern loaf being now sold at 10
d.,
l
Alderman C. Smith
observed, that wheat being at 14
l.
d.
The motion was then agreed to.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
On the motion for bringing up the report of the committee of supply,
Mr. Bernal
said, he conceived the guards to be the most expensive force that the country could be called upon to maintain. They had become a sort of military police, and he was at a loss, to conceive what reason could be assigned for stationing a subaltern's guard at the West-India Docks, a Serjeant's guard at the British Museum, or a corporal's guard at so many different posts in every direction. They might be very proper at the Tower; but certainly a commercial body, like the West-India Dock company, were capable of protecting their own property.
1259
Sir H. Hardinge
contended, that to assimilate the guards to regiments of the line would considerably add to the present expense.
Mr. Lockhart
said, the House acted with regard to the public expenditure, like a prodigal, who first determined to spend a certain sum, and then proceeded to consider how he should get it. He objected to the report being brought up upon these principles, and maintained, that the committee was falsely termed a committee of ways and means. They did not consider the real ways and means by which the country might meet the expenditure, but merely recommended a given service to be supported by a given expenditure without estimating the means of the country. How could he tell that the repeal of the last malt duties, and of the husbandry horse-tax, might not be carried, and a deficiency consequently arise in the ways and means of the country to support the proposed expenditure?
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the prospect before the country was sufficiently lamentable, for the reasoning of ministers was, that if there were no reduction of the army, there could be no diminution of expenditure, and consequently no reduction of taxation. The hon. member proceeded to advert to the military force kept up in Ireland, and contended, that the civil establishment in that country was not placed upon a proper footing. The great defect of the system was, that constables were appointed by the grand juries, and consequently were not sufficiently under the control of the magistrates. He was satisfied that if the civil force were placed upon a proper footing, the army in Ireland might be considerably reduced.
The report was brought up.
1260
On the motion, that the first resolution for fixing the number of men at 81,468, be agreed to,
Mr. Hume
said, he was under the necessity of moving, by way of amendment, that the number, instead of being 81,468 should be 71,468 men. He would take that opportunity of clearing himself, from the charge of having cast an imputation upon the guards. It was true he had said that some of them were kept up more for idle parade than real utility; but he meant this as no reflection upon the men; he merely wished to impress upon the House, that if a greater number were maintained than was necessary for the wants of the country, the only ends they could serve were those of idle parade. The great object which he thought most desirable in reducing the military establishment of the country, next to the saving in point of expense, was the necessity it would impose upon the magistracy of the country to depend upon the civil rather than the military power upon civil occasions. The occurrences at Carlisle, Dublin, and other quarters, ought to be so many lessons of caution to the House how they afforded facilities, by keeping up large military establishments, for the constant calling out of the military upon public occasions. As to the reliefs for the guards, he must say that they were created by the unnecessary manner in which that branch of the force was applied; for instance, it was impossible to pass into that House without seeing soldiers stationed in the avenues: there was actually a barrack in the House of Commons. Many evil consequences besides the expense arose from this practice; the regular civil police became relaxed and ineffectual. When any popular meeting took place, the peace was to be preserved by soldiers; a message was to be sent to the lord mayor to know how many guards he wanted, for there were plenty at his service. He had no wish to trench upon the comforts of the soldier, whose pay was doubled since 1792. [A cry of "No."] It was, he repeated, doubled. In 1792, the pay was sixpence a day; it was now a shilling. This was his arithmetical calculation; and he reminded the noble lord that he promised to be a match for him in arithmetic. His object was to reduce the numbers, and not the allowances of the soldier. He concluded by proposing his amendment.
1261
Colonel Davies
said, that as the chief objection to reduction had been the necessity of reliefs for foreign garrisons, he should show that the proposed reductions could be made without taking from the troops applicable to reliefs. The old colonies had now 17,000 men. In 1787, they had 12,245, and in the latter half of 1792, 13,277. If the garrisons of those colonies were reduced to the standard of 1787, 4,700; if to that of 1792, 3,700 men might be reduced. With respect to the force at St. Helena, he thought that every purpose of safe detention might be accomplished with one-half the garrison now maintained. One regiment of cavalry might, lie thought, be reduced. He challenged any professional man to defend the maintenance of the waggon train, which was altogether useless. He thought the reduction proposed in the amendment could be safely carried into effect.
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, said, that as the hon. member for Aberdeen, who might be called the leader of the Opposition, had proposed to reduce the pay of the soldier to one-half, would he get his party to pledge themselves to that measure?
Mr. Hume
disavowed having made any proposition for taking away half the pay of the army.
Mr. Hutchinson
considered the exertions of the hon. member for Aberdeen to redound as much to his own credit, as they would ultimately prove of advantage to the country. When the House had been voting an extravagant estimate on an impoverished country, he did not envy the feelings of the hon. member, who had endeavoured to turn into ridicule the efforts of those who exerted themselves to lessen the burthens of the people. He was proud of being one of those who had joined in those efforts: he acknowledged no leader: he had looked at the distresses of the people, the state of the finances, and the policy of the country, and he declared, as a man of honour, that he believed the vote to be extravagant and unnecessary.
Mr. Bankes
said, that had he been present last night he should certainly have voted for the reduction of 5,000. In 1816 he had enforced the necessity of reducing the estimates so far as it was practicable to the scale of 1792. In the committee of finance, in 1817 he had pressed the same necessity, from a
1262
Mr. Wilberforce
could not but think that the number of troops proposed to be kept up was considerably too great. Those who were at the head of the military establishment might be of opinion that the force called for was not more than sufficient; but, on the other hand, it was natural enough for the people, who were to defray the expense, to wish that the number proposed should be lowered. In such a state of things, the parliament ought to make itself, in some degree, responsible for voting a lower establishment than ministers themselves would like to propose. If at a future period a greater force were wanted for our internal or external security, the country would much more cheerfully respond to the call, if it were now shown that the House felt a due commiseration for the distresses of the people. The force for domestic service, especially for Ireland, appeared to him to be too great. Whether this was the case with respect to the colonies, where the superficies to be defended was so extensive, he could not say; but, looking to the entire vote, he thought the House would not perform its duty if it agreed to it without modifications.
1263
Mr. W. Smith
was of opinion that in the Colonies a considerable reduction might be made in the military force. All the force necessary for their defence was one of sufficient magnitude to guard them from surprise by a
coup de main
prœsenti
in prospectu.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the increase since 1819 consisted of the augmentation of the regiment at New South Wales, from 650 to 1,000 men, which was effected in consequence of the representation of the governor of that colony. A regiment had also been appropriated to the service of Heligoland, &c, instead of proceeding on the old system of drafting companies to those places. He called on gentlemen to mark the situation in which the country would be placed, if they only voted 70,000 rank and file, which would be the number granted, if the amendment were carried, exclusive of the veteran battalions. There were at present afloat 4,550 rank and file, a body not now available for any purpose to which the army about to be voted was applicable. There were non-effectives of the line 4,400 men. There were at the depot at the Isle of Wight 3,100 raw recruits belonging to regiments abroad. Here, then, was a total of 10,250 rank and file to be deducted from 70,000, which the gentlemen opposite proposed. So that, in fact, they were only giving to government 60,000 men disposable for all the purposes which required a military force.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the said Resolution," the House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 46: Majority against the Amendment, 70.
The resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord
Crompton, S.
Allen, J. H.
Evans, W.
Bernal, R.
Fergusson, sir R.
Bright, H.
Farrand, R.
Bankes, H.
Grant, J. P.
Calcrart, J.
Guise, sir W.
Campbell, hon. J. F.
Gordon, R.
1264
Graham, S.
Robertson, A
Gaskell, B.
Robarts, col.
Hamilton, lord A.
Rice, G. R.
Harbord, hon. E.
Smith, R.
Hurst, R.
Smith, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Smyth, J. H.
Stuart, lord J.
Jervoise, G. P.
Sykes, D.
Lloyd, J. M.
Tulk, C. A.
Lockhart, J.
Tennyson, C.
Lennard, T. B.
Tremayne, J. H.
Milton, lord.
Webb, C.
Moore, P.
Whitmore, W.
Parnell, sir H.
Wilberforce, W.
Palmer, C. F.
Wyvill, M.
Rickford, W.
TELLERS.
Ricardo, D.
Hume, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Davis, C.
COUNTY COURTS RATE.]
Lord Althorp
Mr. Lockhart
agreed in the principle of the bill, because he conceived it was not proper that the superior courts should be occupied in deciding causes, where the property in dispute, whether money or chattels, was of trifling value. It was also a great hardship on the suitor, who frequently lost 30
l.
l.
d.
in toto, or move
Mr. F. Palmer
hoped the House would not agree to the suggestion of His hon. friend of throwing the business in ques-
1265
Mr. Chetwynd
conceived it necessary that some change should be made in the constitution of the county courts. The poor had great reason to complain of the impositions practised on them by the country attornies under the present system. As to the quarter sessions, they had already sufficient business; and if the House, by adopting the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, should overburthen the country magistrates, the consequence would be, that no gentleman would accept the office, and the country would be obliged to have recourse to that greatest of all curses, a stipendiary magistracy. At the same time, in the present distressed state of the people, he could not consent to any additional burthens on the county-rates, and therefore he should oppose that part of the bill which proposed to provide salaries for the judges by the imposition of a new rate.
The Attorney General
had no hesitation in saying, that he thought the plan of the noble lord extremely objectionable. It went to establish a perfectly novel jurisdiction, and one that would be attended with heavy expense. The noble lord proposed to establish no fewer than 80 tribunals, with a barrister at the head of each. The salaries of these judges, considering that their time was likely to be occupied exclusively by the business of their courts, could not be averaged at less than 500
l.
l.,
Lord Althorp
said, that as the opinion of the hon. and learned member was unfavourable to the bill, he feared there was little chance of its ultimate success; but he would press it to a second reading, in the hope that he should be able to alter the bill so as to render it free from objection.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 16, 1821.
PETITIONS RESPECTING THE ROMAN
Mr. Wilberforce
1266
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that from the sentiments expressed by these petitioners, he would call upon the House to pause before they proceeded further with the bills now in the House, one of which went to give the Catholics what they wanted—the other to impose restraints upon them, to which they were not subjected at present. What reason could they have for thinking that these measures would satisfy the Catholics, when a petition like this was presented from them, with the name of Dr. Milner attached to it? If the bill, which the Catholics wished to pass into a law, were passed, the Protestants, he was sure, could not be satisfied, unless another bill were passed to impose such restrictions as could not be other than unpalatable to the Catholics. He could see no reason for two bills being brought in, unless he assumed that the one which the Catholics desired should be passed, was intended to be permanent, while the repeal of the other, at no distant period, was in contemplation. He had no doubt, that if these measures were passed, they would in a few years find the Catholics coming again to parliament to petition for the repeal of one of them. The loyalty and merit of the petitioners he would be the last man to deny. He had a great respect for the Catholics both of this country and of Ireland; but still he had ever thought it his duty to oppose their claims, and he would continue to do so. Granting all they desired would, in his opinion, be likely to subject the country to the same disasters which had unhappily been experienced at a former period of our history, and from which we had only relieved ourselves by means of laws—not like those now in force against the Roman Catholics, but by such as were in force fifty or sixty years ago. Of the repeal of those Taws which were no longer in force, be did not complain, but he hoped the House would not take a course that would be likely to reproduce the misery formerly experienced.
Mr. Plunkett
said, the hon. baronet had thought proper, in some degree, to anticipate the discussion of the subject, to which the attention of the House would
1267
1268
Mr. Bright
was satisfied that this question could never be set completely at rest, unless the House conceded all the Catholics required, or resolutely took their stand where they now were. All who approved the Catholic claims, were either directly, or by inference, accused of bigotry. Let the Protestant Dissenter be first raised to his proper rank in the state; and then it would be time enough to consider what ought to be done for the Catholic Dissenter.
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that the petition did not come before the House with that authority which might have been concluded from its title. There were in Staffordshire many ancient Catholic families, and yet none of those illustrious families, had put their names to the petition. He would ask, whether the omission of the names of the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Stourton, the Fitzherberts, the Cliffords, the Jerninghams, and others, who formed the ornament of the Catholic body, was no objection? He would have considered the authority of such names even superior to that of the right-reverend-vicar-apostolic. He would not apply the term bigotry to the Catholic, who on the one hand fanned the flame of dissention; or to the Protestant on the other, who laboured in the same unfortunate cause; but he was glad to find, that to a petition which was opposed to liberality, good sense, and the spirit of conciliation, there was not the name of a single Catholic gentleman of known respectability. The sole and undivided honour should be given to Dr. Milner, whom he believed to be the irreconcileable enemy of all union and mutual good-will between Protestant and Catholic, and it was not strange that such an enemy should be hailed by all Protestants, who, on the other side, held in alarm and detestation
1269
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. Plunkett
rose. He said, it was not then his intention to trespass long on the time of the House; indeed, after the indulgence which he had so largely experienced on a former night, it would furnish but a bad specimen of taste to go a second time into a general consideration of the question. When he took the liberty of opening his views on the question, he had described the measure as having for its primary object a great end of public justice. He had expressed a hope that it would be favourably regarded by all those whose interests it was designed to promote; and he had received great pleasure in finding, from all that had passed in the country with which he was most nearly connected, that his hopes had been more than realized; for he must take leave to say, that he never entertained the chimerical notion of being able to conciliate the approbation of all persons on such a subject. There were persons by whom that general satisfaction would be felt as a grievous calamity, who prized the religious hostility which they bore to other Christian sects and denominations as a valuable inheritance descended to them from their ancestors, and which it was incumbent on them to leave as a legacy to their children. With such persons he would not argue; they lived in a territory of their own, wholly inaccessible to any reasoning which he could employ. It was however some consolation to know that the measure, if carried, could not interrupt their happiness, but that they would rise the next morning in possession of as much comfort and security as they had ever before enjoyed, and, as he hoped,—for they were very worthy and respectable persons—they would long continue to enjoy. He must take that opportunity also of remarking, that he had never applied the term "bigotry" to the great body of Protestants with whom he had the misfortune to differ on this subject. Nothing could be more foreign from his disposition; and in truth, he felt the ut-
1270
1271
1272
not
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
in toto,
1283
1284
Sir William Scott
said, that the bill which his right hon. friend had introduced had been printed and in circulation for a fortnight, so that the minds of members must have been made up, and they were prepared to come to a discussion upon it. But now his right hon. friend had introduced a number of alterations, of such variety and extent, that he appealed to any member who had heard the statement whether he could fully understand the bearing of it, and which at any rate they had had no opportunity of considering. He appealed with confidence to the House whether they could know in what state the bill would be after these alterations had been made? He therefore submitted to his right hon. friend's candour, whether some method should not be taken to put the House in possession of the alterations
1285
Mr. Plunkett
said, he was not sensible that he had proposed any alteration in the principle of the bill. He might have reserved himself for the committee to propose his amendments, but he thought it fair and candid to apprise the House of what he intended to do. He was not aware that there was any complexity in his proposed amendments.
Mr. Bankes
said, that the principle of the bill which they were now assembled to discuss, was intended to be carried to a degree which could not be approved of by those whose views of this subject, though liberal, were moderate. The principle of the measure conceded the right of admissibility to every office in the country as belonging to every person of every sect. This was a principle somewhat similar to that which was held by individuals who contended for the radical doctrines of universal suffrage and annual parliaments—doctrines which he was convinced his right hon. friend held in utter detestation. Now, he knew no state that would admit to its dearest privileges, persons who, to be consistent with themselves, must desire the destruction of an important portion of that state. The Catholic church would allow no communion with any other church: it held, that no toleration should be granted to any other church; it declared that there could be no salvation out of the pale of that church. As to a communion with a different church, it would be considered, as the pope himself had said, "like the communion between Christ and Belial." Persons professing this belief could, in his opinion, have no other desire than that the Protestant establishment should not be suffered to remain as it at present stood. The hon. gentleman who supported this bill, though their fears did not go so far as his, seemed, however, to apprehend some danger of this sort. If they did not, why were these particular
1286
1287
1288
1289
Mr. Wilberforce
said, that it were true
1290
1291
1292
Mr. Bathurst
said, that the question for the consideration of the House was, whether the claims of the Catholics could be granted without endangering the existing constitution. His hon. friend had
1293
1294
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that his motive in addressing the House was, to call their attention to a new crisis in the state of the country, to a change in the laws of the country as they affected Catholics, which had occurred within the last four years, and which, as it appeared to him, left the House no alternative between at once adopting the measure proposed to them, and rejecting,
in toto,
1295
1296
1297
1298
Mr. Peel
said, that the hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from places of civil trust and power, after having given them rank in the army and navy, was an anomaly unparalleled in the civilized world. Now, he thought, he could cite a parallel to such a case. The same arguments used by the hon. and learned gentleman had been used to William 3rd, on the subject of his exclusion of the Catholics from civil offices in the United Provinces, while at the same time they were eligible to fill the highest rank in the army. To those arguments William answered, that he admitted the anomaly, but that he thought it unfair to exclude them from offices in the army, in which they had so honourably fought; but that no danger could accrue to the state from thence so long as the government was in the hands of Protestants. But it was said, that by, concessions given in the act of 1817,
1299
1300
doná fide
1301
Mr. Canning
said, that, often as it had fallen to him during the time that he had been a member of that House to take part in the discussion of that most important matter, which was this night the subject of their deliberation, he had never risen to discharge his duty under greater anxiety than he felt on the present occasion. That anxiety arose, in part, from the intense conviction which he felt of the great and growing expediency of the measure then proposed to the House It arose in part also from the peculiar circumstances under which the determina-
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
"When love could teach a monarch to be wise,
"And gospel-light first dawn'd from Boleyn's eyes;"
1307
prœmunire
1308
1309
1310
1311
Opposuit natura?
—"Between two kindred seas,
"Which, mounting, view'd each other from a far,
"And long'd to meet." —
1312
"When late I attempted your pity to move, Oh; why were you deal to my prayers?
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love But why did you kick me down stairs?"
all
1313
1314
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided;
Ayes
254
Noes
243
Majority
11
The bill was then read a second time; and at half after three in the morning, the House adjourned.
1315
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 19, 1821.
BANK CASH PAYMENTS BILL,]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Bank Cash Payments Acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that, by the bill of 1819, the Bank of England were entitled, at their option, to issue gold coin on the 1st of May, 1822, and were bound to resume Cash Payments on the 1st of May 1823. Now, the object of his motion was, that this optional power, instead of remaining over until May, 1822, should be brought into practical operation, if the Bank directors thought fit, on the 1st of May, 1821; leaving, of course, both the proportion and mode of issuing the cash payments at that time entirely to themselves; He looted upon the measure which he now proposed as affording a more easy and gradual preparation for the final resumption of; cash payments. But it was not intended by that measure, to restrict the Bank of England as to the circulation of a single pound note—that was to be left to the sole discretion of the Bank. The right hon. gentleman next observed, that by the drain which was made by the Bank on other countries for the precious metals, in order to enable the country to resume cash payments, an effect was produced unfavourable to commerce; because that drain rendered the circulation of other countries more restricted. Instead of the productions of foreign countries, large quantities of Bullion had been lately imported as so much merchandize in exchange for our produce. It would be seen, by the accounts on the table, that the Bank had carried into execution the suggestions made by the committees of both Houses in 1819. In June, 1819, the issues of the Bank amounted to 25,600,000
l
l
l
1316
1317
Mr. Baring
said, that as far as the limited measure now proposed went, he had no objection to it; for if the House were still persuaded that the steps taken for a return to the ancient standard were right, it undoubtedly would be prudent to give the Bank, in May next, instead of in 1822, the permission to pay in cash, instead of in bullion. But he thought it necessary to look at the general effects of the measures taken for the resumption of cash payments. It had now been seen that the paper currency had been brought back to the level of gold more rapidly than had been generally deemed possible—not more rapidly than he had thought possible, because he had always thought that the value of the Bank notes was in the hands of the Bank; and he had always thought gradual scales of payments of little importance. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the putting out of gold by the Bank of England would operate as a relief to the general circulation of the world. This would have been an important effect if it could be so produced; but he held it to be a mistake; for, just to the extent that gold was put forth by the Bank, they must withdraw paper; so that nothing would be diminished of the general mass of circulation. It was also remarked that the withdrawing in part, of the 1
l
l
1318
1319
l
l
1320
1321
l
l
1322
l
s.
1323
1324
s
d
s.
1325
l
l
1326
1327
s
d
l
1328
desideratum
Mr. Ricardo
began by observing, that his hon. friend had set out with contending for the propriety of establishing two standards: whereas a great part of his argument had gone to put the gold standard out of the question altogether. He had truly said, that in 1797, permission was given to the Bank of England, by act of parliament, to increase or diminish the amount of its circulation as it might think proper. Now, though he agreed that such a power could not have been lodged in hands less inclined to abuse that permission, he did consider it a power most dangerous to have been entrusted to any men, under any circumstances. It was undoubtedly true that the Bank had had it in its power to have kept the currency at a standard as if it had been composed
1329
s
d
s
s
d.
s
d
1330
s
l
l
1331
1332
Mr. Pearse
could not but not express his surprise, that after the measure of 1819 had received the sanction of parliament and the Bank was ready to discharge its duty towards the public, the very persons who promoted that measure, should now be the first to object to its operation.
Mr. Peel
defended the principles on which the committee in 1819, which had advised the partial restoration of cash payments had acted. He contended that the plan of the hon. member could not be carried into prectice, and that even the mode proposed by the hon. member for Portarlington would be preferable. The doctrine of the former member would by no means remedy the distresses which were at present complained of. With respect to the committee which sat in 1819 he maintained that they could have come, under all the circumstances, to no other conclusion than that which they had recommended to the House. It should be
1333
s
d.
s
d
l
s
Mr. Cripps
denied that the probable resumption of cash payments had in any material degree induced the provincial bankers to lessen the extent of their discounts, or contributed to the distress under which the country was labouring. He contended, that the depression in the prices of commodities had produced the contraction which had naturally taken place in the circulation.
Mr. Ellice
said, that nothing could be more correct than the whole statement made by his hon. friend (Mr. Baring) of the amount of our difficulties—and notwithstanding the arguments adduced by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) in favour of the expediency of the determination adopted by the committee in 1819, he still felt satisfied, that taking to the extent of debt contracted, the taxes imposed to pay the interest, and also all the enormous amount of private contracts and engagements, which had been affected by tlie restoration of the ancient standard, more injustice than justice had been done by that measure, and more burthen imposed on the means and productive industry of the country, than he yet saw the possibility of its being able to meet. The right hon. gentleman, and his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo) had re-stated all their opinions of the exaggeration
1334
s
s
d
1335
1336
1337
Mr. Gurney
was of opinion, that it would be more advantageous to resort to the expedient proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer—or indeed almost any other, than return to all the hazard and insecurity of a paper currency.
Lord Folkestone
thought that the danger did not consist in the mere existence of a paper currency, but in a paper currency not convertible into money. He had been of opinion formerly, and he saw no reason for changing that opinion, that it would have been wise in parliament to have altered the standard, before they determined on a return to cash payments. The misfortune was, that we were brought into such a situation by the system we had pursued, as to render it inevitable that great injustice must be done in either
1338
Mr. Huskisson
protested against the doctrine of the noble lord, that to change the standard by law would have been no fraud. The noble lord seemed to forget the condition under which the public debt was contracted, namely, a return to cash payments in six months after peace.
