THE
New Series,
VOL. VI.
*
*
*
Of the same Proprietors may be had, in Thirty-six Volumes,
THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803.
THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES:
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. VI.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TO
THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF APRIL, 1822.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY T. C. HANSARD, PETERBOROUGH-COURT, FLEET-STREET;
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.
1822.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. PETITIONS.
V. REPORTS.
VI. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1822. Feb. 5. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
3
1822. Feb. 7. State of Ireland
93
1822. Feb. 9. State of Ireland—Irish Insurrection Bill—Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill
185
1822. Feb. 18. Agricultural Distress
449
1822. Feb. 21. Agricultural Distress
555
1822. Feb. 26. Agricultural Distress, and the Financial Measures for its Relief
681
1822. Mar. 5. Agricultural Distress
915
1822. Mar. 8. Roasted Wheat—Breakfast Powder
992
1822. Mar. 12. Navy Five per Cents Bill
1039
1822. Mar. 15. Ilchester Gaol—Treatment of Mr. Hunt
1166
Irish Tithes
1166
1822. Mar. 26. Agricultural Distress
1278
Lord King's Motion respecting the Civil List and Allowances to Foreign Ministers
1279
1822. Mar. 28. Board of Admiralty Quorum Bill
1368
1822. Mar. 29. Board of Admiralty Quorum Bill
1381
1822. April 1. Roasted Wheat
1400
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1822. Feb. 5. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
19
1822. Feb. 7. Agricultural Distress—Petition from Norfolk
96
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
102
State of Ireland—Irish Insurrection Bill—Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill
104
1822. Feb. 8. The King's Answer to the Address
151
Ilchester Gaol—Treatment of Mr. Hunt
151
Knightsbridge Barracks—Petition of the Corporation of London
159
Irish Insurrection Bill
163
Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill
181
1822. Feb. 11. Mr. Brougham's Motion for such a Reduction of the Taxes as may be suited to the Change in the Value of Money, and may afford an immediate Relief to the Distresses of the Country
220
1822. Feb. 12. Slave Trade Laws Consolidation Bill
278
Distributors of Stamps
279
1822. Feb. 13. Agricultural Distress
279
Petition of Thomas Flanagan, of Sligo
281
Breach of Privilege—Opening of Letters addressed by or to Members
281
Sir Robert Wilson's Motion respecting his Removal from the Army
282
1822. Feb. 15. Agricultural Distress
345
Agricultural Distress—and the Financial Measures for its Relief
350
1822. Feb. 18. Agricultural Distress
454
Saving Banks
455
Committee of Supply—Navy Estimates
455
Scotch Commissary Courts
458
The Marquis of Londonderry's Motion for a Committee on the Agricultural Distress
462
1822. Feb. 20. Agricultural Distress
509
Ilchester Gaol—Treatment of Mr. Hunt
510
Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion for going into a Committee upon the Royal Burghs of Scotland
519
1822. Feb. 21. Agricultural Distress
557
Lord Althorp's Resolution on the Plan proposed for the Relief of the Country
558
1822. Feb. 22. Navy Estimates
612
1822. Feb. 25. Breach of Privilege—Opening of Letters addressed by or to Members
644
Navy Five per Cents
663
1822. Feb. 27. Hawkers, Pedlars, and Hackney Coach Licenses
747
Ilchester Gaol—Treatment of. Mr. Hunt
749
Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Civil Offices Pension Bill
753
Navy Estimates
783
1822. Feb. 28. Scotch Burghs Regulation Bill
800
1822. Feb. 28. Knightsbridge Barracks—Complaint of an Outrage on Mr. Sheriff Waithman
801
Mr. Calcraft's Motion for leave to bring in a Bill for the gradual reduction of the Duties on Salt
837
1822. Mar. 1. Ilchester Gaol—Treatment of Mr. Hunt
862
Sinking Fund
863
Navy Estimates—Lords of the Admiralty—Navy Pay Office
866
1822. Mar. 4. Ilchester Gaol—Petition of Mr. Hunt
891
Navy Five per Cents Bill
894,
Army Estimates
895
1822. Mar. 5. Seditious Meetings Amendment Bill
916
Scotch Juries in Criminal Causes Bill
917
Agricultural Distress
918
Army Estimates
920
1822. Mar. 6. Mr. Bennet's Motion respecting the Funeral of Her late Majesty
923
Army Estimates
978
1822. Mar. 7. Agricultural Distress
983
General Post Office
990
1822. Mar. 8. Banks of England, and of Ireland
992
Navy Five per Cents Bill
997
1822. Mar. 11. Navy Five per Cents Bill
1011
Superannuation Act Amendment Bill
1015
1822. Mar. 12. Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill
1047
Colonel Davies's Motion respecting the Collection of the Revenue
1048
Mutiny Bill
1063
1822. Mar. 13. Distress in Canada—Petition from the House of Assembly
1073
Ilchester Gaol—Treatment of Mr. Hunt
1077
Lord Normanby's Motion respecting the Office of Joint Post Master General
1082
1822. Mar. 14. Mr. Maberly's Motion respecting the Simplifying and better Arrangement of the Public Accounts
1114
Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Duties of the Board of Control
1120
Police of the Metropolis
1165
1822. Mar. 15. Breach of Privilege—Letter written to a Member by Mr. Arbuthnot, the Secretary to the Treasury
1173
Army Estimates
1178
1822. Mar. 18. Malt Duty Repeal Bill
1187
Navy Estimates
1190
1822. Mar. 20. Grenada—Petition for a Reduction of Taxes
1200
Mr. Curwen's Motion respecting the Duties on Tallow and Candles
1206
Army Estimates
1215
1822. Mar. 21. Navy Estimates
1228
1822. Mar. 22. Petition from Newcastle on behalf of Mr. Hunt, and imputing notorious Corruption to the House
1231
Navy Estimates
1238
Army Estimates
1241
1822. Mar. 25. Petition or Captain Romeo
1252
Ordnance Estimates
1264
1822. Mar. 27. Roasted Wheat
1309
Constitutional Association—Petition of John Barkley
1310
Gaol Delivery—Petition from the Grand Jury of Essex
1316
Marriage Act Amendment Bill
1326
Ordnance Estimates
1362
1822. Mar. 28. Ilchester Gaol—Petition from Bethnal Green
1369
Reform of Parliament—Petition from Monmouth
1371
Middlesex County Court
1374
Army Estimates
1379
1822. Mar. 29. Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill
1382
Sheriffs Depute in Scotland
1384
Roman Catholic Peers
1387
Miscellaneous Estimates—Commissariat—Barracks
1390
1822. April 1. Agricultural Distress—Rate of Interest
1402
Report from the Committee on the distressed State of Agriculture
1406
Colonial Trade Bill
1414
Miscellaneous Estimates—Secret Service Money
1430
1822. April 2. Bread
1432
Extra-post—Petition of Mr. Burgess
1433
1822. April 3. Agricultural Distress
1434
1822. April 17. Accessories in Felonies
1457
Manslaughter
1458
Beer Trade
1458
Marriages of Unitarian Dissenters
1460
1822. April 18. Committee for Simplifying the Public Accounts
1462
1822. April 22. Agricultural Distress
1466
Brazils—Conduct of the Consul General
1467
Sir John Newport's Motion on the State of Ireland
1469
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
1822. Feb. 5. King's Speech on Opening the Session
1
IV. PETITIONS.
1822. Feb. 8. Petition of the Corporation of London, complaining of the conduct of the Military at the Knightsbridge Barracks
159
V. REPORTS.
1822. April 1. Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the distressed State of the Agriculture of the United Kingdom
1406
VI. LISTS.
1822. Feb. 5. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Amendment to the Address on the King's Speech
93
1822. Feb. 7. of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill
149
1822. Feb. 8. of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the Irish Insurrection Bill
181, 184, 185
1822. Feb. 11 of the Minority, and also of the Majority, on Mr. Brougham's, Motion on the distressed State of the Country
276
1822. Feb. 13. of the Minority on Sir Robert Wilson's Motion respecting his Removal from the Army
344
1822. Feb. 20. of the Minority Oft Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion for a Committee on the Royal Burghs of Scotland
555
1822. Feb. 21. of the Minority, and also of the Majority, on Lord Althorp's Resolution on the Plan proposed for the relief of the Country
609
1822. Feb. 22. of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for a Detail of the Estimates for the Wages of Seamen
634, 641
1822. Feb. 25. of the Minority on Mr. James's; Motion, declaring it a Breach of Privilege to open Letters addressed by or to Members
663
1822. Feb. 27. of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for Detail of the Navy and Ordnance Estimates
800
1822. Feb. 28. of the Minority on Mr. Alderman Wood's Motion respecting the Outrage committed on the person of Mr. Sheriff Waithman
837
of the Minority on Mr. Calcraft's Motion for the gradual Reduction of the Salt Duties
860
1822. Mar. 1. of the Majority on Sir M. W. Ridley's Motion for the Reduction of the Lords of the Admiralty
881
of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Estimate of the Expense of the Navy Pay Office
891
1822. Mar. 4. of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion for reducing the Number of the Land Forces
914.