Mr. Baring
said, the introduction of a double standard could not be considered an innovation. It existed ever since the time of queen Elizabeth up to 1797. His great difference with his hon. friend was, as to the amount of depreciation. His hon. friend took it solely from the price of gold, without taking into consideration the state of the country.
The amendment was negatived, and the original resolution agreed to.
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
Mr. Stuart Wortley
moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Sykes
observed, that if the bill affected the elections upon a more popular principle, he would have supported it. It was his wish to see the two seats transferred to Yorkshire, which would in that case send four members to parliament. As that, however, was not likely to be adopted, he should content himself with moving, as an amendment, "that the bill be read a third time that day six months."
Lord John Russell
hoped it would not be supposed, that in relinquishing the charge of the bill, he had departed from the line of conciliation he had prescribed to himself, or had been influenced by any disgust. On the first introduction of the bill, he had endeavoured to obtain the support of moderate reformers on whichever side of the House. At first he had proposed the elective franchise at Leeds to be exercised by those who paid scot and lot; then, conceiving that there might be some members indisposed to agree to so extensive a suffrage, he had proposed to confine it to housekeepers of 5
l
1339
l
l
Mr. Hobhouse
said:—Although, Sir, I have hitherto given my support to this bill as it was introduced to the House by the noble lord, yet I do not consider it at all a necessary consequence, that I should continue to be favourable to a measure which has undergone so material an alteration since it has been abandoned by its original parent. One reason which induced me to favour this bill was, because it proceeded from a gentleman whom I thought sincere in his wishes for reform of parliament up to a certain extent; but the hon. gentleman who now patronises the bill, has not, that I know, ever been suspected of the least attachment to that great cause, and certainly he has contrived to give to his adopted child, features sufficiently indicative of its present parent—"
matre pulchra filia pulchrior.
Sagesse après coup.
1340
1341
1342
Mr. Bankes
here called Mr. Hobhouse to order, for alluding to what passed on a former debate.
The Speaker
said, that such allusion was certainly irregular.
Mr. Hobhouse
continued:—I did think that the attack made on my constituents, in the absence of both their representatives, might have justified a slight departure from ordinary forms; and, even as it is, I assure the hon. member for Corfe Castle, that no interruption of his shall prevent me from taking the line of argument I meant to pursue. We will suppose, then, that the electors of Westminster may have been charged with liking most those who talk the most nonsense to them. Certainly, this is rather a severe imputation upon our worthy friends of the metropolis, but it would be one consolation to them under the imputation, that they are not the only electors in the kingdom who are caught by other allures—than commonsense and common honesty. Sir, there is a town in Somersetshire called Taunton, and I have heard—perhaps incorrectly,—perhaps with no more foundation than the reports which have deceived hon. gentlemen with respect to Westminster—that at one of the late elections for that town, a Mr. Alexander Baring was introduced to the voters of that ancient borough at the tail of a procession which was ushered in by a huge mountain loaf, supported by four cupids, with suitable decorations. It is no wonder that a gentleman accustomed to recommend himself by such modes of persuasion, should have no very high opinion of the intellect of, the electors of England; but I venture to warn him, that if he should ever become a candidate for Westminster, he would do well to try nonsense of a different sort. His loaf, and his cupids would be brought to a very bad market at a Covent-garden hustings. In addition to the charge made against the electors of Westminster, and the electors of populous places generally, I have heard that a grave attack was made upon those who recommend themselves to the voters of such places by "language such as they would not use in any company composed of gentlemen." Sir, these are hard words; and if the imputation be just, I must, say, that the
1343
1344
After a short conversation, the amendment was negatived, and the Bill was then read a third time, when
Mr. Tennyson
moved the omission from the preamble of certain words which stated, that on the disfranchisement of Grampound "the number of burgesses serving in parliament for England would become incomplete." It was, in his judgment, quite sufficient to state the expediency of excluding Grampound, and of substituting Leeds, without adopting an abstract proposition of so much constitutional importance with respect to which considerable difference of opinion must exist, and one which it was extremely inexpedient to trifle with in the preamble of a bill where it had no necessary place. From the earliest period to which parliamentary records extended, down to the time of Charles 2nd, the whole representation had fluctuated in consequence of the frequent discontinuance of boroughs, and of the power which the Crown had from time to time exercised of creating and restoring them; accordingly, the number of members in that House had continually varied. It would undoubtedly be inconsistent with that settled form of parlia-
1345
Mr. Horace Twiss and Mr. T. Courtenay opposed the motion. Lord John Russell and Mr. Robert Smith (of Lincoln) supported it; and Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that although he did not approve, he would not resist it. The motion was agreed to, and the amendment made accordingly.
The Bill was then passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 20, 1821.
PETITION OF CAPTAIN ROMEO, COMPLAINING OF ILL-TREATMENT.]
Mr. Hume
rose to present a Petition from captain Romeo, a Neapolitan subject, now in this country. He stated, that in 1806, he had become a partizan of the British
1346
l.
1347
l.
l.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the present case did not properly belong to the department for which he was responsible. He understood, that in 1817, captain Romeo came to this country, and preferred
1348
l.
l.
1349
Lord W. Bentinck
said, that captain Romeo had performed considerable services to the British army, and that those services were of a nature to draw down upon him the dislike and revenge of the Neapolitan, government. The noble lord opposite had said, that he had stipulated with the government of Naples, that persons who had distinguished themselves in the service of Great Britain, should not be punished or injured; and that the people of Sicily should not be deprived of the rights which they had enjoyed under the constitution which England gave to them, as well as the rights which they had previously possessed. But the British authorities had scarcely taken their departure from Sicily, when the king of Naples tore from the people, not only the new constitution, but deprived them of all their rights and privileges. Since he had left Sicily, he had had little communication with that country, but from something which had fallen from the noble lord the other night, he was induced to make inquiries, and was made acquainted with the extraordinary fact, that in 1818, by a public edict, the king of Naples, in compliance with the recommendation of the Congress of Vienna, had united the government of Sicily and Naples.
Lord Castlereagh
, in explanation, declared he had never heard of any such document as that quoted by the noble lord. He hoped the noble lord would produce the document, if in existence. When applied to on the subject, he had refused to give the king of Naples any advice as to his conduct with regard to Sicily. The noble lord knew very well that he (lord C.) had endeavoured in
1350
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that the statement of the noble lord was of importance, not merely as it related to the case of the individual, but to the general affairs of Europe. The noble lord opposite imagined that there was a contradiction between him and the noble lord behind him. There was; but it was merely as to words. It was asserted that the king abrogated the constitution of Sicily, in consequence of the act of the Congress of Vienna. The noble lord denied the fact; but did not the noble, lord recollect the secret treaty between. Naples and Austria, dated the 12th of June? That flagitious treaty had produced the effect of which the noble lord behind him complained. It was a treaty conceived in the true spirit of foreign tyranny—it bound the king of Naples not to introduce any regulation in the affairs of its internal government, without the sanction of Austria. It certainly struck him as not a little singular, that ministers should have referred the case of capt. Romeo to the Neapolitan government. He could not help observing, that the conduct pursued towards captain Romeo—a foreigner—a man in reduced circumstances—a brave man—a man who was nearly ignorant of the English language—who was friendless in a country to which he had rendered important services—was not very creditable to the English government.
Lord W. Bentinck
then read the document in question.
Lord Castlereagh
expressed his doubts of the authenticity of this document.
Mr. Hume
said, that the noble lord had mis-stated the fact when he said, that captain Romeo had escaped from prison, whereas on that occasion he had been transported by an order from the king of Naples, countersigned by the English consul, Mr. Lee, in a Swedish vessel to Egypt. With regard to the 1,400
l.
Ordered to lie on the table.
NAPLES.]
Sir R. Wilson
said that having seen a letter purporting to have been written by his majesty's minister at Naples, which he had good reason to believe to be authentic, containing princi-
1351
1352
1353
1354
tête de pont,
1355
Lord Castfereagh,
in rising to offer such explanations as he felt it to be his duty to supply on a question of this nature being brought before the House, would principally confine himself to the motion immediately under consideration. He should hot think it necessary to enter into the discussion of all the topics which the
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
amicus curies,
1362
Mr. A'Court
vindicated the conduct of his relation, observing, that the reception which the reading of his note met with in the Neapolitan parliament furnished a complete answer to the objections which had been urged by the gallant officer.
Mr. Hutchinson
supported the motion, and reprobated the proceedings of Austria, and the other members of the holy alliance, towards the independent people of Naples, who, from the vigour of their struggles against such a formidable conspiracy of despots, had proved that they deserved to enjoy the blessings of liberty.
The Hon. J. W. Ward
said, he considered neutrality on the part of this government towards Naples, as a sound general principle. At the same time, he could not but regret that our conduct had not been of a more decided aspect, and that we had not a little, sooner exerted that influence which belonged to our character. There might, he would, admit, be good reasons against this line of con-
1363
1364
1365
Mr. Canning
said, he was unwilling to protract the debate; but, considering the situation in which he stood with regard to his majesty's ministers, he felt it to be due to them as well as to himself, to express his sentiments upon the question now before the House. Having held an official situation at the time when that policy which the motion of the hon. and gallant general had brought into discussion was adopted, it would be most un-candid in; him if he did not avow and even claim his share of the responsibility
1366
1367
1368
1369
Excidat illa dies ævo: nec postera credant
Sæcula; nos certe taceamus &c obruta multa
Nocte tegi nostræ; patiamur crimina gentis.
1370
1371
little
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he was under the necessity of rising in order to remove the obstacles which his right hon. friend had ingeniously raised to obstruct and confound all clear views of the subject, rather than for the purpose of contesting any of the principles which he had advanced. On the general subject he was not called on to make any declaration of his sentiments, after the unanswerable speech of his hon. friend, the member for Bossiney—a speech, the argument of which he defied the power of man to overthrow—a speech adorned equally with all the charms of wit and eloquence; wit to illustrate reason, and eloquence to enforce argument. It was not his intention to follow his right hon. friend through all the topics which he had thought proper to introduce, without the slightest relation to the subject before the Housed He rose to disclaim those intentions and principles which his right hon. friend had imputed to all who had spoken on his side of the question, and which were entertained by not one of them. He would not follow his right hon. friend in those excursive wanderings into the history of this and other countries, with which he had amused the House; nor would he follow him in his panegyric on that government of which he had recently been a member. It would really seem as if he occasionally retired from the government, in order to have an opportunity of eulogizing its councils with a greater appearance of disinterested impartiality. He had well observed the address and ingenuity with which his right hon. friend had fastened on a parenthesis here and there in the speeches of his opponents, with the view of discovering some insulated proposition to which he might attach obloquy, since he found he opportunity of attacking the argument. Of this nature was the attack on what had been said respecting the propriety of bringing monarchs to trial for their political offences. Now, he conceived that no man should be brought to trial who could not be tried fairly; and as he believed that prejudices must always exist which would deprive kings of a fair trial, he
1377
1378
1379
Sir R. Wilson
made a short reply, in the course of which he vindicated the Carbonari from the charge of being the promoters of assassination. He likewise eulogized them for the wisdom with which they, had projected, the bravery with which they had executed, and the glory with which they had consummated, their revolution of Naples, and stated that the principles which they professed were so widely diffused through out Italy that there was scarcely a single Italian who was not a Carbonari: the right hon. gentleman had said, that there was a conflict now waging throughout the world between
1380
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, March 21, 1821.
AMERICAN LOYALISTS.]
The entry in the Journals of the 17th February 1793, of a resolution for an address on behalf of the American Loyalists, having been read,
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, that the address which had been just read stated, that it would have been superfluous for the House to express the regard of the nation for every description of men who had, in the cause of his majesty, risked their lives and forfeited their properties, during a long and calamitous war. It was in conformity with the sentiments contained in that address, that he rose to bring before parliament, the case of persons who had so risked their lives and forfeited their properties. The House would see the difficulties he had to meet in bringing forward claims in 1821, which had their foundation so long ago as the peace of 1783. But he hoped to satisfy the House that the lapse of time could not create a bar to those claims. At the commencement of the American war, the legislature of America took every means to prevail on persons of property and influence in that country, to raise what was then called the standard of rebellion. It was, on the other hand, the duty of the government of this country to call on the exertions of individuals in America, who owed allegiance to the king of England. I Accordingly, royal proclamations and re-I solutions of that House were issued from 1776 to 1783, calling upon individuals to join the royal standard. At the person of 1783, there were two classes of persons who had lost their property or the service J of England, and who therefore had claims
1381
l.
l.
1382
Mr. Dickinson
supported the motion, and contended, that as the claimants had done every thing to keep their claims alive, they were not to be opposed by a sort of statute of limitation, which was set up in the mind of the chancellor of the exchequer. He knew no stronger claim upon this country, than that of persons who had sacrificed their property and the interests of their families from attachment to its cause.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that these gentlemen had for forty years been entitled to compensation, and now the very length of time during which justice had beer! withheld, was made an argument against their demand. When they saw every day compensation made for the loss of offices which those who had lost them had no right to expect to retain it seemed extraordinary that so great a renitence should exist to accede to the claims of those who had lost every thing through their attachment to this country He re-
1383
Mr. Wilberforce
said, if ever any set of men Were deserving of consideration, it was these claimants, who had drunk to the very dreg the bitter cup of that "hope deferred," which "maketh the heart sick."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted, that men in office were obliged to look with more scrupulousness, and perhaps want-of liberality, upon the demands of individuals, than they would be disposed to do if the claim were upon then-Own private funds. The case made out by the lion, member was unquestionably very strong. He by no means meant to contend that the lapse of time was a bar to the demands now made, because those demands had been unremittingly pressed; but it Was high time to come to a final decision whether any thing or nothing should be granted. Neither did he mean to argue that any thing more than a partial compensation had hitherto been afforded to any of the parties. He then proceeded to notice the precise stipulations of the treaty of commerce with the United States in 1794, and followed it by some observations upon the breach of faith of which America had been guilty with regard to the creditors whose demands she thereby undertook to satisfy. The dispute upon this point had been finally, amicably adjusted; and the total amount of the claims was settled by commissioners, at about 1,450,000
l.,
l.
in limine
1384
Dr. Phillimore
considered the case made out by the hon. and learned mover as strong a one as ever came before the House. The chancellor of the exchequer had, in his view of the question, been led into a confusion of the rights of the loyalists with those of the American creditor. But, according to all national law, the two were quite distinct, and their claims rested upon a very different foundation.
Mr. Lockhart
said, that he was an advocate for compensation to that description of American loyalists who, being domiciled in America, had sacrificed their property to their allegiance: while he would protest against any attempt to indemnify the mere British merchant, who might have made unsuccessful speculations in America at the period alluded to.
Mr. Courtenay
said, he had no objection whatever to the distinction which his hon. friend had desired to establish.
The motion was agreed to.
REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.]
Mr. Western
rose to move for the repeal of the late additional Malt tax, and maintained that upon every consideration of feeling, justice, and policy, that motion ought to be agreed to; for no tax existed which was so injurious to the comforts of the people or to the interests of agriculture. He protested against the idea generally held out, that any member who called for the repeal of a tax was bound to propose a substitute, for that would imply that he who discovered the oppression or injustice of a tax was not entitled to complain unless he were disposed to I become a second chancellor of the exchequer, whose peculiar duty it was, to provide for the financial exigencies of the country. But he the more objected to this idea, because he was an advocate for the reduction of the aggregate amount of taxation. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood, that he did not desire this reduction, by the exemption 'of the agriculturists, or any particular class, from the general pressure. He was not one of those who would tax the funds for the support of the poor-rates, or who would recommend any violation of the
1385
Mr. Mackenzie
said, that the extent to which illicit distillation had been carried
1386
l.
s.
d.
l
s.
Mr. Ellice
said, that if he could reconcile to himself that the tax might be dispensed with, without injustice to the public creditor, or injury to the- wants of the state; and if there could be any rational hope, that the distress of the landed interest could be relieved by the repeal, he would support it; and he could do so with the more consistency, as he had reprobated its imposition in 1S19; when the other measures then determined upon with respect to the currency, rendered the country less able to. bear the additional 3 millions of taxes. Now, with respect to the expediency of repealing any tax, he had often stated his opinion, that, under the peculiar circumstances in which we were placed, and with a view to the permanent benefit and security of the fundholder, if the country was really able to wade through the difficulties
1387
1388
l.;
l.?
1389
1390
1391
l.
s
l.
s.
d.
1392
1393
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that when the hon. mover stated, that the produce of the tax on malt had been diminished by the additional duties imposed in 1819, he had by no means accurately stated the accounts before the House. Now, the first inference which lie should draw from the accounts on the table was, that the repeal of the war duties on malt in 1816, did not relieve the agriculture of the country, which he should prove by an argument of the same nature as that of the hon. member, for he should shew that the repeal of those duties did not increase the consumption of malt in the succeeding years. The average quantity of malt between July, 1816, when the; duties were taken off, and July, 1819, when a considerable part of those duties was reimposed, was less than 22,980,000 bushels; whereas, in the three preceding years, it amounted to 26,469,000 bushels, so that there was a diminution of upwards of 3,000,000 bushels, after the tax was taken off. But if the repeal of the tax had not the effect of increasing the consumption, neither had the reimposition of it the effect of producing any further diminution of consumption. On the contrary, since 1819, there has been an increase of 1,200,000 bushels. The quantity of beer consumed by a large portion of the community was for the most part so uniform, that a moderate fluctuation in the price of barley did not materially affect the amount of consumption. From a computation which had been made, it appeared that the strong beer brewed within the last year, exceeded by 40,000 barrels the average of the three years before. He maintained that the malt duty fell not upon the farmer, but upon the community at large; and if this position was clearly established, as he contended it was, he would ask, whether any tax could be more equally levied upon the mass of the people. He would also contend, that no unfair proportion of the tax had been raised from Scotland he could not therefore consent to any partial diminution of the malt tax with respect to that country. It was argued that the malt tax tended to encourage illicit distillation in Scotland. He was not, however, aware, that any general diminution had taken place in the distillation of spirits. There
1394
Lord A. Hamilton
pointed out the severe hardships which the increased malt duty imposed upon the landholders of Scotland. It was unfortunately discovered that a small portion of land in. the neighbourhood of Edinburgh was equal in its produce to good English land, and therefore the whole produce of Scotland was taxed equally with the produce of the most fertile laud in England.
Lord G. Cavendish
supported the motion, from a conviction that it would alleviate the distresses under which the agriculturists laboured. It might be in vidious, in the present state of the country, to state how the operation of any particular tax was felt. But take the operation of the taxes generally; let them look to the manufacturing and the commercial interests, and they would find that both were able, according to the vulgar phrase, to hold their heads above water. Could the same be said of the agricultural interest. Let them look back for the last twenty years. Let them recollect the burdens which had been laid upon the landholder within that period,' and then let any gentleman put it to him self how it was possible for the land holder or farmer to bear up against those burdens.
Mr. Wodehose
said, that the tax in question was the most objectionable of all our taxes both in a moral and political point of view. He knew of his own knowledge, that it prevented many persons altogether from growing barley. It was impossible to deny, that it went in fact to destroy the cultivation of barley altogether. Landholders now turned themselves to growing of wheat as the most productive grain, the consequence of which would be the speedy exhaustion of the land, and from this would arise that greatest of all curses, a high price of bread. The only way to avert this evil would be, to encourage the cultivation of the lighter soil, by which means a permanent stock would be secured. Some might wish to reduce one tax and same another, but the main question to be considered was, which portion of the community was labouring under the greatest distress? He would any the greatest distress was felt by the arable land farmer.
1395
s.
Mr. Sumner
said, that the war which had required the present heavy taxation had been supported by the people. Never since man became a pugnacious animal had a war been more cordially supported by the people. He had voted for the repeal of the horse-tax; and he would vote with every member who proposed any reduction of taxes that might relieve agriculture; yet he would vote against the present motion.
Lord Folkestone
did not think that the repeal of this tax would relieve agriculture; but it would relieve the community, which was a much more desirable result. With respect to the necessity so often contended for, of keeping good faith with the public creditor, under all circumstances, he could not help regarding it as fallacious. The maxim, "nemo tenetur ad impossibile," was one of universal application, and he could easily conceive cases in1 which a perseverance in what was called good faith might ultimately prove to be had faith. If the advantage of the public creditor was to be purchased by the injury of the whole community, he conceived that the obligation to preserve that faith was at an end; for the greater must be the more binding duty. Every day's experience rendered it more and more evident, that the country could not go on maintaining its faith at such an ex-
1396
Mr. Huskisson
said, he would call upon the House to recollect that it was only two years ago since government had come down, and recommended an addition of three millions to the taxes for the maintenance of the public credit, and that taxes to that amount were passed by a majority of 327 to 129. Would any one say, that such a change had taken place since that period in the circumstances of the country as to render it necessary that they should repeal four-fifths of the addition then made—for that was the proportion which the tax under consideration bore to the whole amount? If we were in a Situation to reduce any of the public burthens, this was not the first tax which ought to be removed. But when hon. members attributed all the distress under which the agricultural interest laboured, to its operation, they were guilty of great inconsistency: for the distress had not only existed before it had been imposed; but during the war, when it was Is. a bushel more than it was at present, the agricultural interest was in its most flourishing condition. Whatever other objections there might be to this tax, he did not think that any could be made to its unequal operation. Hon. gentlemen had argued, that it ought to be removed' on account of the general distress which prevailed. Now, when he heard it asserted, that the manufacturer, the artisan, the agriculturist, and the land-owner Were all involved in extreme distress; he was in-
1397
1398
1399
Mr. Witber force
said, he was anxious to see the public burthens alleviated as much as possible; at the but at the same time he was persuaded of the necessity of keeping faith public creditor. He would not aggravate, unnecessarily, the burthens of the country for he was convinced that the best strength of a government was the good will and hearts of the people [Here the hon gentleman proceeded for several minutes, in the midst of loud cries of "Question!"]; He complained of this interruption, and said, that gentlemen who came down late should have come consideration, if not for those who sat there patiently all night at least for the nature of the question itself. It was not one to be disposed of in a cursory and summary way if it was not one they ought to proceed With "pedib us ire in sententiam" He hoped the subject would be temperately discussed, He should support the motion.
Mr. Monek
said, that the right hon. gentleman had asked, what difference there was this question now and at a former period to which he had alluded. He would tell hnm—the difference would be found in the reduced state of the country. In proportion as the rent-roll of the country declined, in the same proportion ought the taxation which bore upon it the right hon. gentleman had said, why complain now, seeing that the duty was much higher during the war? Because the prices which Were then high were now low, He had talked of America; but he should recollect that there the salaries of men in office and also the standing army, had been reduced one-half. There were two modes of relieving the agricultural interests; one by high duties and bounties—to that mode he objected; for to benefit one class it must fall upon another the only real good could be effected by economy and retrenchment and the only way to induce ministers to resort to that was by a removal of a part of the taxation, by which a system of extragance Upheld.
Mr. Littleton
thought that taxation should be generally distributed; and that this tax therefore was not the one which ought to be continued.
Lord Castlereagh
said he could not help complaining that the nations of his hon friend (Mr. Wilberforce which were he know those of benevotence, ap-
1400
Mr. K. Douglas
thought that if present scale of taxation was necessary at more general tax than this could not selected. The, previous question; being put, the House divided: Ayes 149,:;Noes 125. Mr. Western's motion was consequently agreed to, and a bill ordered to be brought in.
List of the Majority.
Allen, J. H.
Creevey, Thos.
Althorp, viscount
Cripps, J.
Anson, hon. G.
Curteis, J. E.
Astley, J. D.
Claughton, Thos.
Bruce, Robt.
Corbett, Panton
Beaumont, T. P.
Chetwynd, G.
Barham, J.F.
Calvert, N.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Davies, T. H.
Barnard, viscount
Denison, Wm. J.
Barrett, S. M.
Duncannon, visc.
Becher, W. W.
Dundas, hon. T.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Dundas, Charles
Bernal, R.
Drummond, J.
Birch, Joseph
Davenport, D.
Bury, visct.
Ellice, Ed.
Burrell, Walter
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Blair, J.H.
Farquharson, A.
Benett, John
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Buchanan, John
Fitzgerald, rt. hon.M.
Bentinck, lord, W.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Bastard, E.P.
Fane, John
Buxton, T. F.
File, earl of
Blake, Robt.
Forbes, C.
Chaloner, Robt.
Fox, G. Lane
Calcraft, J.
Fellowes, W. H.
Calvert, C.
Gordon, R.
Campbell, hon. J.
Grattan, J.
Carew, R. S.
Grant, J. P.
Cavendish, lord G.
Guise, sir Wm.
Cavendish, H.
Grant, G.M.
Cavendish, Charles
Gooch, T. S.
Clifton, visc.
Grant, col.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Gordon, hon. W.
Crompton, Sam.
Hamilton, lord A.
Curwen, J. C.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
1401
Heathcote, G. J.
Robinson, sir G.
Heron, sir Robt.
Rowley, sir W.
Hill, lord A.
Russell, lord John
Hobhouse, J. C.
Russell, lord W.
Hornby, Ed.
Rickford, W.
Hume, Jos.
Ramsay, sir A.
Hurst, Robt.
Rogers, E.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Rumbold, C.
Harvey, sir E.
Scott, James
James, Wm.
Smith, hon. R.
Jervoise, G. P.
Smith, W.
Johnson, colonel
Smyth, J. H.
Lennard, T. B.
Stanley, lord
Lambton, J. G.
Sykes, D.
Latouche, Robt.
Scourfield, W. A.
Lemon, sir W.
Shelley, sir John
Lloyd, J. M.
Sebright, sir J.
Lushington, Dr.
Stepford, visct.
Lockhart, J. J.
Talbot, R. W.
Littleton, Ed.
Tavistock, marq.
Maberly, J.
Townshend, lord C.
Macdonald, J.
Tennyson, C.
Martin, John
Warre, J. A.
Mildmay, P.
Webbe, Ed.
Monck, A.
Whitbread, S. C.
Monteith, H.
Whitbread,W. H.
Majoribanks, S.
Wilkins, W.
Mackenzie, T.
Wilson, sir R.
Neville, hon. R.
Wood, ald.
Nightingale, sir M.
Wyvill, M.
Ossulston, lord
Wodehouse, Ed.
O'Grady, Standish
Wynn, sir W. W.
Palmer, col.
Wemyss, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Wilberforce, W.
Parnell, sir H.
TELLERS
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Western, C. C.
Power, R.
Folkestone, visct.
Price, Robt.
PAIRED OFF
Pym, Francis
Coffin, sir Isaac
Pollen, sir John
Colburne, N. R.
Pitt, J.
Maberly, W. L.
Penruddock, T.
Newport, sir J.
Rice, T. S.
Nugent, lord
Ramsden, J. C.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Ricardo, D.
Sefton, earl
Robarts, A.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday March 22, 1821.
RECEIVERS-GENERAL OF LAND AND
Mr. Hume
said, he should confine his motion at present to the offices of Receivers-general and Distributors of Stamps, in order to avoid the imputation of proposing sweeping reductions. In proposing the abolition of those offices his object was,—1. To establish economy in the collection of the revenue; and, 2. To reduce the patronage and influence which produced so many baneful effects to this country. The two offices referred to were in the patronage of that House, and
1402
l.
l.
prima facie
l.
l.
1403
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1404
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1405
d
d.
d.
d.
l.,
l.,
l.
1406
l.
l
l.
s
l.,
l
l.
l.
l.
l.
1407
l.
l.
d.
s
s.
d.
1408
l.
l.
l.,
1409
1."That there are 65 receivers-general of the land and assessed taxes in England and wales, who received an allowance of 41,415
1.
l.
l.
2. "That it appears by the returns before the House, that ten receivers-general were, on the 1st of Jan. 1820, in arrears at the time of their death, or of leaving their office, since 1790, to the amount of 304,337
l.
s. 4d.;
l.
s.
d.
3. "That the office of receiver-general of the land and assessed taxes is one of deposit, and for remittance of the taxes from district collection to the Exchequer; and I the present state of the finances of the country, that such service may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.
4. "That there are 95 distributors of stamps in Great British, who received allowances or poundage amounting to 87,233
l.
l
l.
5. "That in the present state of the finances of the country, the duty of distributors of stamps may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred; with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service"
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he would move as an amendment, for the appointment of a select committee, to inquiry whether the object of the motion could be carried into effect consistently with the public interest. He would adopt the suggestion of such a committee,
1410
l.
Sir. J. Mackintosh
said, that his hon. friend was entitled to the gratitude of the country, for the zeal and perseverance which marked his public conduct, and which rendered him one of the most useful members of that House. The perseverance of his hon. friend had obtained that concession from ministers which they had formerly refused to make. Besides, they had that night heard a lecture form the chancellor of the exchequer, on the propriety of retrenchment—on a total disregard to patronage—on purity and disinterestedness in public life, which would do honour to the exchequer of Utopia. With respect to the abuses of which his hon. friend complained, those abuses were too glaring not to be denounced by the committee. With respect to them, he considered inquiry and condemnation as synonymous. The concession which ministers had just made, would pretty clearly show the salutary effect of occasional majorities against them in that House. It showed how those majorities tended to liberalise their minds. It brought the language of economy to their lips—it induced them to consem to investigations, which they had formerly resisted with all
1411
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to become intoxicated with the majority in which he had found himself the night be fore than become a person of his experience and ability. He hoped the hon. and learned gentleman, now that he acted as the leader of a party, would not so easily be betrayed into these juvenile indiscretions. The exultation of the hon. and learned member was more worthy of a young beginner than of so grave and learned a personage. If he carried back his remembrance of Lansdown was chancellor of the exchequer, he would find that the administration of that day had received two hints similar to the one of last night, and in fuller House, without considering it their duty to resign. They received to a tax on iron, and the other
1412
Lord A. Hamilton
expressed his ac knowledgments to the hon. mover, for his unwearied exertions in promoting re trenchment and economy, at a time when the public interests so imperiously called for them.
Mr. S. Wortley
confirmed the statement of his noble friend, as to his attending a meeting at which he had pledged himself to consent to the appointment of a fair committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 23, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
Sir J. Newport
, after regretting the domestic affliction which had deprived this question of the splendid eloquence of Mr. Plunkett, and complimenting the gentlemen who had supported it, moved the order of the day for taking the report of this bill into further consideration.
Mr. Croker
said, that when he gave notice of a motion for enabling his majesty to make provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, he did so upon the full conviction that such a measure would tend to the security of the Roman Catholic no less than that of the Protestant interest; and the more he thought of the
1413
The House then resolved itself into the committee. On putting the question, that the first clause be agreed to,
Sir W. Scott
said, that the present was one of the many bills which had been brought before parliament by men of great talents, actuated by the best of motives. The present measure he believed to have been introduced by a right hon. gentleman of equal talent, and with motives no less good, and if this bill should ultimately fail, it would show that there were difficulties in its principle which no abilities could surmount. The bill proposed to relieve certain Roman Catholics from the oath of supremacy, and the clause for that purpose, after pointing to the oath, suggested the adding of an explanation. Now, the original oath of supremacy contained two propositions; the first affirmative, as to the kingly authority over the church; the second negative, as to exclusion of papal and all other foreign influence upon matters ecclesiastical or spiritual within the realm. This was an ancient oath; at the Revolution it had been modified, and in that state it continued. It was not matter of concealment, but of notorious history, that anterior to the Reformation, the papal authority did exist, and was exercised, though checked occasionally by the firmness of our princes and our parliament. In one instance, it had been restrained by an act of the legislature; but it remained for the Reformation to decide against the authority altogether. This was the oath required, and taken in the best of times, and which the experience of two centuries had confirmed. It was particularly necessary to observe what was laid down at the time of the Revolution. It was then considered, that a divided religion, a distribution of authority with a foreign power, was inconsistent with the safety of the state. All the intermediate statutes had proceeded upon the same principle; and with reference to the oath itself, he thought no
1414
1415
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, he should not have presumed to rise immediately after the right hon. gentleman, whose great ability and high character made it so dangerous for almost any man to come into competition with him; but that no other member seemed disposed to speak, and he was anxious, as soon as possible, to bring back the question to the grounds on which the bill had been originally put by the mover. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had said, that the admonition, of Elizabeth had gone no further than to disclaim any greater power than was possessed by her father and brother. Be it so: but her father and brother had no law entitling them to administer an oath of supremacy to their subjects. When the right hon. gentleman deprecated the danger of a foreign power over a British conscience, it was material to observe, that there was a religious as well as a moral conscience: that a power over conscience in matters of abstract religion, which was all that the Catholics sought to except, was quite distinct from a power over conscience in practical matters, as to which all honest men, whether Catholic or Protestant, were unanimous. The oath of supremacy, explained as Elizabeth had explained it, was the only test thought of for a century and a half. It as not till the comparatively modern date Of Charles 2nd, that any further test was thought of. And when, in that day, the test as to transubstantiation was for the first time imposed, it was the invention not of the monarchy to strengthen their own power, but of the opposition to weaken if. The monarchy resisted the tests then: to be consistent, it should now concur to abolish them. Very different seemed to be the light wherein
1416
1417
principle
exception
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
Sir John Nicholl
said, that all parties must admit that the present bill went to work a great and important change in the constitution. He denied that it lay upon those who thought with himself, to prove the danger that would arise from admitting Catholics to all offices, except those of lord chancellor and lord lieutenant. On the contrary, he thought that danger was already proved by the old and recorded statutes of the realm, and that it lay with the proposers of this measure to show that the bulwarks which their ancestors had raised against strong and serious dangers could now with safety be removed. He denied that the acts excluding Catholics from office were enacted for any temporary occasion; on the contrary, they were permanently directed against the tenets of Roman Catholics. If an anti-catholic spirit did not pervade the whole of these laws, he did not know what their plain meaning was. They all expressly enacted tests against Catholic tenets, and lie held these acts as explanatory of the constitution. It had been said, that this was not a paper constitution: it was a constitution by law established, and he knew not how he could better show what was that constitution, than by showing what was the law by all the great statutes of the realm. He had heard it named a Titus Oates constitution. But, whatever name might be given to it, he knew it was a constitution founded in the glorious reign of king William, whose first speech from the throne in 1701 was drawn up by the great lord Somers. It was this glorious constitution which was now sought to be altered. This was the first time they were called upon to make that alteration which he felt to be a great and fearful change in the law of the land. If they attempted to invalidate this paper constitution as it was called, they might at the same time repeal Magna Charta, and the Act of Uniformity. He contended, that this was a qualified constitution which, from its lowest, up to its highest office,
1424
Mr. C. Grant
said, that upon all former occasions, when the severity of the penal code had been relaxed, there was precisely the same denunciation of danger, and the same cry of alarm for the safety of the constitution in Church and State. The relaxations had, however, happily taken place, and the alarm was eventually proved to be unfounded. If the speech, then, of his right hon. friend were good for any thing, it must be carried much further than he intended it should be; for it went to prove that what they had hitherto done was wrong; that they ought to retrace their steps, and re-enact the whole body of the penal code of those laws which degraded Ireland, and tarnished the glory of an otherwise immortal Revolution. It was the misfortune of the spirit of legislation which characterised the legislature of that day, that it mixed up accidental events with permanent causes, and carried this error through so many of its enactments. The spirit of liberty seemed for a moment to be forgotten in the zeal of its enthusiastic admirers; and even the mild benevolence and charity of religion were for a moment forgotten in the ardour for its protection and support. The result of that mistaken system of legislation was most strongly felt in the two countries. In Ireland, it produced a government by the sword; in England, a government of freedom. In Ireland it ruled by the strong arm of overwhelming power, in England it ruled by the moral force of free opinion. Here it kept faith, and expelled those who had broken it; there it proffered faith, and at the onset, in the treaty of Limerick, violated that solemn pledge by the most flagrant breach of faith which occurred in modern times. His right hon. friend had endeavoured to show that, on the score of religion, that of the Catholic furnished, according to the statute law of the land, a permanent exclusion. But he had omitted to state, that so ineffectual was
1425
1426
Reformatio Legum,
1427
concordia discors
Mr. Brownlow
said, he was one of those who thought that no securities which the Catholics could offer would be sufficient; but, even to those who were of another opinion, the present bill must be very unsatisfactory. It was said, that the appointment of a commission would be sufficient security against the interference of the Catholics, but he contended that such a commission would be totally inefficient, it would be no more than impanelling a jury of Catholics to decide on the merits of Catholics. The provisions respecting bulls would be equally inefficient. The Catholics would regard the acts of a commission as an interference of unholy hands in religious matters. Was it likely that a country like Ireland, which was almost exclusively Catholic, could be conciliated by such means? He believed that there existed in the breasts of the Catholics of Ireland a longing desire to make their
1428
prima facie
Mr. Wetherell
said, that, in resisting the further progress of this bill, he was not about to contend for any factious or unsubstantial point, but for a leading and fundamental principle of the Protestant constitution of this country. In its preamble the bill asserted as a fact that there was a time when Catholics could take the oath of supremacy, and it was proposed therefore to restore that perverted and corrupted oath to its pristine condition, and to put such a construction upon it as to render it again palatable to Papists. This was an historical untruth. There never was a time when the oath introduced by the two statutes of Elizabeth was taken, or could be taken, by Roman Catholics.
Sir J. Mackintosh
challenged the learned gentleman to point out in the preamble of the bill any such a statement.
Mr. Wetherell
said, it was his intention
1429
1430
1431
s.
d.,
s.
d.
1432
rari nantes in gurgite vasto.
1433
ultimatum
1434
hortus siccus,
1435
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that if ever a right existed to complain of the course of a debate, it certainly was on the present occasion. They were now called on to
1436
1437
1438
régime
1439
Mr. Grosset
spoke against the principle and provisions of the bill, and said he conceived the oath of Elizabeth to which the admonition annexed to the injunctions referred, and which was sanctioned by the act passed in the fifth year of her reign, had already received a legislative explanation, but one very different from that which seemed to be given to it by the present bill; because the Irish House of Commons, in 1642, resorted to that very oath to which the admonition referred, for the express purpose of excluding Roman Catholics from holding seats in their House, as fully appeared from the resolutions recorded in their Journals, in June 1642. The hon. member then read an extract from their Journals, reciting, "forasmuch as many members of this House, betraying the trust reposed in them by the commonwealth, have treacherously shown themselves privy conspirators and actors in this horrid rebellion; it is ordered—that no person, now a knight, citizen, or burgess for this parliament, and now present, shall be deemed a member of this House any longer, unless he shall forthwith accept and take the oath, &c. of supremacy of Elizabeth."
Mr. Goulburn
thought there was a
1440
Dr. Phillimore
considered the objections urged against the clause to be, to say the least of them, hypercritical. Much had been done by the mover of the bill originally in consulting the wishes of those likely to be most affected by it; and the alteration which he had proposed in the form of the oath, arose from the disinclination avowed by the Catholics to subscribe to a more general and unrestricted oath. In reply to the learned member who charged the author of the bill with recording an historical untruth in the preamble he would meet the charge with a direct negative. All members of that House were, as well as all high official persons, compellable to take the oaths—first of allegiance and abjuration; 2dly, of supremacy; and 3rdly, that against the doctrine of transubstantiation. Now, the Catholics had never hesitated to take, when circumstances rendered it expedient, the oath of allegiance and abjuration; the difficulty always had been in taking the oath of supremacy. The learned member here took a review of a controversy recorded by bishop Burnet respecting the objections made by Catholics in that day to take the oath of supremacy. Throughout the controversy queen Elizabeth had expressed herself satisfied that the Catholics should take the oath in the qualified sense; which in fact was very nearly the same sense as that in which it was intended they now should take it. The consequence of this liberal line of conduct was, that the Roman Catholics of that day not only frequented the established Church, but actually partook of the sacrament. He felt that he was borne out by this example in supporting the clause.
Mr. Becker
said, it might appear strange, looking to the arguments which had been addressed to the House, and to the authorities by whom those arguments had been employed, that any doubt should remain upon the question; but he
1441
Mr. Peel
said, that he should confine his observations to the question immediately before the committee; namely, whether the clause should stand part of the bill? It did not follow, according to his conception, that any objection to this clause applied to the principle of the bill; which, principle might be discussed upon bringing up the report, or upon the third reading. The principle of the bill might,
1442
1443
in foro conscientiœ,
in foro conscientiœ."
in foro externo.
in foro externo
1444
Lord Castlereagh
could not help thinking that, from the manner in which his right hon. friend had treated this clause, he would not contend against the next clause, namely, the repeal of the Test against Transubstantiation. It might be a matter of debate, indeed, whether Catholics could take the Protestant oath of Supremacy, without doing violence to their conscience; but on the test against transubstantiation there could be no doubt at all. As to the oath of Supremacy, it was the same substantially as that now to be taken by the Catholics. His conviction was, that if they could be prevailed on to take the oath of Supremacy, the most weighty objection of all would be removed. The oath as it was originally, or as now modified, was substantially the same. If it could not be disputed that the words of the oath guarded against all mental reservation and equivocation, he did not see that any solid objection could be taken to the clause. He could state positively, that a considerable number of Catholics did take the oath of Supremacy at the late election. After some observations on the power of the pope and the oath of Supremacy, the noble lord said, that nothing ought to interfere to prevent all classes of subjects from paying an undivided allegiance; and above all, they ought to get rid of that bugbear which had had so unhappy an effect upon the public mind during the last century, and which had made the country subject to so much false alarm and unmanly apprehension. They ought now to adopt that wiser as well as more liberal plan, which, instead of separating a large class of the community from the rest of their fellow-subjects in political sentiment and situation, would give the Catholic an interest in the state,
1445
The committee divided: For the Clause, 230; Against it, 216: Majority, 14. The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 26, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY BILL.]
The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill. The clause respecting the Declaration of Transubstantiation being read,
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that he had always looked upon the declaration against transubstantiation as an insurmountable barrier to protect the constitution against Catholics. He would not say that if this bill passed there would be an end to the constitution; but he would say, that if this bill passed they must, injustice to the Catholics, repeal the Corporation and test acts, and then indeed there would be an end to the constitution. He recollected the evils which England had suffered under Catholic domination and trembled at the repeal of laws which provided against their recurrence. It was in vain to talk of general satisfaction with these bills, when, before two stages were gone through, the higher order of the Catholic clergy were protesting against them. He was ready to give the Catholics full credit for an unabated attachment to their religion; but he must be allowed to say it was a religion of absurdity. The best proof of its intolerance would be found in the fashionable new Spanish constitution. This measure was introduced in a vain and false spirit of liberality; and they had now the clearest proof that they could never satisfy the Catholics, without violating the constitution. He had no objection to let Catholic counsel have silk gowns, though he could not suffer them upon the bench. But how would that benefit the great bulk of the people?
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, contended, that the religion of Roman Catholics of live present day was not of that intolerant character which the hon. baronet attributed to it. He had seen marriages in Ireland between Roman Catholics and Protestants: he had been the Roman Catholic wife bringing up her child in the religion of her Protestant husband. The argument which Dr. Milner and his friends were so fond of putting in the front of their battle was,
1446
The clause was agreed to.—Upon the reading of the third clause, that nothing in this act should extend to repeal any of the laws in force respecting the Protestant succession to the throne, the uniformity of public prayers, or the administration of the sacraments in the united episcopal church of England and Ireland,
Mr. Bankes
rose to make his promised motion, for the insertion of a clause in addition to the above, providing that nothing in tins act should extend to dispense with or repeal any of the laws now in force, excluding Catholics from sitting or voting in both houses of parliament. There were, he was aware, two parties to whom he had to address himself; one who thought that the measure should be unaccompanied by any qualifications or restrictions; and another, which formed, he hoped, the larger party in that House, who combined with a wish to make every due concession to the Catholics, a desire to obtain adequate securities for the maintenance of the Protestant establishment. Upon the former of these parties, he could not flatter himself with being able to make any impression, and therefore he had only to request their indulgence. But he begged the particular attention of the latter, while he stated the grounds of his motion; because he felt that if the bill were passed into a law, without the provision which he had to submit, all the other restrictions or securities which might be provided would prove utterly nugatory; for if such a degree of political power were put into the hands of the Catholics as this bill proposed, it would be quite absurd to suppose that they would not act upon the maxims and principles which bad always characterised the professors of that religion, or that they would not use this power for the purpose especially of repealing any restrictions disagreeable to their clergy. He was glad to find that the right hon. baronet who had undertaken the patronage of these two bills was disposed to propose, that the bill of Securities should be engrafted upon that for Concession. This, he thought, ought to have been the case from the beginning, in order to guard against the danger of having the concessions passed without those securities, against, which it appeared that some of the Catholic clergy and others, who had a lead among the
1447
1448
1449
1450
Mr. Calcraft
said, that having never before ventured to deliver his opinions upon this subject, he begged leave to trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the House. He had not abstained from addressing the House, because he did not strongly and anxiously feel its great importance, but because he had always seen it in such able hands, as suppressed any wish on his part to offer his sentiments to the House. He confessed, that he was one of those who considered the principle of restraint as of very little consequence; for if he looked only to the obligatory power of enactments; he should think that they had a very slender hold upon the powerful body of the Roman Catholics. When he knew, however, that the Catholics were governed by the same passions and interests as ourselves—that they were men who possessed a great stake in the country—and that they were as sincerely attached as the Protestant part of the community to all that was most valuable in the institutions of the country, he looked to those considerations rather than to any legislative enactments as the best security against the fancied dangers of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman had said, that if the Catholics were admitted into parliament, they would immediately unite and overturn the whole Protestant power of this country. But, did the hon. gentleman really believe that the Protestants were grown so indifferent to the established religion, and had so little regard for all the national institutions, as to stand tamely by and see them overturned by a small
1451
The Speaker
said, he thought it right to express his sentiments on the present occasion, and to state the reasons which led him to oppose those from whom he had the misfortune to differ on the present occasion He would endeavour to Confine himself to the clause now before the committee, and abstain from going generally into the merits of the bill. He
1452
1453
1454
Mr. Canning
said, he agreed with those honourable members who considered this as the most important point of the bill. He agreed that it was that of which, if refused, the refusal would take much from the value of any other concessions, and of which, if conceded, the concession would enhance greatly their importance. He agreed that it was a point, the granting of which would form the key-stone, of that arch which they were erecting, and complete that incorporation of interests which was the object of those who took part in promoting this bill. [Hear, hear, hear!] He agreed, at the same time, that they who, with him, contended for the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament, were not entitled, from any previous
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
l.
l.
1465
1466
Mr. Bright
apprehended that the absence of restrictions might be followed by the same dangerous consequences which had in former times attended the free exercise of the Roman Catholic faith. He thought himself justified, upon every principle of the British constitution, in opposing the bill, and should vote for the amendment.