1822. Mar. 8. of the Minority in the House of Commons on the Navy Five per Cents Bill
1011
1822. Mar. 12. of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion respecting the Collection of the Revenue
1062
1822. Mar. 13. of the Majority, and also of the Minority, on Lord Normanby's Motion respecting the Office of Joint Postmaster General
1111
1822. Mar. 14. of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Duties of the Board of Control
1165
1822. Mar. 15. of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Expenses of the Staff
1182
1822. Mar. 18. of the Minority; on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Expense of the Victualling office
1195
1822. Mar. 20. of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Office of Judge Advocate General
1226
1822. Mar. 20. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Royal Military College
1228
1822. Mar. 22. of the Minority in the House of Commons, for receiving the petition from Newcastle, on behalf of Mr. Hunt, and imputing notorious Corruption to the House
1237
of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for Garrisons
1245
1822. Mar. 25. of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent Duties raised in Barbadoes
1265
of the Minority on Mr. flume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Ordnance Office
1278
1822. Mar. 27. of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Repair of Forts at Barbadoes
1368
1822. Mar. 28. of the Minority in the House of Commons, on bringing up a Petition from Bethnal Green, in behalf of Mr. Hunt
1371
of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Military College
1381
of the Minority on the Grant for the Expense of Works and Repairs of Public Buildings
1400
April 1. of the Minority on Mr. Bennet's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Expense of the Offices of the Secretaries of State, &c.
1432
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
During the Third Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Fifth Day of February 1822, in the Third Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.
1822
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, February 5, 1822.
THE KING'S SPEECH ON OPENING THE SESSION.
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 Speech to both Houses:
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"I have the satisfaction of informing you, that I continue to receive from foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country.
"It is impossible for the not to feel deeply interested in any event that may have a tendency to disturb the peace of Europe. My endeavours have, therefore, been directed, in conjunction with my Allies, to the settlement of the differences which have unfortunately arisen between the Court of St. Petersburgh and the Ottoman Porte; and I have reason to entertain hopes that these differences will be satisfactorily adjusted.
"In my late visit to Ireland, I derived the most sincere gratification from the loyalty and attachment manifested by all classes of my subjects.
"With this impression, it must be matter of the deepest, concern to me, that a
2
"I am determined to use all the means in my power for the protection of the persons and property of my loyal and peaceable subjects. And it will be for your immediate consideration, whether the existing laws are sufficient for this purpose.
"Notwithstanding this serious interruption of public tranquillity. I have the satisfaction of believing that my presence in Ireland has been productive of very beneficial effects; and all descriptions of my people may confidently rely upon the just and equal administration of the laws, and upon my paternal solicitude for their welfare.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"It is very gratifying to me to be able to inform you, that during the last year the revenue has exceeded that of the year preceding, and appears to be in a course of progressive improvement.
"I have directed the estimates of the current year to be laid before you. They have been framed with every attention to economy which the circumstances of the country will permit; and it will be satisfactory to you to learn, that I have been able to make a large reduction in our annual expenditure, particularly in our Naval and Military establishments.
3
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"I have the greatest pleasure in acquainting you, that a considerable improvement has taken place in the course of the last year, in the commerce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, and that I can now state them to be, in their important branches, in a very flourishing condition.
"I must at the same time deeply regret the depressed state of the agricultural interest.
"The condition of an interest, so essentially connected with the prosperity of the country, will, of course, attract your early attention; and I have the fullest reliance on your wisdom in the consideration of this important subject.