Mr. Hart Davis
also gave his support to the amendment. He did not believe if the bill were passed, that the Catholics would cease to demand farther concessions; and thought that the removal of the existing restrictions would be attended with danger to the Protestant succession.
Sir T. Acland
said, he entertained the most sincere conviction, that the only issue of the present question which could be favourable to the interests either of Catholic or Protestant, was that for which he intended to vote. He could by no means agree with the hon. member for Corfe-castle, that Catholics, if admitted into parliament, would aim at measures dangerous to the Protestant establishment. In support of his opinion, he would state to the House a fact. At the time when the Test act was sent from the Commons to the Lords, a Catholic peer, the earl of Bristol, was found to advocate that very bill which excluded from office persons of his religion. The argument of the earl of Bristol upon that occasion was, that he was bound to address the House, not as a member of the church of Rome, but as a member of a Protestant parliament; and that although there were some particular points of the bill to which he, as a Catholic, could not conscientiously give his assent, yet he could not but advise the House, as a Protestant House of Parliament, to pass it. There was one other circumstance which the hon. bart, felt it his duty to press upon the House. Every man must feel that the question was a growing question, and one which would eventually succeed. He would ask those gentlemen who apprehended danger from the admission of Catholics to seats in the Houses of Parliament, whether that danger was likely to be lessened by keeping back that which must be eventually conceded.
Sir F. Blake
strongly advocated the claims of the Catholics. The boon they asked ought to have been granted twenty
1467
Mr. Grattan
said, he dissented most decidedly from the amendment as being calculated to destroy all the spirit of that measure which, at length, was making rapid progress in the House. He feared that many who opposed the measure were adverse to the claims of the Catholics altogether; that they looked to that body, not as it was, but as it had been; that they had a horror of the Catholics of former times, and extended that feeling to the Catholics of the present day. He did think that the hon. member for Corfecastle had failed to make out such a case against the Irish Catholics as should disqualify them from holding seats in parliament. He did believe that the peace, the harmony, the social feeling of the people of- Ireland, depended upon the result of the measure before the House. Catholics-in the Irish parliament had been found to deserve well of their country. He could not but deplore the system under which, at the present day, Ireland was governed—a system, the tendency of which was, to engender party feeling, to tie a man's success rather to his creed than to his character; to give ascendency to one individual, dependency to another, and liberty to neither. He did believe that the good sense and the good feeling of the gentlemen of Ireland counteracted, in a great measure, the ill effect of the existing system; and that the inhabitants, Catholic and Protestant, had but one object—the improvement of their country. Still the code under which they lived was not the less objectionable. He trusted that the present system would soon terminate, as the evils of it were greater than any persons unacquainted with them could possibly imagine. The hon. member then took a review of the measures which had been enacted both against and in favour of the Catholics from the earliest period of their history down to the present time; and asserted that by such a review he had clearly proved his assertion. He implored the House to allow the present bill to pass; as by so doing its inestimable benefit would be conferred upon Ireland, and peace, harmony, and good-will, would be restored among its inhabitants. Whatever differences of opinion might exist among the Catholics at present he was certain that the day was
1468
The committee divided: For Mr. Bankes's Amendment, 211. Against it 223: Majority, 12. The Chairman reported progress; and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 27, 1821.
NAPLES.]
Lord Ellenborough
rose for the purpose of moving an address to his majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to offer his mediation to the emperor of Austria and the governments of Naples and Sardinia, with a View to bring about an amicable adjustment of their differences, consistently with the honour of all parties. When the noble marquis (Lansdown) near him had submitted a motion On the affairs of Naples some time ago, he (lord E.) had then expressed an apprehension, that at no distant period Austria herself might wish for the interference of this country, to enable her to retire from the contest with honour. That moment, as it appeared to him, was now arrived; and he called on their lordships to place this country in the proud situation of acting as mediator between the belligerent powers, and arresting the progress of a contest which might extend itself to other countries. It appeared to him that they were called upon to interpose at that moment, because it was the first moment when their mediation could be offered with effect. Whatever opinions he might entertain with respect to the conduct of Austria, and of the allied powers generally, he would observe the greatest moderation in what he should address to their lordships when speaking of those powers, and particularly of Austria herself. For, however he might lament and disapprove of her present policy, he was bound to acknowledge the great services she had rendered to the whole of Europe. He could not avoid recollecting her conduct in 1805 and the zeal with which she sprung forward when this country was threatened with invasion; he also recollected her conduct in 1809, when she seized the first moment of hope, and exerted herself for the expulsion of the French from Spain; and lastly, he remembered her faith and loyalty in 1813, which led to the successes of Europe and
1469
1470
1471
1472
The Earl of Aberdeen
opposed the motion. There were, he observed, many difficulties attached to the course recommended by the noble lord. In the first place, it was known that the king of Naples had issued a proclamation, calling upon his subjects to receive the Austrians as friends, and not as enemies; and it was far from being desirable that this country should place itself in the situation of judge between the king of Naples and the persons now exercising the government neither was it to be presumed, that the king's authority was so far gone, or that of the Carbonari so firmly established, as to render it certain that the proclamation would not be eventually obeyed. By adopting the motion, they would be guilty of that interference which was directly opposite to the course which they professed to follow. But supposing they had got over that difficulty, the noble lord had not explained very distinctly the manner in which he would have the mediation proposed. Did he mean to offer terms of perfect equality to both parties? The duty of a mediator was not that of a judge; but the motion looked rather like a sharp remonstrance to Austria than a moderate interference. In fact, it was impossible to preserve the cool spirit of mediation between two powers, under a belief that an unwarrantable aggression had been committed upon one side: That the character of a peace maker became a great country like this, he did not deny, but there should be some probability of success to warrant such an interference, and the only case in which they could have any chance of success was, where both parties were desirous of mediation. The noble lord had thrown out a species of threat, that if Austria did not consent, this country should recall the prohibition to its officers against joining the Neapolitans. Whether that prohibition was wise or not, every reason that made in favour of it, in the first instance, was still in full force; but did the noble lord think that the mere circumstance of granting permission to a few officers would have the effect of changing the
1473
The motion was put, and negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, March 27, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY RE-MOVAL BILL.]
1474
On the order of day for going into a committee on the Bill sir J. Newport moved an Instruction to the committee "That they have power to make provision for regulating, the intercourse between Persons in Holy Orders, professing the Roman Catholic Religion with the See of Rome."
Mr. Hutchinson
declared himself to be hostile to the Intercourse bill, and stated that the Catholic clergy were by no means satisfied with it.
Mr. Carew
stated, that he had received letters from several most respectable Catholics in Ireland expressive of the satisfaction which they felt at the bill.
Mr. M. Filzgerald
said, he strongly objected to any interference of a Protestant government over the administration of the Catholic Church. As a Protestant he felt objections to that interference or constitutional grounds, as strongly as a Catholic could feel against it or grounds of faith.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Mr. Peel
rose to propose the amendments of which he had given notice The nature of his proposition was, to extend the exceptions of the bill to the privy council and to judicial offices. The House had last night pronounced its opinion, that the Catholics ought to be admitted to sit in both Houses 6f parliament. He did not stand there to impugn that decision—he bowed to it. But he would take the benefit of an admission which was made last night, namely, that the clause for admitting Catholics to parliament was the main objects of the bill; that the failure of that clause would render other parts of the bill or less valued but that the success of that clause would make other exceptions of minor importance. As the bill now stood, an alteration had been effected: in the exclusively Protestant character, of both House of Parliament since the Revolution. It still, however, left untouched the securities provided for the third estate; namely he inviolability of the Protestant succession to the throne of these realms? The ace for securing the succession excluded Papists from the throne, and fenced round the rights and dignities of the established church. It went fat ther—it not only required that the succession to the throne Should not be a papist, nut that he should forfeit his right of succession if he married a Catholic. To whom, then,
1475
1476
1477
Sir John Newport
said, that many members of the Scotch church were also members of the privy council. How, then, was the argument of the right hon. gentleman made out, that because the sovereign and his wife were not to be of the church of Rome, therefore his ministers and councillors must all be of the church establishment? Tim inference was destroyed by the fact, that members of the church of Scotland were allowed to but the advisers of the Crown. This was the only case in which the British constitution rendered the sovereign responsible. He was liable to the loss or his Crown if he became a Papist. If it were meant to limit and restrain the sovereign in the choice of his privy councilors, why not say so at once? and the exclusion might in time extend even to particular individuals. As to the oath of the privy Councillor, it ought to be recollected that it was statutable: and when the special Wording of it was relied upon, the right hon. gentlemen seemed to have forgotten that it was framed and enacted before the Reformation. It was riot very creditable to this Protestant country, that it should exhibit such intolerance, while Catholic countries set it such an example of enlightened liberality. Abroad, differences of religion created no invidious distinction; and it was worthy of remark, that at the present moment we had a Protest-
1478
Sir J. Nicholl
declared, that he, meant, nothing offensive to the Catholics, when he stated it to be his opinion that their exclusion from the degree of political power which they sought, was inconsistent with the safety of a state which was essentially, fundamentally, and per-
1479
Lord Castlereagh
said, that whatever parliament might now grant, he would, as far as his power extended, endeavour to carry into effect; and he would use Ins best efforts to induce the Catholics to receive with gratitude, the boon which it might please the legislature to bestow. If parliament thought fit, it was doubtless in its power to surround the measure with various qualifications; but if those qualifications had the tendency to keep alive a Catholic question in the country, and to destroy that conciliatory temper which now prevailed, he should be betraying the interests of the cause he professed to advocate, if he were to give up the ground he had previously taken, and adopt a proceeding which must have the effect of protracting this long-agitated question The two great principles on which his learned friend had argued the subject were; first, the question of safety with reference to the Protestant churchy and, next, the number of Catholics who, under this measure, would get into power Every one would go along with his learned friend, in admitting that one of the fundamental foundations
1480
1481
1482
Mr. Wetherell
argued, that the promoters of the bill, having acknowledged the ineligibility of Catholics to judicial situations, connected with ecclesiastical functions, would be guilty of inconsistency, if they did not follow up their principle by excluding them also from offices of temporal judicature, on the ground that the temporal courts took cognizance of many matters of an ecclesiastical nature. Besides, there were duties which the temporal judges had to perform, that a Catholic could not discharge. He could not, for instance, sit in the court of Delegates, upon appeals in spiritual matters, nor could he act as a coadjutor in the ecclesiastical courts. The supporters of the bill were also guilty of an absurdity in allowing Catholics to be eligible to the situations of privy councillors, and yet making it a misdemeanor in them to advise the sovereign upon matters of ecclesiastical
1483
Sir James Mackintosh
agreed with the right hon. mover, that anomalies were not objections in the formation of a scheme of religious government. Upon such a subject it was almost impossible to reduce legislation to a symmetrical form. He took the present question to be altogether a question of compromise, of degree, of the arrangement of opposing feelings and inconveniences—a question upon which it became impossible to follow any one principle to its utmost logical consequence. The learned member had laid great stress upon the difficulty of enforcing the provision against advice to the sovereign from Catholic privy councillors in matters of ecclesiastical interest. The learned member asked, how was the giver of such advice to be detected. The question reminded him of a brief dialogue between the republic of Venice and the see of Rome. The republic of Venice once asked—where was the original deed of conveyance by which the keys of Heaven was vested in the disposal of the pope? To which his holiness replied, that it was upon the back of that instrument which gave the Adriatic sea to the dominion of the doge. Now, he would tell the learned gentleman how the advice which the Catholic privy councillor gave to his sovereign might be known, if he would only inform him how the advice which any other privy councillor gave was to be ascertained. It was stated, that the country had once undergone great dangers, from having a king who listened to Catholic advisers; but it should be recollected, that there was then no exclusion of a Catholic king; and yet the country had proved too strong both for king and ministers, when they entertained designs subversive of the religion of the state, and the liberties of the people. But what would be the consequence of admitting Catholics to seats in parliament, and yet excluding them from the situation of privy councilors? Why to introduce new principles into parliament. In the
1484
1485
The committee divided: For the Amendrment,169; Against it, 188: Majority 19.
Mr. Goulburn
then rose to propose an amendment, which he flattered himself would meet, with the general concurrence
1486
1487
1488
1489
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 120; Against it, 163; Majority, 43.—The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, March 28, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Bill,
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that as the House had come to that stage when the enactments respecting the Roman Catholic clergy were to be considered, it became his duty to speak his opinion respecting them. Though he might offend some of the friends of the measure by the warm expression of his feeling, he assured them that nothing could be more foreign to his intention than to change the tone of the debate. He had been surrounded by several friends, deprecating the line which he had intended to pursue; he had received anonymous letters, cautioning him as to the injury he might do to the mea sure, and one even assuring him that he would injure his individual interest in the great city which he had the honour to represent. As to the latter threat, he had always assured the Catholics that he had never conceived himself entitled to their peculiar thanks, and that in supporting their claims, he felt he was supporting the interests and strength of the empire. Now, though he felt gratitude for the temper in which the present measure had been discussed by the opponents of the Catholics, and, though lie approved of the bill for removing disabilities, he must deprecate the enactments, which were called securities, with which it was now to be accompanied. He thought it right that the House should not call for any securities: it was his firm conviction that they were not necessary; but if they were necessary, were there no others to be
1490
ex post facto
ex post facto
1491
Lord Castlereagh
was at a loss to know on what grounds the hon. gentleman would represent this measure, as harsh or derogatory, or why, in the discharge of his duty, he had given so odious a view of it. He could not regard the character of these clauses as penal in a high degree; indeed, scarcely as penal at all. They were rather, he contended, clauses of liberation; and gave an existence to them which they never had enjoyed before. Formerly the Catholic clergy of Ireland, and, strictly speaking, at the present moment, in their communications with the see of Rome, were in the constant habit of incurring penalties under the existing law, which might effect, not only their personal security, but their lives. He therefore looked at this as a measure of indulgence rather, which permitted that intercourse, with the sole provision of observing the terms of a certain oath, which being done, the communication became, in a measure, legalized instead of an offence. He contended, that it was the duty of the House to pass this measure without consulting the particular sentiments of individual clergymen, if members entertained, with himself, a conscientious belief of the beneficial advantages it would confer. He had the authority of the head, of the Catholic church for saying, that there was no solidity in the objection taken on the other side: thus he was legislating with the pope at his back [a laugh.] The general practice of
1492
Dr. Phillimore
spoke in favour of the proposed securities, because, among other reasons, the faith of the House was pledged to enact those securities in conjunction with the bill of Concession; therefore, if the one were rejected, he should feel himself bound to vote against the latter.
Mr. Peel
adverted to what was called the irritation and unpopularity excited among the Catholics, in consequence of the proposed securities; and begged it to be understood, that no part of that irritation or unpopularity could be ascribed to him, or to those who had acted with him upon this subject, as they had nothing to do in proposing or framing such provisions. Those provisions, indeed, originated solely with the advocates for concession. At the same time, he thought it right to say, that the party with whom he had the honour to act, was not at all disposed to make common cause with such objections as had been urged that night against the provisions alluded to, or to obstruct the measure under consideration, by contributing to excite irritation against it, upon such grounds as had been stated.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
argued, that while the House endeavoured to satisfy the alarms of the Protestant, it ought to take care not to trench upon the feelings, consciences, or even prejudices, of the Catholic. His objection to the oath in the bill was, that in the present measure no benefit was conferred on the clergy; while a security was demanded from them for a privilege granted to the laity. In the present deserted state of Ireland, deprived of its resident nobility and gentry, many parts of the country depended for tranquillity upon the unbought zeal and good principles of the Catholic clergy. With regard to the nomination to Catholic benefices, he was decidedly hostile to any
1493
Mr. Canning
felt himself called upon to declare, that unless the securities proposed were acceded to, he could not reconcile it to his sense of duty to vote for the enactment of the concessions. The Protestants, by agreeing to those concessions, had sacrificed much of interest, as well as of prejudice, and, was the House to be told that the Catholics would not in return sacrifice any thing? But it was clearly understood from the outset of these measures, that both should be adopted for the purpose of satisfying the Protestant as well as the Catholic; and was it possible to suppose that, after the measure of concession had made such progress, it could be seriously intended or desired to violate that understanding by opposing the measure of securities? If any man could meditate such a step, he was sure that failure must be his fate: for who could be found to sanction an attempt to deprive the Protestant of that price which it was agreed he should be paid for conceding to the wishes of the Catholic? For his own part, he trusted that the conduct which he had uniformly pursued with regard to this measure, placed him above the suspicion of participating in the slightest degree in such an act of treachery. He had done enough, he hoped, to prove that he was most sincerely desirous of effecting the emancipation of his Catholic fellow-subjects from the restrictions under which they laboured; but, if a successful attempt should be made to detach from the bill those clauses, which would have the effect of reconciling the Protestant part of the community to the measure, from that moment, with the same hearty sincerity with which he had sacrificed every consideration to do justice to the Catholics, he would altogether reject the bill, which, passed in that mutilated state, would be a fraud upon the Protestants.
Sir G. Hill
said; that if lie were really disposed to procure the rejection of the measure, he thought he could not more effectually promote such an object than
1494
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, said, that if there was one county in Ireland more likely than another to return a Catholic representative to that House, it was the county he represented. That consideration, however, would not prevent him from supporting both the bills.
Mr. Baring
said, that, in his opinion, it would be better not to insist upon the oath being taken by those at present in holy orders. There might he many conscientious persons, by whom it might be considered as a severe penalty; but the same argument would not apply to those who might take up holy orders in future, because they would then take them with a knowledge that they would be afterwards obliged to conform to the present act.
Mr. S. Rice
expressed his conviction that the feeling of all the well-disposed Catholic population of Ireland was favourable to the bill. The hon. member read a letter from a Catholic of the highest character, in which the Catholics were stated to be thankful to the legislature for the kind concessions which were extended to them. He should support the second bill, not because he apprehended danger from the Catholics, but because he wished to remove the fears and apprehensions of the Protestants.
Mr. P. Moore
said, he had been engaged in a very extensive correspondence
1495
Colonel Bagwell
was convinced that the; measure would be gratefully received by the Catholics of Ireland, and that it would promote the tranquillity and security of the country.
The bill then went through the committee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, March 29, 1821.
NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.]
Mr. Hume
rose to move for an account of the expenses of the detention of Buonapaté at St. Helena. If it were right to detain Napoleon at all, he would contend, that, in the present financial contend, that, in the present financial difficulties of the country, he might be safely detained at one-tenth of the present expense. He had an estimate of those expenses for 1819, and he was not aware of any reduction since. It amounted to considerably more than 400,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not mean t object to the motion; and when the House had the papers before
1496
Sir R. Wilson
said, that as this was the first opportunity Which presented itself since he had been in that House, for alluding to the subject of Buonaparté's confinement, he wished to avail himself of it for entering his most solemn protest against that act [A laugh]. Hon. gentlemen might laugh, but he was speaking the sentiments of every generous man in Europe. His detention was contrary to every feeling of generosity and humanity, if they considered how he was separated from his family, and even from his infant child. It was the more ungenerous, when we considered that he had put himself voluntarily under our protection. He (sir R. Wilson) had it from an individual who made him the offer of taking him to America, that he refused, because he preferred throwing himself upon the good faith of England. If he had not done this, he might have escaped, for the vessel in which he was offered to be conveyed afterwards, arrived safe in America. The conduct which had. been subsequently pursued towards him was a national dishonour: and if ever France should regain her freedom, although she would never receive him as her sovereign, yet he was convinced that she would not suffer him to be detained in his present situation.
Mr. Croker
denied that this country had been guilty of the slightest breach of faith. It was a well-known fact, that the night before Napoleon surrendered himself, he held a council of war, or rather of safety, in which the question was discussed, whether Napoleon had any possible chance of escape? It was decided that he had not. Napoleon, who judged with caution, saw no means of safety but in surrendering himself to a British officer. He surrendered himself with reluctance. When he came on board the English vessel, he was told that no treaty could be made with him, and that he must wait the final determination of the English government. If the hon. member should bring the question before the House in.-a more formal shape, he would prove, to the satisfaction of the House, that Napoleon had been fairly hunted into the toils, and that the honour of the country throughout the whole of the transaction was free from reproach.
Mr. Hume
said, that he thought the
1497
Mr. Hutchinson
expressed his decided disapprobation of the detention of Buonaparté. It was disgraceful to this country? that she should be made the gaoler of the allied powers; not for any object having the security of the state in view, but evidently in furtherance of those despotic principles which were avowed by the Holy Alliance.
The motion was agreed to.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
On the order of the day for bringing up the report of this bill,
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he should postpone his opposition to the bill; until the third reading, when he hoped it would be seriously discussed. He was informed that the measure was disagreeable to the Catholics of Ireland, and he could not see how they could be contented with that part which had formed the second separate bill.
Mr. Abercromby
regretted that the hon. baronet had not been in his place upon a former night; for in that case he would have heard a succession of Irish members bearing testimony to the general satisfaction which the measure gave to the loyal and intelligent Irish Catholics. It no doubt would give dissatisfaction to others; for it would reduce some who possessed an unworthy desire of power to a state of deserved insignificance.
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, said, he had several letters from leading Catholics, expressing themselves satisfied with whatever the House should agree to on this subject; and also their confidence that the clergy would be finally reconciled to it. He understood that Mr. O'Connell, who wished to get up an aggregate meeting in Dublin, could not get nine persons to sign the requisition. Mr. O'Connell might naturally regard the measure with no particular anxiety, as he might feel convinced that if it rained offices as thick as bail, one would never Tall on his head.
The report having been read,
Mr. Croker
rose to propose a clause to which he had already called the attention of the House, with regard to a provision for the Catholic clergy. From the manner in which this proposition was received,
1498
ad idem
1499
Lord Castlereagh
rose to express a strong doubt as to the propriety of the course which his hon. friend was pursuing. No individual could feel more deeply than himself the expediency of following up the bills before the House, by some such measure as that which his hon. friend was desirous of effecting; but the question was, whether this was the proper moment for proposing it? He had no doubt that, if the subject were brought forward at the seasonable moment, it would meet with that general concurrence, which would afford the best pledge to the Catholic clergy of the desire of parliament to contribute to their comfort. The motion was inadequate to its object; for it could only be rendered effective through a recommendation from the Crown. If the clause proposed to be brought up were now agreed to, the measure could not be final; for they would still have to determine the scale of expenditure. So far from forwarding the object in view the proposition would have the effect of placing-the measure in a retrograde position. Besides, it would
1500
Mr. Hutchinson
deprecated the introduction of the measure at any time, without a perfect understanding: between the Catholic clergy and the government.
Mr. Croker
said, that his object was, in a great measure, gained, by the admission of the principle which he proposed; and therefore, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw it.
The clause was then withdrawn, and the report agreed to.
TIMBER DUTIES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Timber Duties acts,
Mr. Wallace
called its attention to the report of the committee on the Timber Duties, and said he had now to propose such resolutions as from that report the commercial interests of the country appeared to require. It was known to the House, that previously to 1809, a supply of timber was obtained almost exclusively from the north of Europe. Subsequently the supply was partly obtained from the north of Europe, and partly from our North American colonies. It was impossible to look at this subject without perceiving, that in the course of no very long time, if the present system was continued, one of the two must become predominant, and the other completely annihilated. The annual importation of timber, from 1803 to 1806 from the north of Europe, was as follows:—Fir timber 218,857 loads; deals 45,938. From 1816 to 1819, there had been a great diminution in the annual imports from the North. Their amount was—Fir timber 93,659 loads; deals 21,824. On, both, it would be seen that the reduction considerably
1501
l.
1502
l.
s.
1503
Lord Althorp
contended, that the Canada trade, was an immense tax upon this country, and seemed to be kept up for the purpose of working ships which were unfit for any other service. The policy pursued was quite at variance with true commercial principles. The fair course would be, to lay a duty of 50
s.
s.
Mr. Marryat
said:—I cannot agree to the resolutions proposed, and still less to the improvements upon them suggested by the noble lord; because one of them, so far from being founded on the evidence given before the committee, is in direct opposition to that evidence. Another objection which weighs very strongly on my mind, as well against the resolutions as some passages of the report itself, is, that both of them betray too great a leaning to the principles laid down in the petition of certain merchants of this metropolis, presented last session, which called upon this House to take off "all duties merely protective against foreign competition." In conformity to this doctrine, it is now proposed to diminish the protection hitherto given to our colonies
1504
1505
1506
s.
d.
s.
1507
s.
d.
s.
d.
1508
1509
1510
l.,
l.
may
must.
1511
l.
l.
s.,
s.
d.,
s.
s.
s.
d.
1512
s.
s
The resolutions were then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, March 30, 1821.
CAPITAL CRIMES DEFENCE BILL.]
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, in moving the second reading of this bill, observed, that there could be no doubt of the broad principle, that a prisoner charged with any offence ought to have the same means of defence that the prosecutor had of attack. In treason, the prisoner was allowed counsel; but not in the crime next in degree, capital felony. It had been said, that the court was always counsel for the prisoner. On the contrary, he contended, not only that they were not, so, but that they ought not, and could not be so. Again, adverting to the trial of Bellingham, he maintained, that the failure of Bellingham to obtain a postponement of his trial, on an affidavit stating the necessary absence of a material witness, was attributable to his not having counsel to enforce his claim. The hon. member proceeded to state the circumstances of the apprehension of an Irishman for supposed burglary, and his trial at Croydon, in support of his argument as to the justice of affording prisoners charged with capital offences counsel in all cases, and concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
The Solicitor General
felt great reluctance in opposing the motion; because he had no doubt that the hon. member intended to confer a benefit on those unhappy persons who were charged with capital offences. From his experience in courts of justice, he took upon himself to declare, that the proposition would operate greatly to the prejudice of those persons. As to the circumstances of Bellingham's trial, they would in no way have been altered, even had the bill proposed by the hon. member, been in existence; for when an application, for delay, founded on an affidavit, was made in a capital case, counsel were always heard for the
1513
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he was al-way ready to admit that the general proceedings of courts of justice in this country were irreproachable; but he was surprised that his learned friend should have argued this question as if the proposed bill were one which had been tried, and had operated unfavourably for a prisoner. His learned friend well knew that, before the statute of William, allowing counsel in cases of treason, the law refused counsel to prisoners in all criminal cases. The statute of William was the first good fruit which grew out of the Revolution. Its benefit was universally felt as a safeguard for the subject; and he was at a loss to conceive why the same advantage which accrued to a prisoner in cases of treason, out of this privilege, would not also be felt in the same manner in other cases. It was remarkable that all the arguments used by his learned friend against the motion, had been used at the time of the passing of the statute of William. He rather
1514
Sir J. Yorke
said, that an objection occurred to him, upon the score of time. If two counsel were allowed on each side upon every case, it might not be unfair to suppose that counsellor Bore'em on the one and counsellor Bother'em on the other, would each speak for two hours, and this taking the number of cases, at 3,000, would amount to 12,000 hours annually.
The Attorney General
said, that if it could be shown that the innocent had suffered, or that justice had not been ad ministered because prisoners were not al lowed counsel, he would be ready to sup port the bill; but all persons conversant with the subject, were aware, that every assistance was afforded to prisoners upon their defence. If the bill were to be en tertained upon theoretical grounds, he knew not where the principle could stop. Trial by jury might be abolished upon theory; for certainly nothing at the first view appeared so repugnant to reason as to say, that twelve men should be unanimous in. every case of justice. It was found, however, that the system worked well in practice.
The motion, that the bill be read a second time, was negatived.
ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the order-of the day for going into a committee of supply,
Mr. Hume
said, that as the House was about to resolve itself into a committee of supply, in which the Army Estimates were to be considered, he felt it his duty to
1515
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he had now to propose a motion, on which he should take the sense of the House, and he intreated them to consider how much the salaries of offices had been increased since 1797. There was not an individual who was hot aware of the causes of the increase. The motion which he should submit to the House went to pledge them to revise all salaries which bad been increased since 1797. He then moved, as an amendment, That the progressive increase of Salaries
1516
Lord Palmerston
said, that the amendment referred not only to the estimates which were to come before them, but to every department of the state. It would be improper, therefore, to adopt so sweeping a proposition in reference to a particular question, instead of having a regular discussion on it after proper notice. The amendment, too, affirmed one thing, of which he was utterly ignorant, namely, that a metallic currency had been established; Preparations, indeed, had been made for establishing it. As to prices, agricultural: produce had for some time been low, but1-house-rent, wearing apparel, and manufactures in general, were still as high as they had been.
Mr. Baring
said, that nothing could be more proper, than that, before they proceeded to vote money, they should lay down reasons for doing so. The hon. gentleman, who was never to be named without gratitude, for his efforts in throwing light on the enormous expenditure of the country, had put before them, in a distinct shape, that which was universally admitted, namely, that salaries had been increased on account of the depreciation of the currency, and that now that the currency was brought back to its old standard, the House should reconsider those salaries. Yet, when the House was called upon to recognise this principle, they were told, that going into a committee of supply was not the time. The remark of the noble lord, that we had not-yet gone back to a metallic standard, was rather hypercritical. On the 1st of May, they might get gold at the Bank at the rate of 3
l.
s.
d.;
9s.
1517
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that the object of the hon. member might be better attained, by making specific propositions on the separate estimates, than by calling upon the House to come to a general sweeping resolution.
The House divided: For the Amendment, 29; Against it, 50.
List of the Minority.
Bury, lord
Lennard, B. T.
Butterworth, J.
Martin, J.
Boughey, sir J.
Monk, J. B.
Baring, A.
Price, R.
Bennet, R.
Parnell, sir H.
Creevey, F.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Crawley, S.
Ricardo, D.
Crompton, S.
Smith, W.
Davis, col.
Williams, R.
Evans, W.
Williams, O.
Fergusson, sir R.
Whitmore, T.
Gordon, R.
Winnington, sir T.
Hornby, E.
Western, C. C.
Heron, sir R.
TELLERS.
Harbord, hon. E.
Hume, J.
Johnson, col.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, lord Palmerston moved, "That 105,943
l.
s
d.
Mr. Hume
objected to the amount of this vote. With regard to the allowance to the commander in chief, he considered it enormous, and disproportionate to the distressed circumstances of the country. From 1794, up to 1815, the pay of the commander in chief was only 9 guineas a day. It was now increased to 16
l.
s.
l.
1518
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l
l.
1519
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the question upon which he was at issue with the hon. member was rather a question of principle, than a question of detail; for unless he could show that the principles upon which the military establishment of the country was conducted in 1792, were applicable to the present times, it was futile to compare the details of the present expenditure with those of 1792. Now, he contended, that the military system of 1792, instead of being a guide to direct their course, was rather a beacon to avoid. It was extremely unfit even for the period at which it existed; still less was it applicable to the present state of Europe. Our army in 1792, taking it in the aggregate, and without reference to the courage and character of the officers and men, was one of the worst appointed armies in Europe. Great improvements
1520
Colonel Davies
bore testimony to the obligations of the army, and of the country in general, to the services of the illustrious person at the head of the military establishment. He was, however, convinced, that a considerable saving might be made in our military establishment; if not to the extent stated by his hon. friend. The commander-in-chief and staff in Ireland, he thought, should be reduced, which would save about 4,000
l.
1521
l.
l.
Mr.J. Smith
said, he should have been much more satisfied with the amendment, if it had proposed a smaller reduction. He was ready to acknowledge the benefits which had accrued to the nation from the exertions of our gallant army; but in these times, when even the public creditor was alarmed, it was necessary that every practicable saving should be made, and that no person should be employed by the state whose services were not absolutely necessary.
Mr. Hume,
in consequence of a feeling expressed by his hon. friends around him, wished to withdraw his amendment, and to substitute another in its place, proposing a reduction of 10,000
l.
l.
l.
s
d
Sir H. Parnell
thought that the appointment of a separate commander of the forces for Ireland, with the staff by which that officer stood surrounded, was a measure of blameable expense. The duty might be perfectly well performed by an officer having the rank of lieutenant-general, and such an alteration would be attended with a considerable saving. The whole establishment of Ireland was formed upon an Extravagant scale, for there were more general officers employed to command 20,000 men in that country, than sufficed for 27,000 in England. He concluded by proposing to reduce the grant to 20,479
l.
1522
Lord Palmerston
said, that a commander of the forces in Ireland was indispensable. When they considered the distance between Dublin and this metropolis, it would be seen that the delay and inconvenience of correspondence would be subversive of order and discipline, it then became a question, how the office of commander of the forces was to be remunerated. The committee would see, that the individual who held it was subjected to heavy expenses, in consequence of being obliged to receive the very best company at his table, and that the various other duties of his office led him into large expenditures.
Mr. Hume
maintained, that the establishments of Ireland might be reduced without inconvenience to the service. They exceeded, past all reason, the corresponding establishments of this country.
Mr. O'Grady
said, it was not against the effective force of the army, but against the superfluous offices attached to it that he directed his opposition. The commander of the forces in Ireland and the adjutant-generals and their assistants appeared to him to be kept up at an unnecessary expense, and he should, therefore, vote for their abolition.
Mr. Grant
observed, that if they were to have a court in Ireland they must countenance the appointment of high offices in order to support its dignity. The hon. baronet had suggested last year that the office of lord lieutenant might be abolished—a suggestion that had excited considerable alarm in Ireland.
The committee divided: For the amendment, 53; Against it, 140.
On the resolution, That 28,883
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the expense of maintaining this establishment. The amount which annually passed through the pay-master's hands was from six to ten millions, and it cost the country 28,000
l.
l.
l.
1523
l.,
l.
l.
Sir C. Long
entered into a description of the duties attached to the office in peace and war, and contended that, from the nature of those duties, it was impossible they could be performed by the Bank. He stated the expense of the establishment, from 1792 to the present time, for the purpose of showing that, since he was connected with the office, much had been done in the way of retrenchment. He had made many reductions, and he doubted not but that he should be able to effect still more. Several accounts which were connected with the late war were in the office. This rendered it necessary to retain clerks, who would not otherwise be employed. When those accounts, were audited and passed, the hon. gentleman would see a very considerable reduction; but it would be the worst possible policy to dismiss those clerks before the accounts were settled.
After some further conversation the committee divided; the original resolution was agreed, to without a division.
The House resumed, and on the motion, that the report be received on Monday, the House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 20.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 2, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
On the motion, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"
Sir William Scott
rose. He confessed that, as far as he was able to form a judgment of the bill, the expectations of any improvement of it, so as to obviate the objections to which it had been open, had not been realized. After commitments and re-commitments, and all the elaborate attention which had been bestowed upon it, the bill came before them worse, than it was before. In the instances of former bills, for the same purpose, they had dissatisfied one party only; but by this bill all sides were dissatisfied; the party who objected to it, and those whom it was intended to conciliate. The other party, the House, had an equal reason to be dissatisfied. They had had no success in the manufactory of conci-
1524
1525
1526
l.
1527
in spiritualibus,
in temporalibus?
1528
Sir George Hill
considered this bill to be most revolutionary in its character, as it went to put down the ancient landmarks of the constitution, and to recognise, for the first time, a right of interference with the subjects of this country on the part of the see of Rome. He had heard it argued on this occasion, that the constitution of this country was not essentially Protestant. Taking the constitution as it was established at the Revolution, he showed that the Bill of Rights had been particularly directed against popery. In that bill the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were enacted which were now to be altered. It was provided by that bill, that this country must be governed by a Protestant prince, and also, that that Protestant prince must have Protestant counsellors. But the bill before the House went to do away with Protestant counsellors by opening the door to Catholics. It put both the property and the religion of the country in peril: it admitted Catholics to be members of the privy council, to be governors of colonies, and what was still more tremendous, it allowed them to act as sheriffs, and gave them seats in parliament. He felt alarm for the use that might be made of the power given to the Catholics acting as sheriffs in Ireland: they would have the right of selecting juries, and, above all, they would be authorized to return members who were elected to sit in that House. He thought the danger of admitting Catholics to parliament had been undervalued, and considered the measure to be revolutionary, because, while it relieved the Catholic from the old oath of supremacy, it required the Protestant to take it. No Catholic was to take the old oath; and after this bill had passed, he did not see how any Protestant could conscientiously swear, "that the pope neither had nor ought to have any power in this realm." His conviction was, thus this bill would not prove a measure of conciliation. The Roman Catholic clergy and
1529
Mr. O'Grady
supported the bill. Alluding to the aggregate meeting which had been held on the subject of the bills in Limerick, he observed, that the resolutions there carried in opposition to them were not of native growth; they had been introduced by individuals who were not residents of the county, and originated in factious opposition. He could not consi-
1530
Mr. Fitzgibbon
supported the opinions and the statements of his hon. colleague. He considered the resolutions read by the right hon. baronet to have been partially selected, and did not regard them as giving a correct idea of the sentiments of the Catholics of Ireland.
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that however unpalatable it might be to the House to hear the merits of one class of gentlemen or another canvassed in that place, yet he was driven into the present discussion by the want of candour which had been evinced by the right hon. baronet. Why did he not, when he produced the resolutions to the House, go also into the protest which accompanied them. He had merely adverted to the number of signatures, without acknowledging one fact as to the respectability and character of those who affixed them. The meeting at Limerick was not a meeting of the clergy of the diocese, but of those Roman Catholic clergymen who happened to be assembled in that town. With the permission of the House he would read a letter which he had received from one of the very persons who signed the violent resolutions, to show that the sentiments spoken by them were not generally entertained. The writer of the letter owned that many of his Catholic brethren were willing to receive emancipation upon the terms provided by Mr. Plunkett's bill. This was not the opinion of one who supported that measure, but who had signed those violent resolutions which had been quoted to the House. In another letter which he had received from Ireland, it was stated, that if the measure were passed into a, law, those troublesome spirits and tools of faction who now agitated the country, would be at once put down. He begged to remind the House, that the dissatisfaction of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland had arisen, in a great measure, from a clause in the original bill, by which they were subjected, in certain cases, to the
1531
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that standing there as the unworthy representative of a i family who had always stood up in support of flip Catholic claims—advocating that great and righteous cause upon the principles of entire and unqualified emancipation—he wished to offer a few observations to the House, in explanation of the line of conduct which he meant to pursue. It was impossible but that a measure carrying with it heavy penal enactments, should meet with some who objected to it; and he could not, while he had a seat in that House, submit that such persons should be charged, as tools of faction, as riotous spirits, and public agitators. Because, if they were to be so denominated, he also must be a tool of faction and an agitator; for he had joined in the objections which had called down upon them those reproachful epithets. Could it be said, that Mr. Roche, the gentleman who presided at the Limerick meeting, was one of this description of persons? The hon. member here eulogised the character of, that gentleman. He thought it very likely that all the Irish clergy might eventually object to take the required oaths; therefore, he could not suffer that those gentlemen should by anticipation be aspersed, because they opposed what he apprehended was a highly penal enactment. He believed that it was quite in the newer of the noble lord, and the
1532
1533
Mr. Ellis,
of Dublin, expressed his anxiety to deliver his sentiments on a bill, the latter part of which, by a curious infelicity in legislation, went to deprive the measure of all the advantages promised in the first part. He apologised to the House for going over again a track which had already been so beaten: to him it was an unpleasant task, and nothing but his veneration for the Protestant establishment, and his anxiety for the connexion of Ireland with this country, could force him to trespass on the attention of the House. He professed that in ardent wishes for the welfare of every class of his fellow-countrymen, he was not inferior to the right hon. gentleman who brought the measure before them; and he would further say, that he brought with him a degree of experience of the wishes and feelings of the Protestants of Ireland, which the retired habits, or the fastidious taste of that right hon. gentleman prevented his acquiring. In the name of that profession to which they both be longed, and whose sentiments the right hon. gentleman had misrepresented, he disclaimed his unauthorized advocacy. That this was not mere assertion would be seen by a reference to the petitions on their table—and particularly by the Protestant petition from the second city of the empire, which he had the honour to represent. If those petitions were looked into, the House would see not only noblemen and gentlemen of the highest respectability, but several members of the profession of the law, equal in talents and reputation to the right hon. gentleman himself; and in their names he protested against declarations contrary to their sentiments.—The hon. and learned
1534
1535
Mr. Robinson
said, he had no intention of vindicating the right hon. gentleman who introduced this measure, from what he conceived a most unreasonable attack which the hon. and learned gentleman had made upon him in his absence. He declared himself to be no more disposed to take the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland from the hon. and learned gentleman, than he was to take the feelings of the Catholics from that, nameless barrister, that mushroom orator, as the hon. and learned gentleman had called him—who, eloquent as he might be—active as they all knew he was—he was persuaded did not, in the ravings of his eloquence, speak the true and honest feelings of the Irish Catholics. It was on that account that, although he knew Mr. O'Connell was dissatisfied—although he knew that Mr. O'Connell
1536
1537
Mr. Goulburn
said, he opposed the admission of the Catholics to political power, on the same principles which had led him for the first fourteen years to resist their claims to the utmost of his power. To show the danger which might
1538
Lord Binning
said, that his hon. friend had alluded to the danger that might result from this bill, if at any future period there should be a monarch oh the throne who, though professing the Protestant
1539
Mr. Peel
commenced by alluding to an argument advanced by the hon. member for Limerick, who had called upon them, as they valued their good faith, to observe the articles of the capitulation of Limerick. That was the first time he had ever heard such an argument brought forward. If that were made the ground of the question, the House had no discretion to exercise; but he would maintain, that, up to the present moment, they were unfettered by the question of good faith. There was but one article in the treaty of Limerick which referred to the state of the Roman Catholics generally, and that was the first. But what did it amount to? Their majesties undertook to engage that the Roman Catholics should enjoy every privilege with respect to the exercise of their religion which they possessed in the reign of Charles 2nd, and to exert themselves to obtain for them from parliament such further indulgence as they might be willing to concede. There was not a word in this of political privilege; the privilege alluded to, referred, according to the terms of the article itself, to the exercise of their religion. There were two considerations upon which he chiefly rested his objections to the bill. In the first place, fie objected to it, because it was a material change in the constitution of the country. He did not consider that objection as fatal in itself; but he felt that every change of so extensive a nature was to be regarded with alarm and anxiety. They could not name a succession of kings, or an important event since the Reformation, which did not bring the Roman Catholic religion before their minds; therefore, it was not unimportant to consider what relation that religion should bear to the state in future. There
1540
1541
1542
Mr. Canning
observed, that his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) who had taken so active a part against the bill, complained, that those who took the same side as himself laboured under great disadvantages; seeing that they were unfairly called upon to become the champions of those laws which had existed against the Catholics from the Reformation to the present time. But he (Mr. C.) felt, on the other hand, that those who took that part in favour of the bill, which, from conviction, he had found himself compelled to take, were placed in a situation equally difficult; for it was assumed, that every argument Which they brought forward was an attempt to disturb the peace which had hitherto prevailed, and to launch out into an untried sea of speculation. He claimed then for the advocates of the bill, that the system which they wished to introduce should be compared, not with an uniform and recognised system, but with admitted anomalies, with the state of things which had produced the recent innovations. His right hon. friend deprecated a recurrence to that period when the laws against the Catholics had been in their full force. He would not resist the appeal, because he felt unwilling at the close of a debate which had been marked by such unexampled moderation, to create any new source of contention, or to send forth the bill to the country as a firebrand instead of an extinguisher of discord. If, like his right
1543
1544
1545
"The tone, the topics opening to my view,
"Methinks I see my Duigenan here anew!" [Laughter.]
1546
—"Nunc reges, atque tetrarchas, "Omnia magna loquens;—Nunc"—
Vestries
Churchwardens!
APPENDIX.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY 1820.
CLASS.
I. PUBLIC INCOME for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
II. CONSOLIDATED FUND — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
III. ARREARS AND BALANCES — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
IV. TRADE AND NAVIGATION — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
V. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
VI. PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
VII. UNFUNDED DEBT — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
VIII. DISPOSITION OF GRANTS — for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1820
Appen. p.
I.—PUBLIC INCOME OF THE UNITED KINGDOM,
FOR THE YEAR ENDED FIFTH JANUARY, 1820.
An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year ended 5th January, 1820.
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT; Total Sum to be accounted for.
Drawbacks, Discounts, Charges of Management, &c. paid out
of the Gross Revenue.
NETT PRODUCE applicable to National Objects, and to Payments
into the Exchequer.
Ordinary Revenues.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
CUSTOMS, including the Annual Duties
15,304,595
2
0
3,614,930
17
9¾
11,692,664
4
2¼
EXCISE, including the Annual Duties
28,546,895
10
0
2,981,255
5
5
25,565,640
4
7
STAMPS
7,349,246
14
5½
460,172
6
1
6,889,074
8
4½
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES, including the Assessed
8,644,148
17
l
388,594
0
9
8,255,554
16
4
P
2,402,697
1
9¼
612,497
3
2¼
1,790,199
18
7
1
s.
£
19,844
6
7
491
5
0
19,353
1
7
6
d.
£
10,678
5
1
641
1
10
10,037
3
3
HACKNEY COACHES
26,714
18
3
4,150
14
9
22,564
3
6
HAWFERS AND PEDLARS
29,378
11
7¾
3,456
11
7
25,922
0
0¾
POUNDAGE FEES (Ireland)
4,227
7
3½
-
-
-
4,227
7
3½
PELLS FEES (Ireland)
845
9
3½
-
-
-
845
9
3½
CASUALTIES FEES (Ireland)
4,826
14
0½
-
-
-
4,826
14
0½
TREASURY FEES, and Hospital Fees (Ireland)
660
19
11½
-
-
-
660
19
11½
SMALL BRANCHES OF THE KING'S HEREDITARY REVENUE
148,192
4
6¾
4,725
10
3¼
143,466
14
3½
TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues
62,492,952
2
0¼
8,067,914
16
8¼
54,425,037
5
4
Extraordinary Resources.
PROPERTY TAX AND INCOME DUTY. (Arrears)
183,134
6
8
8,650
17
9¼
174,483
8
10¾
Lottery, Nett Profit
679,150
0
0
13,850
0
0
665,300
0
0
Unclaimed Dividends, &c. per Act 56 Geo. 3, cap. 97
237,512
16
11
-
-
-
237,512
16
11
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
25,280
10
3
-
-
-
25,280
10
3
Voluntary Contributions
57,870
18
6
-
-
-
57,870
18
6
From several County Treasurers in Ireland, on account of Advances made by the
Treasury for improving Post Roads, for building Gaols, and under the Police Act of 54 Geo. 3
(Ireland)
79,717
8
4
-
-
-
79,717
8
4
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the
Public
374,906
9
9
-
-
-
374,906
9
9
TOTAL (exclusive of Loans)
64,130,524
12
5¼
8,090,415
14
5½
56,040,108
17
11¾
Loans paid into the Exchequer
18,756,087
6
4
-
-
-
18,756,087
6
4
GRAND TOTAL
82,886,611
18
9¼
8,090,415
14
5½
74,796,196
4
3¾
II.—CONSOLIDATED FUND AND PERMANENT TAXES.—INCOME AND CHARGE, 1820.