"I am persuaded that, in whatever measures you may adopt, you will bear constantly in mind, that, in the maintenance of our public credit, all the best interests of this kingdom are equally involved; and that it is by a steady adherence to that principle, that we have attained, and can alone expect to preserve, our high station amongst the nations of the world."
His majesty then retired, and the Commons returned to their own House.
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.
His majesty's Speech being again read by the lord chancellor, and also by the clerk at the table,
The Earl of Roden
rose for the purpose of moving an Address of thanks to his majesty. He began by observing, that he could assure their lordships, that he sincerely wished the duty he was about to perform, had been undertaken by one better able to discharge it, and, in particular, better qualified than he possibly could be, to enter into all the details, which the full consideration of so gracious a communication as that which now called for their lordships' attention, required. As the day on which he appeared before their lordships was the first on which he had taken his seat in that House, it might, perhaps, have been expected that be would have waited for a more remote opportunity of expressing his sentiments; but he freely confessed, that he had undertaken to move
4
5
6
7
Lord Walsingham
solicited their lordships' indulgence, whilst he said a very few words on seconding the Address
8
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, be was anxious to offer a few explanations as to the grounds of the vote he intended to give. He should not have thought it necessary to take that moment for making those explanations, but no other noble lord having presented himself to the House, he thought it proper now to state his view of the importance of the topics touched on in the Speech from the throne—topics, indeed, of the most distressing nature for this country, and which had forced themselves into special notice, notwithstanding the natural reluctance which those who framed the Speech must have felt to bring them forward. Following nearly the order taken by the noble earl who had, with so much propriety, moved the Address, the few observations which he had to make would be divided chiefly between the topics which related to the state of England and Ireland; and here he could not but remark upon the melancholy circumstance, that, although it was now twenty years since the union with Ireland was concluded, still it appeared necessary for persons, in discussing the interests of the United Kingdom, to consider those of Great Britain and Ireland separately, as two distinct parts; and this, too, at a time when to both countries there belonged one common feature of agricultural distress. Much as he rejoiced in the prosperity stated in the Speech to be experienced by the manufactures and commerce of the country, he could not but consider the consolation thereby afforded
9
10
11
l.
12
13
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that, as the noble marquis had made no positive objections to the Address, he should not have felt himself called upon to offer any remark, had it not been for one passage in which the noble marquis had alluded to a transaction in which he (lord Liverpool) was concerned; namely, to the interview which he had had the day before with some of the London bankers. Although called up by this circumstance alone, he
14
15
16
l.,
17
18
19
The Earl of Blesington
said, that on the subject of Ireland, he was happy to be relieved from a task to which he had pledged himself last session, and rejoiced that the state of that country would be brought under their notice by a noble lord so much better qualified to do it justice. He might, indeed, fairly remind their lordships, however little inclined to listen to him, that he had, so far back as the year 1816, anticipated that, unless something was done, the present evils would inevitably occur. In 1819 be had repeated the observation, and had implored the attention of his majesty's government to this subject. He had always maintained, that the existing evil of non-residence was to be attributed to the Union. The war, too, had led to consequences not anticipated during its continuance. He did not, however, rise merely to give vent to his complaint that the subject had not been earlier investigated, but to express his thanks to the noble marquis, for the notice which he had given, as well as the gratification he felt at the prospect of government at length interfering on behalf of that country.
The Address was then agreed to
nem. diss.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 5.
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 his majesty's Speech,
Mr. Robert Clive
rose to offer himself to the attention of the House for the purpose of moving an Address of thanks to his majesty for his gracious Speech. He would not apologise for his inability to do justice to the subject, as he conceived he should best consult the convenience of the House by proceeding at once to those points which he should submit to their attention, and which he hoped would meet with their unanimous concurrence. On the first point of the Speech he appre-
20
21
22
23
Mr. William Duncombe
rose to second the address. In doing so, he felt that he
24
25
26
Per damna, per cædes, ab ipso Ducit opes animumque ferro.