INCOME.
CHARGE.
Actual Payment out of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended 5th January, 1820.
Future Annual Charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as it stood on 5th January 1820.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
CUSTOMS: Consolidated
£.
4
3¼
£.
s.
d.
Total Charge for Debt created prior to the Year 1810
24,895,944
6
10
24,545,515
5
2¼
CIVIL LIST:
For the support of his Majesty's Household per sundry Acts
£.1,028,000
Isle of Man
10,556
15
2
Deduct per Act 59 Geo. 3,
£.
45,000
983,000
0
0
983,000
0
0
COURTS OF JUSTICE:
Quarantine Duty
28,386
7
7
Judges of England and Wales, in Augmentation of their Salaries
13,050
0
0
13,050
0
0
Deficiencies of Judges Salaries in England
13,584
8
1
Uncertain.
Additional Salaries to Welsh Judges
3,200
0
0
3,200
0
0
John Baldwin, Esq. Receiver of the Seven Police Offices
21,970
19
11
Uncertain.
Patrick Colquhoun, Esq. Receiver of the Thames Offices
7,351
8
6
Uncertain.
Canal and Dock Duty
33,219
10
2½
Sheriffs of England and Wales
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
MINT:
Master of the Mint in England
13,800
0
0
13,800
0
0
Master of the Mint in Scotland
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
Temporary or War Duty, 1809 (made permanent anno 1816)
437,770
16
7½
SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES:
Speaker of the House of Commons, to complete his Salary of
£.
1,793
6
0
Uncertain.
Edward Roberts, Esq. an annual Sum formerly paid to the Auditor
650
0
0
650
0
0
Temporary of War Duty, in 1810 and 1811
63,690
11
11¾
George Pepler, Esq. Inspector of Tontine Certificates
600
0
0
Uncertain.
Chief Cashier of the Bank, for Fees
1,175
0
0
Uncertain.
4,764,740
5
10
For the Encouragement of the Growth of Hemp and Flax in Scotland
2,956
13
8
2,956
13
8
COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS:
EXCISE: Consolidated, after reserving the several sums carried, per Acts 52 and 55 Geo. 3, to the Duties pro Annis 1812 and 1815
16,410,360
0
6½
Wm. Mackworth Praed, Esq. Chairman
1,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
Sir Charles R. Boughton, Bart
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
Richard Dawkins, Esq.
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
John Whishaw, Esq.
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
John Sargent, Esq.
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
John Anstey, Esq. (Dead)
1,058
12
4¾
—
Salaries, &c in the Office of the said Commissioners
34,124
5
2
Uncertain.
British Spirits, Anno 1806
627,200
0
0
COMMISSIONERS OF WEST INDIA ACCOUNTS:
17,037,560
0
6½
John Halket, Esq.
1,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
James Chapman, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
John Wilson, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Salaries, &c. in the Office of the said Commissioners
6,597
12
10
Uncertain.
Lieut. Governor Lee and Lieut. Governor Charles M'Carthy, being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
214
0
0
Uncertain.
STAMPS: Consolidated, after reserving as directed per Acts 50 and 55 Geo. 3.
4,140,086
8
9
Captain A. Grant and Lieut Governor M'Carthy, as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
52
0
0
Lieut. B. Sullivan as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
420
0
0
W. Vesey Munnings, Esq. President of the Bahamas as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
835
0
0
Edward Allured Draper, Acting Collector of the Customs at the Mauritius as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
128
0
0
John Ouseley Kearney, Esq. as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
176
0
0
Licences for selling Lottery Tickets
3,713
15
8
Zachary Macauley, Esq. as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
2,020
0
0
Lieut. G. B. Vine, Esq. as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
1,324
0
0
4,143,800
4
5
Major General Hall, acting Governor of the Mauritius as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
1,197
0
0
Lieut. Col. Maxwell, Governor of Dominica as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
32
0
0
Lieut. Col. Maxwell, Governor of Dominica as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
13
0
0
General Ryall, Governor of Grenade as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
13
0
0
S. Bridgwater and John Laidlaw, Collectors, &c. of the Customs at Dominica as above being the Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per Act 47, Geo. 3, cap. 36
117
0
0
Russian Dutch Loan, per Act 55 Geo. 3, cap. 115
126,374
3
5
INCIDENTS
7,079,402
10
8
Deficiency of Profits to the South Sea Company, per Act 55 Geo. 3, cap. 57
1,916
3
0
[This Account continued over leaf.]
[This Account continued over leaf.]
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Surplus Duty on Sugar, Malt, and Tobacco
2,796,292
5
6
Towards the Purchase of an Estate for the Duke of Wellington, per Act 54 Geo. 3, cap. 161
210,000
0
0
Uncertain.
Commissioners for inquiring into Charities
1,542
10
11
Uncertain.
Contingencies in the Office of Ditto
8,000
0
0
Uncertain.
Commissioners of Roads to Holyhead
25,000
0
0
Uncertain.
Irish Life Annuities
37,471
7
8½
Uncertain.
Surplus Duties on Pensions, Offices, &c. Anno 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818
41,099
14
6½
PENSIONS:
Earl of Chatham
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Lord Rodney
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lady Darchester
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Land Taxes, Anno 1725, 1790,1800,1803,1805–1819
1,193,229
17
10¼
John Pean, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Richard Pean, Esq.
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
Duke of Clarence
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke of York
14,000
0
0
14,000
0
0
Duchess of York
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Prince of Wales
65,000
0
0
65,000
0
0
Earl St. Vincent
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Arrears of Income Duty
26
10
0
Viscount Duncan
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Duke of Kent
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke of Cumberland
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke of Richmond
6,333
6
8
6,333
6
8
Lord Erskine
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Sir Archibald Macdonald
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Do. £. 10 per cent Anno 1806
8
6
2½
Sir Vicary Gibbs (Dead)
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Sir James Mansfield
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Sir William Grant
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Sir Alan Chambré
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Sir Sidney Smith
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Baroness Abercrombie
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
J. W. Compton
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Alexander Croke
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Money received on account of Nominees appointed by the Lords of the Treasury, in Tontine, Anno 1789.
23,403
8
4¼
John Hinchliffe
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Duke of Sussex
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke of Cambridge
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Lord Hutchinson
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Sir James Saumarez
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
Lord Boringdon, et al. for Lord Amherst
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
Duke of Atholl
3,769
0
0
Uncertain.
Surplus War Taxes repealed at 5 July 1816.
3,466
6
8
Henry Moreton Dyer, Esq
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
John Sewell, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Arrears of Property Duly, after satisfying £.250,000 pro Anno 1818
162,537
9
2¾
W. Terrell, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Lady Nelson
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Sir Richard Strachan
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Lady Collingwood (dead)
500
0
0
—
Hon. Sarah Collingwood
500
0
0
500
0
0
Hon. Mary P. Collingwood
500
0
0
500
0
0
Duke of Clarence
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke of Kent (Dead)
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke of Cumberland
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Brought from Life Annuities
42,237
4
3
Duke of Sussex
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke of Cambridge
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke of Gloucester
14,000
0
0
14,000
0
0
Princess Sophia of Gloucester
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Earl Nelson
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Lord Rodney
923
1
6
923
1
6
Viscount Lake
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Viscount Wellington
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Earl of Ditto
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Monies paid by divers persons
226,994
4
2
Hon. Jane Perceval
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Princesses Augusta, Elizabeth, Mary, and Sophia, 9,000
l.
36,000
0
0
36,000
0
0
Sir Archibald Macdonald
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir James Mansfield
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir Vicary Gibbs (dead)
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir William Grant
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir Alan Chambré
600
0
0
600
0
0
Princess of Wales
35,000
0
0
35,000
0
0
Duke of Wellington
8,531
5
0
8,531
5
0
Lord Beresford
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lord Combermere
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
TOTAL Income of Duties, &c. applicable to paying the Charges prior to the Year 1810, and the Incidental Charges as they stood on the 5th January 1820
37,514,798
8
2¾
Lord Exmouth
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lord Hill
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lord Lynedoch
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Duke of York, et al. in trust for the Prince of Saxe Cobourg
50,000
0
0
50,000
0
0
Duke of York
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke of Clarence
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Princesses Augusta, Elizabeth, Mary, and Sophia, £.4,000 per annum each
16,000
0
0
16,000
0
0
Lord Colchester
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
[This Account continued over leaf.]
[This Account continued over leaf.]
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Duke of Cambridge
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke of Kent
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Total Income of Duties, &c. applicable to paying the Charges prior to the Year 1810, and the Incidental Charges as they stood on 5th January 1820
37,514,798
8
2¾
Servants of the late Queen Charlotte
13,676
16
9
Uncertain.
TOTAL of Incidental Charges, &c. upon the Consolidated Fund, as they stood on the 5th January 1820
2,008,991
5
9¼
1,485,944
6
10
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1810
1,460,750
2
0
Total Charge for Debt incurred prior to the year 1810
24,895,944
6
10
24,545,515
5
2¼
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1811
429,328
0
0
Total of Incidental Charges, &c.
2,008,991
5
9¼
1,485,944
6
10
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1810
1,276,589
0
2½
1,276,589
0
2½
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1812
1,322,421
4
11
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1811
1,495,929
14
9
1,495,929
14
9
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1812
2,216,397
10
6¾
2,216,397
10
6¾
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1813
216,286
1
1
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1813
4,152,867
6
9¾
4,152,867
6
9¾
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1814
3,268,802
16
0½
3,269,727
2
6¼
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1814
22,000
0
0
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1815
4,365,619
10
2
4,365,619
10
2
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1816
79,362
1
1¼
77,348
7
10
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1815
759,475
10
10
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1818
1,936,805
19
11½
1,603,777
17
0
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1819
310,265
18
8¼
1,431,714
12
4
41,725,059
7
0¾
46,007,575
10
10¾
45,921,430
14
2½
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued to make good Deficiency Consolidated Fund
72,889
3
2
Uncertain.
46,080,464
14
0¾
45,921,430
14
2½
III. ARREARS AND BALANCES OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS.
FOR THE YEAR ENDED FIFTH JANUARY, 1820.
HEADS OF THESE ACCOUNTS.
CUSTOMS in England;—Balances and Arrears, the 5th January, 1820.
CUSTOMS in Scotland;—Current Balances, on the 5th January, 1820.
CUSTOMS in Ireland;—Balances, 5th January, 1820.
EXCISE in England;—Arrears and Current Balances, due on 5th January 1820.
EXCISE in Scotland;—Arrears and Current Balances due on 5th January 1820.
EXCISE in Ireland;—Balances of deceased and dismissed Collectors, 5th January, 1820.
STAMPS in Great Britain;—Arrears due on 5th January, 1820, from Distributors.
STAMPS in Great Britain; —Nett Balances in the hands of Distributors.
STAMPS in Ireland; —Balances and arrears on 5th January, 1820.
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES in Great Britain;—Arrears and Balances, 5th January 1820.
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES in Ireland;—Balances of deceased and dismissed Collectors.
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES in Ireland;—Balance due by a dismissed Collector, 5th January, 1820.
POST OFFICE in Great Britain;—Arrears due on 5th January, 1820.
POST OFFICE in Great Britain;—Balances of Deputy Postmasters.
POST OFFICE in Ireland;—Arrears due on 5th January 1820.
POST OFFICE in Ireland;—Balances of Deputy Postmasters.
POST OFFICE in Ireland;—Arrears of Letter Carriers, on 5th January, 1820.
POST OFFICE in Ireland;—Insolvent Arrears on 5th January, 1820.
POST OFFICE in Ireland;—Balances of Deputy Postmaster, &c.
LAND REVENUES OF THE CROWN in England and Wales;—Arrears and Current Balances, 5th Jan. 1820.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS;—List of, in respect of whom the Execution of any process or proceeding hath been controlled, suspended, or prevented, between 5th January, 1819, and 5th January 1820.
ARMY ACCOUNTS;—Balances of Accountants, on 5th January, 1820.
COMMISSIONERS for auditing Public Accounts;—List of Officers and Departments whose Accounts have been usually Audited by them.
COMMISSIONERS LIST OF ACCOUNTS delivered over to them, which have
not
COMMISSIONERS LIST OF ACCOUNTS delivered over to them, which
have
IV. TRADE AND NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
I.—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, 1820 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated inclusive and exclusive of the Trade with IRELAND); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from GREAT BRITAIN, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
YEARS.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF IMPORTS into Great
Britain.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF EXPORTS.
Declared value of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
Total Exports.
£.
s.
£.
s.
£.
s.
£.
s.
£.
s.
VALUE, inclusive of the Trade with Ireland.
1818
33,965,232
6
41,588,585
11
11,534,616
12
53,123,202
4
43,626,253
14
1819
40,135,952
0
44,564,044
14
12,287,274
15
56,851,319
9
48,903,760
16
1820
33,625,744
13
35,634,415
11
11,278,076
17
46,912,492
8
37,939,506
17
VALUE, exclusive of the Trade with Ireland.
1818
29,910,502
9
39,233,466
19
10,269,271
8
49,502,738
8
40,349,235
6
1819
35,845,340
0
41,963,527
0
10,835,800
6
52,799,327
7
45,188,249
9
1820
29,681,836
14
32,923,574
18
9,879,236
0
42,802,810
18
34,248,495
6
2.—TRADE OF IRELAND.
An Account of the Value of all IMPORTS into, and all EXPORTS from IRELAND, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th of January, 1820 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated inclusive and exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported;—also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from IRELAND, according to the Value thereof, as computed at the Average Prices Current.
YEARS.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF IMPORTS.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF EXPORTS.
Declared value of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
Total Exports.
£.
s.
£.
s.
£.
s.
£.
s.
£.
s.
VALUE, inclusive of the Trade with Great Britain.
1818
5,644,175
16
6,412,892
10
150,562
7
6,563,454
18
10,526,325
8
1819
6,098,720
2
6,436,950
14
84,078
9
6,521,029
4
11,776,860
14
1820
6,395,972
17
5,708,582
15
61,882
12
5,770,465
7
9,747,206
1
VALUE, exclusive of Trade with Great Britain.
1818
889,335
14
851,548
5
23,413
4
874,961
10
1,411,897
9
1819
1,033,660
7
736,325
17
24,057
17
760,383
15
1,423,099
0
1820
1,093,247
8
558,261
10
25,948
11
584,210
2
956,069
12
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
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 1818, 1819, and 1820, respectively.
—
In the Years ending the 5th January,
1818.
1819.
1820.
vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
vessels.
Tonnage.
United Kingdom
758
81,263
752
86,748
777
89,091
Isles, Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
8
845
9
316
20
1,381
British Plantations
316
22,321
298
17,302
238
15,453
Total
1,082
104,429
1,059
104,366
1,035
105,925
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 1817, 1818, and 1819, respectively.
—
On 30th Sept. 1817.
On 30th Sept. 1818.
On 30th Sept. 1819.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
United Kingdom
21,290
2,397,665
152,352
21,526
2,426,969
154,891
21,501
2,425,885
155,277
Isles, Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
485
23,689
3,190
498
25,639
3,595
496
25,712
3,613
British Plantations
3,571
243,632
15,471
3,483
221,860
15,121
3,485
214,799
15,488
Total
25,346
2,664,986
171,013
25,507
2,674,468
173,607
25,482
2,666,396
174,378
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 1820.
Year ending 5th Jan.
INWARDS.
BRITISH AND IRISH.
FOREIGN.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1818
11,255
1,625,121
97,273
3,396
445,011
27,047
14,651
2,070,132
124,320
1819
13,006
1,886,394
111,880
6,230
762,457
43,936
19,236
2,648,851
155,816
1820
12,027
1,817,841
108,012
4,225
543,976
32,699
16,252
2,361,817
140,711
OUTWARDS.
1818
10,713
1,558,336
97,362
2,905
440,622
25,270
13,618
1,998,958
122,632
1819
11,442
1,715,566
106,610
5,400
734,571
40,181
16,842
2,450,137
146,791
1820
10,197
1,554,089
96,811
3,785
554,749
30,266
13,982
2,108,838
127,077
V.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE—5th Jan. 1820.
HEADS OF EXPENDITURE.
SUMS.
TOTAL.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
I.
For Interest, &c. on the permanent Debt of the United Kingdom, unredeemed;
including Annuities for Lives and Terms of Years
-
-
-
46,467,999
17
10
II.
The Interest on Exchequer Bills, and Irish Treasury Bill
-
-
-
779,992
3
5¼
III.
The Civil Lists of
England
£.983,000
0
0
Ireland
198,056
10
10½
1,181,056
10
10½
IV.
The other Charges on the Consolidated Fund.
Courts of Justice in England
63,156
16
6
Mint
15,000
0
0
Allowances to the Royal Family, Pensions, &c.
472,233
14
2
Salaries and Allowances
58,755
10
0¾
Bounties, Compensations, &c.
6,451
0
0
Miscellaneous
372,832
17
4
Permanent Charges in Ireland
369,089
14
8¾
2,538,666
3
8
V.
The Civil Government Of Scotland
-
-
-
129,983
5
5¼
VI.
The other Payments in anticipation of the Exchequer Receipts, viz.
£.
s.
d.
Bounties for Fisher, Manufacturcs, Corn, &c.
Customs
245,216
11
1¼
Excise
68,716
8
9
313,932
19
10¼
Pensions on the Hereditary Revenue
Excise
£.
0
0
Post Office
13,700
0
0
27,700
0
0
Militia and Deserters Warrants, &c. Excise and Taxes
47,534
1
2¾
389,167
1
1
VII.
The Navy, viz
Wages
2,281,000
0
0
General Services
2,949,728
6
1
5,230,728
6
1
The Victualling Department
1,164,824
12
7
6,395,552
18
8
VIII.
The Ordnance
-
-
-
1,538,209
3
10¾
IX.
The Army, viz.
Ordinary Services
7,719,924
3
9¼
Extraordinary Services
1,730,726
10
1½
9,450,650
13
10¾
X.
Loans, Remittances, and Advances to other Countries
-
-
-
—
XI.
Issues from Appropriated Funds, for Local Purposes
-
-
-
53,101
1
1
XII.
Miscellaneous Services, viz.
At Home
1,595,207
2
11¼
Abroad
260,741
9
2¼
1,855,948
12
1½
69,599,276
1
1½
Deduct, Sinking Fund on Loan to the East India Company
150,376
7
6
*
13
7½
*
VI.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT of the UNITED
KINGDOM, payable in GREAT BRITAIN, as the same stood on the 5th of January, 1820.
CAPITALS, at
£.
CAPITALS at
£.
s.
Consolidated
£.
CAPITALS, at
£.
Bank of England Annuities 1726.
South Sea Old and New Annuities, 1751.
Consolidated Annuities.
Reduced Annuities.
£.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Great Britain
14,686,800
21,037,684
13
11½
416,470,358
17
1¼
207,379,061
11
4
22,845,896
3
11
74,935,719
2
2
134,900,057
9
7
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Ireland
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19,164,273
6
1¾
789,784
12
3¼
11,215,436
18
3
TOTAL LOANS to the Emperor of Germany, payable in Great Britain
-
-
-
-
7,502,633
6
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL LOANS to the Prince Regent of Portugal, payable in Great Britain
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
895,522
7
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,686,800
21,037,684
13
11½
423,972,992
3
9¼
208,274,583
19
1
42,010,169
10
0¾
75,725,503
14
5¼
146,115,494
7
10
In the Names of the Commissioners of the National Debt
-
7,915,100
0
0
44,643,049
2
3
71,417,644
10
2
9,934,719
6
9¼
184,599
16
4¾
23,334
2
6
14,686,800
13,122,584
13
11½
379,329,943
1
6¼
136,856,039
8
11
32,075,450
3
3½
75,540,903
18
0½
146,092,160
5
4
Transferred to Commissioners for Purchase of Life Annuities, per Act 48 Geo. 3, cap. 142
-
-
-
-
3,366,836
0
0
1,814,615
0
0
-
-
-
26,176
0
0
69,759
0
0
TOTAL
14,686,800
13,122,584
13
11½
375,963,107
1
6¼
135,042,324
8
11
32,075,450
3
3½
75,514,727
18
0½
146,022,401
5
4
(
Repeated Column.
CAPITALS at
£.
TOTAL CAPITALS.
ANNUAL INTEREST.
Annuities for Lives, or for Terms of Years.
Charges of Management.
Annual, or other Sums, by sundry Acts.
TOTAL of ANNUAL EXPENSE.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Great Britain
1,021,968
12
4
891,815,126
14
1¾
30,457,232
11
11¾
1,419,676
5
7¾
274,206
15
3½
12,587,875
18
0¼
44,738,991
10
11¼
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Ireland
-
-
-
31,169,494
16
8
1,263,112
15
10¼
43,908
18
5¾
1,015
2
5
409,542
0
9
1,717,578
17
6
TOTAL LOANS to the Emperor of Germany, payable in Great Britain
-
-
-
7,502,633
6
8
225,079
0
0
-
-
-
1,761
16
3
36,693
0
0
263,533
16
3
TOTAL LOAND to the Prince Regent of Portugal, payable in Great Britain
-
-
-
895,522
7
9
26,865
13
5¼
-
-
-
98
0
11¼
30,000
0
0
56,963
14
4½
1,021,968
12
4
934,382,777
5
2¾
31,972,290
1
3¼
1,463,585
4
1½
277,081
14
10¾
13,064,110
18
9¾
46,777,067
19
0¾
In the Names of the Commissioners of the National Debt
6,462
9
4
134,124,909
7
5
4,075,862
16
0½
583
8
4
-
-
-
4,076,446
4
4½
—
-
-
1,015,506
3
0
800,257,867
17
9¾
27,896,427
5
2¾
1,463,001
15
9½
277,081
14
10¾
17,140,557
3
1¾
46,777,067
19
0¾
Transferred to Commissioners for Purchase of Life Annuities, per Act 48 Geo. 3, cap. 142
-
-
-
5,277,386
0
0
159,978
10
4½
7,759
0
0
-
-
-
167,737
10
4½
—
-
-
1,015,506
3
0
794,980,481
17
9¾
27,736,448
14
10¼
1,455,242
15
9½
277,081
14
10¾
17,308,294
13
6¼
45,777,067
19
0¾
Add Annuities payable at the Exchequer, unclaimed for three Years, at 5th January, 1820
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30,377
15
9
17,338,672
9
3¼
Deduct Life Annuities, payable at the Bank of England
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
351,275
8
0
Amount applicable to the Reduction of the Debt of the United Kingdom
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16,987,397
1
3¼
WM. ROSE HARWORTH.
REDEMPTION OF THE PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the
PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in GREAT BRITAIN, at the 5th January,
1820.
FUNDS.
CAPITALS.
Long Annuities at the Bank of England.
Transferred to, or Redeemed by the Commissioners, from 1st
August, 1786, to 5th Jan. 1820.
TOTAL SUMS Paid.
Average Price of Stocks.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Consolidated £.3 per Cent Annuities
509,207,744
7
10½
-
-
-
121,591,607
0
0
78,875,867
6
11
64⅞
Reduced £.3 per Cent Annuities
378,131,452
0
1
-
-
-
229,807,860
0
0
146,438,142
14
3
63¾
£.3½ per Annuities
22,845,896
3
11
-
-
-
3,750,800
0
0
3,147,287
15
0
83⅞
Old South Sea Annuities
24,065,084
13
11½
-
-
Old
6,698,600
0
0
4,598,133
9
6
68⅝
New South Sea Annuities
-
-
New
5,043,500
0
0
3,505,581
6
9
69½
£.
1,919,600
0
0
-
-
-
1,120,000
0
0
789,234
8
0
70½
Consolidated
£.
82,732,119
2
2
-
-
-
7,796,400
0
0
6,586,934
8
9
84½
Consolidated
£.
135,042,057
9
7
-
-
-
145,500
0
0
130,113
7
6
89⅜
£.5 per Cent Annuities, Annis 1797 and 1802
1,021,968
12
4
—
—
-
-
—
-
-
—
£.3 per Cent, Annuities, Anno 1726
1,000,000
0
0
—
—
-
-
—
-
-
—
£.3 per Cent, Bank Annuities
14,686,800
0
0
—
—
-
-
—
-
-
—
Consolidated Long Annuities
-
-
-
1,359,435
18
8½
—
-
-
—
-
-
—
£.
1,717,876
13
1
-
-
-
180,296
9
4
155,334
10
3
86⅛
Capitals transferred to the Commissioners, the Dividends on which have not been claimed for 10
years and upwards, and which are subject to the claims of the Parties entitled thereto
376,134,563
9
4
244,226,629
3
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
634,266
8
5
Transferred to Commissioners, on account of Land Tax Redeemed, at 5th January 1820
1,172,370,599
2
11¾
1,359,435
18
8½
376,768,829
17
9
25,636,317
19
6
—
Transferred to Commissioners, for Purchase of Life Annuities, per Act 48 Geo.
3
1,146,734,281
3
5¾
—
Note.—The Unredeemed Debt of £.761,688,065 5
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
5,277,386
0
0
7,759
0
0
1,141,456,895
3
5¾
1,351,676
18
8½
Redeemed by the Commissioners, including Capitals, the Dividends upon which have not been
claimed for 10 Years and upwards
376,768,829
17
9
583
8
4
Unredeemed Debt of the United Kingdom, payable in Great Britain, at 5th January,
1820
764,688,065
5
8¾
1,351,093
10
1½
SUMS annually applicable to the Redemption of the National Debt.
ANNUITIES fallen in since Tune 22nd, 1802, or that will fall in hereafter.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Annual Charge, per Act 26 Geo. 3
1,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Annuities, 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th April, 1803
23,369
13
4
Annual Charge, per Act 42 Geo. 3
200,000
0
0
Annual Charge, per Act 59 Geo. 3, cap. 133, being
£.
430,000
0
0
Exchequer Annuities, 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th Jan. 1805
7,030
6
8
Annuities for 99 and 96 Years, Expired Anno 1792
54,880
14
6
Annuities for 10 Anno 1787
25,000
0
0
Exchequer Annuities, 2nd and 4 Anne; Expired 5th April 1805
23,254
11
6
Exchequer Annuities Unclaimed for Three Years, at 5th January 1820
30,377
15
9
Exchequer Annuities of which Nominees shall have died prior to 5th July 1802
21,481
6
1
Exchequer Annuities, 2nd and 5 Anne; Expired 5th April 1806
7,776
10
0
Annual Interest on
£.
£.
10,927,847
0
2¼
Annual Interest on 3,750,800 Redeemed at
£.
131,278
0
0
Exchequer Annuities, 2nd and 6 Anne; Expired 5th April 1807
4,710
10
0
Annual Interest on 7,796,400 Redeemed at
£.
311,856
0
0
Annual Interest on 145,500 Redeemed at
£.
7,275
0
0
Exchequer Annuities, 2nd and 6 Anne; Expired 5th 5th July 1807
10,181
0
0
Annual Interest on 180,296 9 4 Irish 5 per Cent, payable in England
9,014
16
5½
Bank Short Annuities, 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th Jan. 1808
418,333
0
11
£. 1 per Cent per annum on part of Capitals created, from 1st February 1793 to 1815, both inclusive
6,640,220
3
7½
Ann. Interest on
£.
£.
155,443
10
7
Bank Long Annuities, will expire 5th Jan. 1860
1,359,435
18
8½
Ann. Interest on 26,176 at
£.
1,047
0
9½
Ann. Interest on 69,759 at
£.
3,487
19
0
By an Act of 42nd Geo. 3, cap. 71, such Annuities as fall in after the passing of that Act are not to be placed to the Account of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
Long Annuities transferred for Purchase of Life Ann.
7,759
0
0
Sinking Fund borne by Consolidated Fund, on Loans raised and Bills funded 1815, 1818, and 1819
1,377,013
4
7
Annual Appropriation on
£.
£.
626,255
10
5
Ann. Interest on
£.
£.
5,637
5
0¾
Ann. Interest on 21,261 7 2 at
£.
850
9
1
Ann. Interest on 26,296 11 10 at
£.
1,314
16
7
Long Annuities, unclaimed 11 10 at
£.
583
8
4
Ann. Interest on
£.
11,964
0
0
Chargeable on Sinking Fund:
21,980,587
1
0½
Life Annuities
£.351,275
8
0
Loans and Bills, funded from 1813 to 1815
7,632,969
14
9¼
Part of Charge on Treasury Bills raised for Ireland, Anno 1816
9,014
16
5½
7,993,259
19
2¾
Deduct for Sinking Fund for said Loans and Bills
2,213,024
18
10½
5,780,235
0
4¼
Actual Sinking Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, funded therein, Consolidated
16,200,352
0
8¼
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the
IMPERIAL DEBT, at 5th January, 1820.
FUNDS.
CAPITALS.
Long Annuities at the Bank of England.
Transferred to, or Redeemed by the commissioners from 1st
August, 1186, to 5th January, 1820.
TOTAL SUMS Paid.
Average Price of Stock.
SUMS Annually applicable to the Reduction of the NATIONAL
DEBT.
ANNUITIES fallen in since 22nd June, 1802, or that will fall in
hereafter.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Imperial
£.
7,502,633
6
8
-
-
-
2,320,479
0
0
1,457,327
19
3
62¾
£.
36,693
0
0
Imperial Annuities 25 Years, expired 1st May 1819.
Annual Interest on
£.
£.
69,614
7
4¾
£.230,000
0
0
Redeemed by the Commissioners, including Capital transferred to them, the Dividends on which
have not been claimed for 10 Years and upwards
2,320,829
3
0
-
-
-
350
3
0
Annual Interest on
£.
10
10
1
106,317
17
5¾
Debt unredeemed at 5th January, 1820
5,181,804
3
8
-
-
-
2,320,829
3
0
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the DEBT
of PORTUGAL, at 5th January, 1820.
Reduced
£.
895,522
7
9
-
-
-
607,147
0
0
401,053
8
6
66
Annual Appropriation for Redemption of Loan, 1809
30,000
0
0
Redeemed by the Commissioners
607,147
0
0
Annual Interest on
£.
£.
18,214
8
2¼
Debt Unredeemed at 5th January, 1820
288,375
7
9
48,214
8
2¼
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the
FUNDED DEBT of IRELAND, payable in Ireland, at 5th January, 1820, in British Currency.
Terminable and Life Annuities
Annual Charge, per Act 37 Geo. 3
62,445
5
7
£.
21,224,501
12
3¾
-
-
-
8,214,147
12
11¼
6,487,999
1
11¾
78¾
Terminable Annuities expired
66,616
6
6
Part of per Centage on Loans and Outstanding Treasury Bills, at 5th
January,1820
252,403
10
2¼
£.
1,061,650
15
4¼
-
-
-
435,184
12
3¾
385,623
16
5¾
88¾
Annual Interest on
£.
288,545
3
4
Annual Interest on
£.
17,407
7
8¼
£.
12,754,346
4
10¼
110,525
4
11¾
1,538,909
6
7¼
1,382,187
1
1¾
89¾
Annual Interest on £.1,538,909 6 7¼, at 5 per Cent
76,945
9
4
35,040,478
12
6½
110,525
4
11¾
10,218,241
11
10¼
8,255,809
19
7¼
764,363
2
7½
Chargeable on Sinking Fund:
Redeemed by the Commissioners
10,218,241
11
10¼
Interest cancelled in Ireland, towards defraying the Charge of Treasury Bills raised anno 1816,
&c. the remainder being cancelled in England
£.159,927
6
0¾
Deduct Annuities expired
-
-
-
66,616
6
6
Deduct for Sinking Fund for said Bills
28,076
18
5¾
131,850
7
7
Actual Sinking Fund of Ireland, payable in Ireland, payable in Ireland
632,512
15
0½
Debt Unredeemed at 5th January, 1820
24,822,257
0
8¼
43,908
18
5¾
VII.—UNFUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT, and DEMANDS OUTSTANDING, on the 5th day of January, 1820.
AMOUNT OUTSTANDING.
EXCHEQUER:
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Exchequer Bill
Provided for
597,000
0
0
Unprovided for
36,303,200
0
0
36,900,200
0
0
TREASURY:
Miscellaneous Services
1,024,599
16
6
Warrants for Army
138,089
14
1
Treasury Bills of Exchange, drawn from Aboard
392,939
0
0
Irish Treasury Bills
Provided for
2,300,000
0
0
4,300,000
0
0
Unprovided for
2,000,000
0
0
5,853,628
10
7
ARMY
1,082,893
0
4
NAVY
1,258,174
15
6
ORDNANCE
236,508
2
4
BARRACKS
Nil.
45,333,404
8
9
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 27th April, 1820.
ARBUTHNOT.
VIII.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
An Account, showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1819, have been disposed of; distinguished under their several Heads, to the 5th January, 1820.
SERVICES.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
NAVY
6,436,781
12
7
5,235,720
6
11
ORDNANCE
1,191,000
0
0
1,061,346
3
1
FORCES
8,782,470
5
7
6,909,351
3
0¾
FOR defraying the Charge of the CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS under-mentioned, viz.
Of the Bahama Islands, in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duty Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
3,301
10
0
2,000
0
0
Of the Dominica in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
600
0
0
240
13
2
Of the Upper Canada in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
10,800
0
0
5,000
0
0
Of the Nova Scotia in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
13,440
0
0
6,720
0
0
Of the New Brunswick in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
6,757
10
0
3,000
0
0
Of the Cape Breton in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
2,190
0
0
1,000
0
0
Of the St. John's (now called Prince Edward's Isl.) in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
3,490
0
0
1,000
0
0
Of the Newfoundland in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
5,976
0
0
5,000
0
0
Of the New South Wales in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
16,825
0
0
8,000
0
0
Of the Sierra Leone in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, from the 1st of January to 31st December, 1819
16,687
15
0
15,000
0
0
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
To make good the Deficiency of the Grant of Parliament for the year 1818; to enable 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
79,154
8
9¼
79,154
8
9¼
To enable his Majesty to provide for such Expenses of a Civil Nature as do not form part of the Ordinary Charges of the Civil List; for 1819
300,000
0
0
251,897
11
1¼
To defray the Salaries to the Officers, and Expenses of the Court, and Receipt of Exchequer; for 1819
6,500
0
0
3,956
7
9
To defray the Expense of the Houses of Lords and Commons; for 1819
14,515
0
0
9,745
12
1
To defray the Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of Lords and Commons; for 1819
22,401
0
0
22,361
10
2
To make good the Deficiency of the Sum granted in the last Session of Parliament, to defray the Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons
923
4
1
923
4
1
Towards defraying the Expenses of Works, and Repairs of Public Buildings; for 1819
41,974
0
0
4,507
3
3
To defray the Expense of confining, maintaining, and employing Convicts at home; for 1819
74,932
0
0
65,000
0
0
To defray the Extraordinary Expenses that may be incurred for Prosecutions, &c. relating In the Coin of Ibis Kingdom; for 1819
8,000
0
0
8,000
0
0
To defray the Expense of Law Charges; for 1819
20,000
0
0
20,000
0
0
To defray the 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 1819
17,000
0
0
—
To defray the Expense of printing the Votes of the House of Commons, during the present Session of Parliament
2,200
0
0
2,200
0
0
To defray the Deficiency of the Grant of 1817, for printing 1750 Copies of the 72nd Volume of Journals of the House of Commons
149
9
0
149
9
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Sum granted in the last Session of Parliament for making good the Deficiencies of the Fee Funds in the Departments of the Treasury, three Secretaries of State, and Privy Council
18,449
4
0
18,449
4
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Sum granted in the last Session of Parliament for defraying the Contingent Expenses and Messengers Dills in the Departments of the Treasury, the three Secretaries of State, and Lord Chamberlain
9,189
16
2
9,189
16
2
To make good the Deficiencies of the Fee Funds in the Departments of the Treasury, three Secretaries of Stale, and Privy Council; for 1819
90,727
0
0
65,167
8
0½
To defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers Bills in the Departments of the Treasury, three Secretaries of State, and Lord Chamberlain; for 1819
73,700
0
0
73,700
0
0
Towards defraying the Charge of the Royal Military College; for 1819
£.
0
0
To complete the Sum required for defraying the Charge of the Royal Military College; for 1819 from the 25th of Dec. 1818, to the 24th Dec. 1819
17,173
18
10
25,173
18
10
25,173
18
10
Towards defraying the Charge of the Royal Military Asylum; for 1819
£.
0
0
To complete the Sum required for defraying the Charge of the Royal Military Asylum; for 1819 from the 25th Dec. 1818, to the 24th Dec. 1819
28,482
17
7
36,482
17
7
34,000
0
0
For his Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services; for 1819
80,000
0
0
47,196
12
0
For making good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1818; for defraying the Expense of printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers, by Order of the House of Commons, during the last Session of Parliament
4,987
12
3
4,987
12
3
To make good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1818, for printing
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1,750 Copies of the 73rd Volume of Journals of the House of Commons
213
14
11
213
14
11
To defray the Expense of printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers, by order of the House of Commons, during the present Session of Parliament
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
To defray the Expense that may be incurred for reprinting Journals and Reports of the House of Commons; for 1819
3,000
0
0
—
To defray the Expense that may be incurred for printing 1,750 Copies of the 74th Volume of the Journals of the House of Commons; for 1819
3,500
0
0
—
To defray the Expense incurred for printing 1,250 Copies of the 50th Volume of Journals of the House of Peers
1,671
2
0
—
For defraying the Deficiency of the Grant of 1818, for the Charge of Printing Acts of Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament, for the Sheriff's, 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
2,577
8
5
—
To defray the Amount of Bills drawn or to be drawn from New South Wales; for 1819
100,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
For discharging Interest on Exchequer Bills, Irish Treasury Bills and Mint Notes
1,570,000
0
0
445,000
0
0
One hundredth part of Forty-three Millions of Exchequer Bills, authorized, in the last Session of Parliament, to be issued and charged upon the Aids granted in the present Session, to be issued and paid by equal Quarterly Payments to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, to be by them placed to the Account of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; for the year ending the 1st day of February, 1820
430,000
0
0
322,500
0
0
To make good the Deficiency on the 5th April, 1819, of the Fee Fund at His Majesty's Receipt of Exchequer
23,097
17
4
—
The following Services are directed to be paid, without any Fee or other Deduction whatsoever:—
To defray the Expense of confining and maintaining criminal Lunatics; for 1819
2,777
0
0
—
To defray the Expense of the National Vaccine Establishment; for 1819
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
For the Relief of American Loyalists; for 1819
11,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
To defray the Charge of the Superannuation Allowances or Compensations to retired Clerks, and other Officers formerly employed in the Lottery Office; for 1819
251
10
0
—
To defray the Charge of the Superannuation Allowances or Compensations to retired Clerks and other Officers formerly employed in the Office of the Commissioners for auditing the Public Accounts; for 1819
2,442
0
0
—
To defray the Charge of the Superannuation Allowances or Compensations to retired Clerks and other Officers formerly employed in His Majesty's Mint; for 1819
920
0
0
920
0
0
To defray the Charge of the Superannuation Allowances or Compensations to retired Clerks and other Officers to one of the late Paymasters of Exchequer Bills; for 1819
266
13
4
—
To defray the Charge of the Superannuation Allowances or Compensations to retired Clerks and other Officers to Persons formerly employed on the Military Roads in North Britain; for 1819
558
0
0
558
0
0
To pay the Superannuation or retired Allowance to Master William Bell, formerly Master Shipwright at Kingston, in Canada, at the rate of
£.
225
0
0
112
10
0
Towards defraying the Expense of building a Penitentiary House at Milbank; for 1819
60,000
0
0
39,900
0
0
To defray the Expense of the Establishment of building a Penitentiary House at Milbank; from the 24th June 1819, to the 24th June 1820
21,000
0
0
8,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of making an Inland Navigation from the Eastern to the Western Sea, by Inverness and Fort William for 1819
50,000
0
0
15,000
0
0
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
For the support of the Institution called "The Refuge for the Destitute;" for 1819
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
To enable His Majesty to grant relief to Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, Saint Domingo Sufferers, Dutch Naval Officers, 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 or Liberality
52,662
14
1
20,000
0
0
Toward the Repair of Henry the Seventh's Chapel; for 1819
3,169
13
0¾
3,169
13
0¾
To defray the Salaries and Allowances and Expenses for the Commissioners under the Treaties with Foreign Powers, for preventing the Illicit Traffic in Slaves; for 1819
24,800
0
0
16,156
8
0
To be applied towards the Expence to be incurred in the management merit of the British Museum; for 1819
10,018
16
8
10,018
16
8
To enable His Majesty to pay the same to the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the poor Clergy, according to the Rules and Regulations by which the Funds of that Corporation are governed
100,000
0
0
—
Towards enabling His Majesty to make provision for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the poorer Clergy of Scotland, to be issued and applied pursuant to the Provisions of any Act passed for that purpose
10,000
0
0
—
To defray 3 years and 95 days Interest due on the Sum of £.300,000 granted to the Portuguese Government in pursuance of a Convention signed at Vienna on the 21st Jan. 1815
48,904
2
2
48,904
2
2
To defray the Expense of sundry Improvements between Bangor Ferry and Chirk Bridge, in North Wales; for 1819
15,000
0
0
—
For the Expense of Works carrying on at the College of Edinburgh; for 1819
10,000
0
0
—
To defray the Expense of sundry Works proposed to be done in and about the Harbour of Holyhead; for 1819
12,500
0
0
—
To defray the Expense of the Repairs upon the Cobb at Lyme Regis; for 1819
13,300
0
0
13,300
0
0
For the Board of Agriculture; for 1819
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of maintaining and repairing the British Forts on the Coast of Africa; for 1819
28,000
0
0
28,000
0
0
To pay the Superannuation Allowances or Compensations to Andrew Allen and Edward Stanley, Esqrs. two of His Majesty's retired Consuls Abroad; for 1819
1,175
0
0
880
0
0
To enable His Majesty to issue, and cause to be paid to General Boyd, a Citizen and Officer of the United States of America, in consideration of the Saltpetre exported under the King's Licence, as Remuneration for a Service formerly rendered to this Country, in the East Indies, and for the Expenses and Trouble incurred in the prosecution of his Claim
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
For defraying the Charge of preparing and drawing the Lotteries for 1819, &c.
18,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the following SERVICES in IRELAND, which are directed to be paid Nett in British Currency.
For the Remuneration of certain Public Officers in Ireland, for their extraordinary trouble in 1819
1,153
16
11
1,153
16
11
For defraying the probable Expenditure of the Board of Works in Ireland; for 1819
22,882
0
0
12,484
10
7½
For defraying the Charge of Printing, Stationary, and other Disbursements, for 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 extra Messengers attending the said Offices; also Superannuated Allowances in the said Chief Secretary's Office; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
20,684
0
0
14,935
5
1
For defraying the Expense of publishing Proclamations and other matters of a public nature, in the Dublin Gazette and other Newspapers in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
9,692
0
0
7,233
8
5
For defraying the Expense of printing 1,500 Copies of a com-
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
pressed Quarto Edition of the Statutes of the United Kingdom, 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
3,439
0
0
1,205
5
9¼
For defraying the Expense of Criminal Prosecutions, and other Law Expenses in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
23,076
0
0
16,284
10
6
To defray the Expense of apprehending Public Offenders in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
1,000
0
0
258
9
3
For completing the Sum necessary for the Support of Non-conforming Ministers in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
8,651
1
7
6,470
15
9
For the support of the Seceding Ministers from the Synod of Ulster in Ireland; for one year ending the 25th March 1820
4,034
15
5
2,017
7
8½
For the support of Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
756
0
0
756
0
0
For paying the Salaries of the Lottery Officers in Ireland; for one year ending 24th June 1819
1,741
16
11
1,741
16
11
For the Establishment and Maintenance of the Public Navigation in Ireland, vested in the Directors of the Inland Navigation; for 1849
4,480
0
0
4,480
0
0
For carrying on the Works at Dunmore Harbour; in the current year
12,000
0
0
7,384
12
3¾
To carry on the Works at Howth Harbour; in the current year
6,700
0
0
3,692
6
2
For clothing the Battle Axe Guards for 18 months, commencing from the 1st June 1819
683
1
6
683
1
6
For defraying the Charge of Clothing of His Majesty's Officers of Arms, Pursuivants, and State Trumpeters in Ireland, for three years, commencing the 17lh March 1819
1,071
13
10
1,071
13
10
To defray the Expense of the Police and Watch Establishment of the City and District of Dublin; for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
26,600
0
0
26,600
0
0
To provide for Fever Cases in Ireland; for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
To provide Utensils and Implements of Manufacture for the use of the New Bridewell, in Dublin
1,000
0
0
—
To pay the 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. 1820
7,200
0
0
4,500
0
0
To enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to issue Money from time to time, in aid of Schools established by Voluntary Contributions
3,000
0
0
—
To make good the Advances made from His Majesty's Civil List in Ireland, pursuant to Addresses of the House of Commons, of the 8th July 1817, and the 2nd June 1818, for the remuneration of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Fees and Emoluments of Officers of the Courts of Justice in Ireland
17,076
18
5½
17,076
18
5½
To defray the Expense of building Churches and Glebe Houses, and of purchasing Glebes in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
9,230
0
0
—
To further defray the Expense of building Churches and Glebe Houses, and of purchasing Glebes in Ireland; for the same time
18,461
0
0
9,230
15
To defray the Expense of the Trustees of the Linen and Hempen Manufactures of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th day of January 1820, to be by the said Trustees applied in such manner as shall appear to them to be most conducive to promote and encourage the said Manufactures
19,938
9
2¾
19,938
9
2¾
To defray the Expense of the Commissioners for making wide and convenient Streets in the City of Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
11,000
0
0
11,000
0
0
To defray an additional Allowance to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Navigation in Ireland; for 1819
276
18
5½
276
18
5½
To defray the Expense of putting the House of the Royal Irish Academy, in Grafton Street, into perfect Repair
300
0
0
300
0
0
To defray the Expense of supporting the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
24,000
0
0
24,000
0
0
To defray the Expense of the Foundling Hospital at Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
30,000
0
0
30,000
0
0
For supporting the House of Industry, Hospitals and Asylum for Industrious Children in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
32,000
0
0
32,000
0
0
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
To defray the Expense of supporting the Richmond Lunatio Asylum in Dublin; for one year ending 5th Jan. 1820
6,655
0
0
6,655
0
0
To defray the Expense of the Hibernian Society for Soldiers Children; for one year ending 5th Jan. 1820
9,200
0
0
9,200
0
0
To defray the probable charge of the Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin; for one year ending 5th Jan. 1820
1,800
0
0
1,800
0
0
To defray the Expense of the Female Orphan House, in the Circular Road, near Dublin; for one year ending 5th Jan. 1820
2,600
0
0
2,600
0
0
For supporting the Westmoreland Lock Hospital in Dublin; for one year ending the 4th Jan. 1820
8,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
For supporting the Lying-in Hospital in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
3,300
0
0
3,300
0
0
To defray the probable Expense of Dr. Stevens's Hospital; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
1,400
0
0
1,400
0
0
To defray the Expense of the Fever Hospital and House of Recovery, Cork-street, Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
4,600
0
0
4,600
0
0
To defray the Expense of the Hospital of Incurables in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
460
0
0
460
0
0
To defray the Charge of the Establishment of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
8,928
0
0
8,928
0
0
To defray the Expenses of the Association incorporated for discountenancing Vice, and promoting the knowledge and practice of the Christian Religion; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
3,430
0
0
3,430
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the Green Coat Hospital of the City of Cork; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
100
0
0
100
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the Cork Institution; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
2,300
0
0
2,300
0
0
To defray the Expenses of the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
5,538
0
0
5,538
0
0
To defray the Expenses of the Dublin Society; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
9,200
0
0
9,200
0
0
To defray the Expenses of the Farming Society of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
To defray the Civil Contingencies in Ireland; for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1820
20,000
0
0
15,764
3
5
20,506,449
8
1¾
15,464,822
14
3
To discharge the like Amount of Supplies, granted for the Service of the year 1818, remaining unprovided for
8,046,100
0
0
802,012
2
2¾
28,552,549
8
1¾
16,266,834
16
5¾
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, &c.
36,553,900
0
0
7,410,500
0
0
To pay off and discharge Treasury Bills, &c.
4,400,000
0
0
2,200,000
0
0
69,506,449
8
1¾
25,877,334
16
5¾
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES,
Not being part of the Supplies granted for the Service of the Year.
£.
s.
d.
James Fisher, Esq. on his Salary, for additional trouble in preparing Exchequer Bills, pursuant to Act 48, Geo. 3, cap. 1
375
0
0
Bank of England, for Management of Life Annuities
1,435
16
11¾
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
5,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Commercial Exchequer Bills
2,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for building additional Churches, per Act 58, Geo. 3, cap. 45
2,396
13
3¾
Repayment of Annuities claimed pursuant to Act 56, Geo. 3, cap. 142
37
10
0
11,245
0
3½
Amount of Sums voted, as above
69,506,449
8
1¾
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
69,517,694
8
5¼
WAYS AND MEANS
for answering the foregoing SERVICES.
£.
s.
d.
Duty on Malt, Sugar, Tobacco, and Snuff, and on Pensions, Offices, &c. continued
3,000,000
0
0
Excise Duties, continued per Act 56 Geo. 3, cap. 17
3,500,000
0
0
Profits of Lotteries
240,000
0
0
Monies to arise from the Sale of Old Naval and Victualling Stores
334,487
0
0
Loan per Act 59, Geo. 3, cap. 42
12,000,000
0
0
Loan per Act 59, Geo. 3, cap. 71, from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
12,000,000
0
0
Surplus of the Grants for the year 1818
244,892
18
9¾
Interest on Laud Tax redeemed by Money
267
0
0¾
Unclaimed Dividends, &c. after deducting Repayments to the Bank for Deficiencies of Balance in their hands
56,973
19
6
31,376,620
18
4½
Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means, 59 Geo. 3, cap. 4
£.
0
0
Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means, 59 Geo. 3, cap. 131
16,500,000
0
0
36,500,000
0
0
Irish Treasury Bills, 59 Geo. 3, cap. 132
2,000,000
0
0
38,500,000
0
0
TOTAL Ways and Means
659,876,620
18
4½
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
69,517,694
8
5¼
Surplus Ways and Means
358,926
9
11¼
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 27th April, 1820.
C. ARBUTHNOT.
INDEX TO VOL. IV.NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Address on the King's Speech on Opening the Session, 3.
Commerce of the Country; State of the, 824.
Commercial Distress; Petition from Birmingham relative to, 350, 824.
Foreign Trade, 824.
Ireland; Law of Treason in, 938.
King's Speech on Opening the Session, 3.
Law of Treason in Ireland, 938.
Naples; Conduct of the Allied Powers with regard to, 116, 742, 1039, 1468.
Queen; Petitions relative to the, 104.
Queen's Annuity Bill, 797.
Trade; Petition from Birmingham relative to the Decline of, 350.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session, 37, 95.
African Company Abolition Bill, 823.
Agricultural Distress, 360, 895, 1139.
American Loyalists, 1380.
Army Estimates, 1172, 1227, 1258, 1514.
Attorney and Solicitor, 666.
Austrian Loan, 1219.
B
Bank Cash Payments Bill, 1315,
Bank Notes, 286, 803.
Best, Mr. Justice; Complaint of the Conduct of, 918.
Birmingham, Trade of, 523.
Board of Control, 574.
Bowditches; Case of the, 687.
Breach of Privilege, 287, 338, 1161, 1246.
Bread, 1257.
British Museum, 723.
Broadhurst, Nathan; Petition of, 1128.
Buonaparté, 1495.
C
Capital Crimes Defence Bill, 945.
Carlisle Election; Interference of the Military at, 1247.
Chester; Conduct of the Sheriff of, 554, 811, 512.
Committee of Supply, 138, 339.
Committee of Ways and Means, 563.
Corn Averages, 940.
County Courts Rate, 1264.
D
Davison, Thomas; Petition of, complaining of the Conduct of Mr. Justice Best, 918, 1132.
Detention of a British subject at Ghent, 562.
Distributors of Stamps, 1401.
Dublin Petition, complaining of the Conduct of the High Sheriff, 901.
E
Ellis, Mr. 1084.
F
Foreign Trade, 425.
G
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill, 583, 1068, 1077, 1338.
H
House and Window Duties, 1100.
Hull Poor-Rates Bill, 795.
Husbandry Horse Duties, 1078.
I
Ilchester Gaol, 1170.
India; Censorship of the Press in, 553.
Ionian Islands, 933.
Ireland; Criminal Law of, 1161.
Ireland; State of Education in, 1034.
Irish Union Duties, 720.
J
Judges, right of the, to fine a Defendant during the Course of his Defence, 1132.
K
King's Speech on Opening the Session, 37, 95.
L
London Gazette; Complaint of an Address published in the, 287, 338.
M
Master in Chancery in Ireland; Duties of, 1084.
Machinery; Petition against, 579.
Malt Duties, 683, 1383.
M'Dougall, Mr.; his Petition, complaining of his Detention at Ghent, 562.
Metropolis Turnpike Trusts Bill, 946.
Milan Commission, 836.
Murat, Execution of, 948.
N
Naples, 837, 1350.
Navy Estimates, 342.
Nottingham Petition for the Impeachment of Ministers, 804.
O
Ordnance Estimates, 726.
P
Parliamentary Reform, 222.
Q
Queen, The, 26, 66, 103, 119, 139, 221, 228, 236, 280, 308, 324, 361, 429, 511, 553, 580, 606, 608, 620, 689, 836.
R
Receivers General of Land and Assessed Taxes, 1401.
Revenue Accounts, 298.
Revenue; State of the, 1100.
Roman Catholic Claims, 949, 961, 1066, 1265, 1269, 1412, 1445, 1473, 1489, 1497, 1523.
Romeo, Captain; Petition of, 1345.
S
Scotch Court of Admiralty, 715, 939.
Scotch Juries Bill, 670, 717.
Scotland; Church of, 689.
Sheriffs; Conduct of, 554, 667, 811, 901.
Slave Trade, 428.
Smuggling Preventive Service, 681.
Stock; Transfer of, 1082.
T
Timber Duties, 542, 1500.
Trade of the Country, 523.
Transfer of Stock, 1082.
V
Vagrant Laws, 1216.
W
Water Works, 422.
Ways and Means; Committee of, 563.
West India Dock Company, 947.
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Aberdeen, Earl of, 1056, 1472.
Anson, Viscount, 116.
B
Bathurst, Earl, 1049.
Bedford, Duke of, 115.
Belmore, Earl of, 3.
Blesington, Earl of, 114, 802.
C
Calthorp, Lord, 360, 788, 802, 1055.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 799.
Carnarvon, Earl of, 107, 109, 115.
D
Darnley, Earl of, 104, 105, 106, 797, 835.
E
Eldon, Lord,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 24, 26, 107, 115, 785, 800, 828, 1051, 1468.
Erskine, Lord, 104, 833.
G
Grey, Earl, 6, 113, 116, 118, 350, 742, 789, 835.
Grosvenor, Earl, 105.
H
Harrowby, Earl of, 780.
Holland, Lord, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 107, 111, 771, 780, 938, 1057.
K
King, Lord, 834.
L
Lansdown, Marquis of, 106, 110, 356, 802, 824, 1039.
Leinster, Duke of, 114.
Limerick, Earl of, 801, 938.
Liverpool, Earl of, 12, 23, 24, 105, 112, 118, 354, 760, 797, 829, 1063.
Lord Chancellor [Eldon], 26, 799.
P
Prudhoe, Lord, 5.
W
Wellington, Duke of, 108, 110.
Westmoreland, Earl of, 1055.
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abereromby, Hon. James, 222, 234, 1073, 1096, 1497.
Acland, Sir Thomas, 82,137, 322, 658,1466.
A'Court, E. H. 1362.
Althorp, Viscount, 513, 578, 721, 929, 1072, 1265, 1503.
Astell, William, 332, 579.
Attorney General [Sir Robert Gifford], 183, 468, 922, 1265, 1514.
B
Bankes, Henry, 27, 388, 1261, 1285, 1446.
Bankes, George, 37, 931.
Barham, John Foster, 950, 1155, 1169.
Baring, Alexander, 135, 226, 306, 335, 540, 427, 530, 539, 607, 901, 943,948, 1070, 1171, 1138. 13l7, l494, l516,
Bathurst, Right Hon. Charles Bragge, 32, 33, 64, 254, 297, 350, 380, 575, 599, 809, 913, 1292.
Beaumont, T. W.281, 586, 603, 667.
Becher, W. W. 1440.
Beckett, Right Hon. John, 1255.
Bective, Earl of, 916.
Belgrave, Lord, 136, 554, 562, 819.
Bennet, Hon. Henry Grey, 68, 282, 287, 343, 443, 689, 805, 1152, 1163, 1209, 1256.
Benett, John, 71.
Bentinck, Lord W. 1349.
Bernal, Ralph, 131, 608, 609, 614, 930, 1130, 1209, 1258.
Binning, Lord, 233, 578, 679, 806, 1247, 1538.
Birch, Joseph, 126.
Blake, Sir Francis, 227, 323, 573, 619, 927, 1243, 1466.
Boughton, Rouse, 130.
Bourne, Sturges, 578.
Bridges, G. 665.
Bright, Henry, 266, 558, 664, 716, 725, 928, 1081, 1268, 1466.
Brougham, Henry, 78, 212, 235, 263, 278, 309, 316, 323, 497, 809, 892.
Browne, James, 44, 261.
Browne, D. 571, 1013, 1155.
Brownlow, Charles, 1097, 1427.
Burdett, Sir Francis, 75, 77, 458.
Burrell, Walter, 1151.
Burrell, Sir Charles, 582, 1079.
Bury, Lord, 1013.
Butterworth, Joseph, 227, 581, 1184.
Buxton, Thomas Powell, 1172.
C
Calcraft, John, 222, 1115, 1161, 1175, 1212, 1244, 1255, 1450.
Colvert, C. 236, 513, 609, 1072.
Calvert, N. 604, 1229.
Canning, Right Hon. George, 1301, 1365, 1454, 1493,1542.
Castlereagh, Viscount, 26, 27, 28, 53, 67, 68, 69, 71, 76, 78, 79, 96, 98, 100, 101, 104, 202, 238, 240, 268, 273, 290, 316, 361, 429, 486, 518, 617, 618, 669, 689, 710, 714. 807, 820, 837, 865, 915, 927, 929, 937, 948, 1026,1074, 1097, 1137, 1106, 1167, 1186, 1210, 1225, 1243, 1252, 1347, 1349, 1355, 1399, 1411, 1444, 1478, 1491, 1499.
Cavendish, Lord George, 1394.
Chancellor of the Exchequer [Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart], 35, 280, 286, 301, 305, 307, 339, 341, 344, 563, 566, 607, 608, 684, 722, 932, 1080, 1083, 1110, 1170, 1315, 1383, 1393, 1409, 1495.
Chetwynd, George, 1216, 1265.
Clerk, Sir George, 344.
Clive, Henry, 688.
Cockburn, Sir George, 345, 348, 682.
Coffin, Sir Isaac, 552, 947.
Colborne, N. R. 725.
Copley, Sir John,
see
Courtenay, W. 1070, 1075, 1380.
Courtenay, T. P. 578.
Creevey, Thomas, 33, 138, 325, 327, 342, 343, 349, 561, 564, 576, 669, 683, 715, 716, 811, 821, 916, 939, 1164, 1170, 1172.
Cripps, Joseph, 1333.
Croker, J. W. 1412, 1496, 1497.
Curtis, Sir William, 331.
Curwen, John Christian, 45, 69, 287, 311, 427, 526, 529, 580, 582, 720, 803, 817, 895, 923, 931, 944, 947, 1078, 1082, 1147, 1253.
D
Davenport, D. 663, 815.
Davis, Colonel, 567, 685, 886, 937, 1080, 1168, 1175, 1198, 1261, 1520.
Dawson, G. R. 1014, 1203.
De Crespigny, Sir W. 132, 135, 222, 513,573, 608.
Denison, W. J. 120, 121, 512.
Denman, Thomas. 125, 126, 222, 229, 318, 515, 520, 562, 578, 579, 804, 809, 918, 1074, 1136, 1138.
Dickinson, W. 1171.
Dodson, Dr. 179.
Douglas, Keith, 1400.
Dugdale, D. S. 523.
Dundas, Charles, 120, 614.
Dundas, Right Hon. W. 231.
E
Ebrington, Lord, 511.
Egerton, W. 558, 815.
Ellice, Edward, 895, 1124, 1333, 1386.
Ellis, Charles, 153.
Ellis, Thomas, 911, 1092, 1533.
Estcourt, T. G. 74, 77,
Evans, William, 1243.
F
Fergusson, Sir Rowland, 67, 69, 122, 232, 235, 742, 836, 931, 1238, 1240, 1246.
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 312, 577, 722, 909, 1025, 1034, 1492.
Fitzgibbon, Richard, 949, 1530.
Fleming, John, 123.
Felkestone, Viscount, 27, 60, 64, 80, 257, 1137, 1395.
Forbes, Charles, 235, 322, 346.
Freemautle, W. H. 422.
G
Gascoyne, Isaac, 1161.
Gifford, Sir Robert,
see
Gilbert, Davies, 237, 586, 804, 946.
Gipps, George, 317, 816.
Gladstone, John, 327, 328, 347, 572.
Glenorchy, Lord, 695, 959.
Gordon, Robert, 74, 298, 824.
Gooch, T. 360, 1139.
Goulburn, Henry, 935, 1237, 1439, 1485, 1537.
Grant, Right Hon. Sir Charles, 234, 907, 1021, 1036, 1168, 1208, 1424, 1522.
Grant, J. P. 681, 713,720, 913, 928, 1239.
Grattan, James, 1466.
Grenfell, Pascoe, 223, 286, 303, 359, 582, 584, 900, 950, 1080.
Grosset, J. R. 1439.
Gurney, Hudson, 589, 725, 1337.
H
Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 139, 158, 688, 714, 1167, 1394, 1412.
Harbord, Hon. E. 613, 1219, 1257.
Hardinge, Sir H. 1235,1259.
Harvey, Sir E. 345.
Heathcote, J. G. 127.
Heron, Sir Robert, 101, 610.
Heygate, Alderman, 82, 88, 94, 217, 559, 605.
Hill, Sir George, 1026,1493, 1528.
Hobhouse, John Cam, 123, 158, 323, 614, 921, 1077, 1130, 1132,1168, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1230, 1339.
Honywood, W. P. 127, 521, 1151.
Hornby, Edmund, 1129.
Hume, Joseph, 32, 74, 85, 102, 103, 230, 232, 235, 240, 271, 343, 345, 542, 568, 574, 685, 726, 933, 1496, 1514, 1515, 1517, 1521, 1522.
Hurst, R. 346, 1073.
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, 436, 570, 607, 608, 795, 930, 1080, 1119, 1165, 1213, 1238, 1396.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H. 720, 929, ll67, 1261, 1362, 1489, 1497, 1531.
I
Irving, John, 340, 944.
J
James, William, 101, 119, 1128, 1247.
Jervoise, J. P. 132.
K
Kennedy, T. F. 233, 670, 719.
Knatchbull, Sir Edward, 120, 522, 1141.
L
Lamb, Hon. W. 95, 261, 663.
Lambton, John George, 70, 71, 221, 223, 281, 368, 553, 1131.
Lawley F. 524
Legge, Hon. H. 640.
Lemon, Sir William, 65.
Lennard, T. B. 280, 600, 651,723, 1090.
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 310, 312, 684, 949, 1266, 1445, 1497.
Lewis, Frankland, 796, 944, 947.
Littelton, E. J. 525, 529, 581, 601, 721, 1258, 1399.
Lockhart, J. 90, 567, 585, 612, 925, 945, 1073, 1079, 1130, 1259, 1264, 1384.
Long, Sir Charles, 724, 931, 1164, 1523.
Lord Advocate of Scotland [Sir William Rae], 232, 696, 715, 717, 720, 939.
Lowther, Lord, 316, 1253,1256.
Lushington, Stephen Rumbold, 275, 347, 349,522, 1123.
Lushington, Dr. 78, 82, 611, 613, 1084, 1171.
M
Maberly, John, 298, 306, 514, 1100, 1213.
Maberly, W. L. 513.
Macdonald, James, 514, 1204, 1227.
Mackenzie, Thomas, 1385.
Mackintosh, Sir James. 33, 189, 394, 104, 836, 837, 893, 914, 1004, 1244, 1249, 1268, 1294, 1350, 1376, 1410, 1435,1483, 1513.
Mansfield, John, 686.
Marryat, James, 344, 542, 657, 823, 947, 1503.
Martin, James, 686.
Martin, Richard, 126, 181, 267, 272, 584, 613, 619, 650, 913, 945, 1030, 1072, 1261, 1445, 1494, 1497,1512.
Maxwell, J. 598, 714.
Milton, Lord, 33, 120, 199, 231, 273, 333, 415, 658, 1068, 1072.
Monck, J. B. 128, 512, 1073, 1080, 1167, 1399.
Moore, Abraham, 821.
Moore, Peter, 1494.
Musgrave, Sir P. 1249.
N
Newport, Sir John, 183, 222, 288, 297, 302, 339, 428, 561, 571, 586, 618, 662, 686, 721, 912, 932, 1165, 1226, 1412, 1477.
Nicholl, Sir John, 1423, 1478.
Nolen, Michael, 946.
Nugent, Lord, 93, 94, 228, 279, 1413, 951.
O
O'Grady, Mr. 1522, 1529.
Ommaney, Sir P. 346.
Onslow, Mr. Sergeant, 34, 124, 228, 580, 585, 666, 1130, 1136.
P
Palmer, Fyshe, 125, 1264.
Palmerston, Viscount, 1174, 1187, 1189, 1244, 1263, 1516, 1519, 1522.
Parnell, Sir Henry, 339, 720, 742, 1037, 1259, 1521.
Pearse, John, 66, 75, 1332.
Peel, Right Hon. R. 404, 721, 913, 988, 1067, 1073, 1095, 1298, 1332, 1441, 1474, 1492, 1539.
Peel, William, 529.
Pelham, C. A. 611.
Philips, George, 224, 307, 338, 561, 587, 816.
Phillimore, Dr. 1384, 1440, 1492.
Plunkett, Right Hon. W. C. 960, 961, 1066, 1099, 1266, 1269, 1285.
Pole, Right Hon. W. W. 134, 448.
Price, Robert, 283.
R
Ricardo, David, 341, 535, 541, 553, 944, 1122, 1155, 1328.
Rice, T. Spring, 949, 1037, 1161,1530.
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, 281, 808, 1165.
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick, 102, 155, 530, 596, 717, 889, 940, 947, 1144, 1535.
Robinson, Sir G. 280, 614.
Russell, Lord John, 78, 137, 270, 583, 602, 901, 922, 1075,1338.
S
Scarlett, James, 34, 200, 295, 926, 1075, 1138.
Scott, Sir William, 1284, 1413, 1523.
Sebright, Sir John, 912.
Sefton, Lord, 324.
Shaw, Robert, 915.
Sibthorp, G. W. 609.
Smith, C. 271, 606.
Smith, William, 138, 428, 576, 716, 1263, 1382.
Smith, Robert, 610, 1219.
Smith, John, 328, 620, 1127, 1521.
Solicitor General [Sir John Copley], 34, 196, 924.
Speaker, The [Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton], 26, 27, 134, 200, 213, 221, 222, 240, 519, 924, 1091, 1168, 1451.
Stanley, Lord, 127, 273, 1130,
Stuart-Wortley, J. 225, 269, 272, 273, 279, 562, 604, 649, 885, 1063, 1072, 1077, 1162, 1166, 1168,1412.
Sumner, Holme, 273, 278, 279, 308, 313, 513, 605, 944, 1395.
Sutton, Right Hon. Charles Manners,
see
Sykes, Daniel, 69, 122, 313, 796, 1338.
T
Talbot, Colonel, 905.
Tavistock, Marquis of, 65, 130, 361.
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 423, 680, 719.
Tennyson, Charles, 73, 629, 1344.
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 26, 29, 32, 33, 47, 244, 471, 608, 886, 889.
Tremayne. J. H. 346,1151.
Twiss, Horace, 418,1415.
Tynte, C. K. 65.
V
Vansittart, Right Hon. Nicholas,
see
Vernon, G. G. V. 228.
Vivian, Sir H. 1208, 1229.
W
Wallace, T. 425, 1165, 1500.
Ward, Robert, 570, 736.
Ward, Hon. J. W. 590, 890, 1362.
Warre, J. A. 64, 97, 681, 687, 689, 820, 950.
Warrender, Sir G. 235, 342, 343, 346.
Wells, John, 334.
Western, C. C. 67, 237, 280, 312, 535, 573, 1153, 1384.
Wetherell, Charles, 26, 27, 31, 103, 162, 239, 1428, 1482.
White, Luke, 1023.
Whitmore, Mr. 384, 1150.
Wilberforce, William, 644, 883, 1262, 1289, 1383, 1399.
Wilbraham, Bootle, 559, 809, 817.
Williams, William, 121.
Wilmot, R. J. 321,598, 654.
Wilson, Sir Robert, 66, 98, 128, 227, 235, 324, 430, 522, 553, 579, 609, 685, 806, 879, 949, 1069, 1130, 1164, 1242, 1350, 1379, 1496.
Wilson, Thomas, 337, 585, 614, 1161.
Wodehouse, E. 64, 1152, 1394.
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 277, 279, 314, 334, 520, 613, 1170, 1172.
Wood, Colonel, 1241.
Wynn, Charles Watkin Williams, 594, 641, 805, 808, 818, 916, 930, 1092, 1130, 1136, 1138, 1253.
Wyvill, Marmaduke, 119, 222.
Y
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 1514.
END OF VOL. IV.