Sir Francis Burdett
said, that the very modest and sensible speech of the mover of the address, in answer to the Speech from the throne, had given him very little to comment on; as there was little in it with which he did not cordially agree. Of the speech of the hon. member who seconded the address, he should have been enabled to say the same, were it not for the topic introduced at the end of his speech, differing in tone and temper both from the Speech from the throne and the address in answer to it. That hon. member had said, that there were persons in England anxious to subvert the constitution of the country. This assertion was unfortunate, and in contradiction to the first part of his speech, in which he had recommended and praised the reduction of that large military force, which there was, indeed, no honest pretence for keeping up. As to the foreign politics of the Speech from the throne he should pass them over very rapidly, because in our present situation they were comparatively of very small importance. Of the territory now in contest, he would only say, that he wished heartily it was out of the Turkish possession, and in the possession of the Greeks. In saying so, he was convinced that it would be a great benefit to the Christian European world, if an independent state were erected in that part of Europe by the great and glorious exertions of that cruelly-oppressed people in vindication of their ancient liberties. He had a short amendment to propose, which was dictated by no disrespect to the throne, but by a desire to give the royal Speech that consideration, which, under the circumstances of the country, was especially due to it. In ancient times—and, as he was rather old fashioned in his opinions, in what he would call better times—better parliamentary times—it was the custom for the. House of Commons to wish to deliberate before it resolved: it was the practice of our forefathers to understand before they
27
28
29
30
31
32
—Neque ego illi detrahere ausim "Hærentem capita multa cum laude coronam;"
Mr. Hobhouse,
in rising to second the motion, took occasion to express his entire concurrence in the reasons assigned by his hon. colleague for postponing any reply to the Speech from the throne, until the House should have some time to consider its merits. His hon. colleague was quite correct as to his quotations with, regard to the practice of that House in early times, respecting its replies to king's speeches; but even after the Revolution, it
33
34
35
"—cui placet impares "Formas atque animos subjuga ahenea "Sævo mittere cum joco."
36
Mr. Grattan
could not refrain from trespassing shortly on the House, after what had been said regarding the state of Ireland. The visit of his majesty to that unhappy island was a most beneficial precedent, and would tend unquestionably to secure the loyalty and affection of its inhabitants. That great distress prevailed among them, was admitted on all hands; and so long as Ireland continued what she was, crimes, perhaps of the blackest die, were inevitable. The speech from the throne adverted to the inefficiency of the existing laws. He had the utmost dread of Insurrection acts. Ireland was like the poor wretch flogged by the drummer: let him strike where be would, he could not give satisfaction. The condition of a country so important, so populous, but so long despised and neglected, was most extraordinary: she was not visited by the curse of God, but of government. He would concur with the most violent gentlemen in Ireland, (where there were violent gentlemen enough) in punishing crime severely; but he hoped that the whole country would not be denounced for the offences of a few banditti. His countrymen had, like other people, their virtues and their vices; but the latter were greatly
37
38
39
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he felt it necessary, in consequence of the course the debate had taken, to trouble the House with a very few observations; rather with the view of giving a general understanding of what ministers meant to do, than for the purpose of discussing at that moment any of the important topics adverted to in his majesty's speech. In the whole course of his parliamentary experience, he never recollected an address to the Crown better calculated to conciliate all parties, and to produce a feeling of temper and moderation, than that which was now proposed; and he certainly did regret that any thing should have occurred which was at all likely to interrupt that conciliatory tone of feeling, the necessity of preserving which had been suggested by his hon. friend who moved the address. He begged to assure the House, that in carrying up, as he hoped they would do, unanimously, this address to the throne, his majesty's government would not consider any individual as pledged by that vote to any specific line of conduct, with reference to the important subjects which were noticed in the address. He could assure the gentlemen opposite, that ministers did not expect to find, in consequence of the vote of that night, any relaxation on the part of the House of that disposition to scrutinize the conduct of government, which undoubtedly was a part of their duty, and which he hoped they would perform severely, but at the same time justly. He trusted the hon. baronet would forgive him, if he reminded him that it was customary on the first day of the session for gentlemen to enter into a sort of general protest, such as he and his hon. colleague had thought fit to make, lest it might be supposed that they were pledged to a particular line of conduct at a subsequent period, in consequence of the adoption of any proposed address. Perhaps it would have been as well if they had stopped there: for certainly it could
40
41
42
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that if the noble lord, in the address which he and his colleagues were anxious to lay before the throne, meant to pledge the House to the adoption of severe measures for the protection of persons and property in Ireland, he, for one, would give it his decided negative. If the noble lord and his colleagues meant to assert that the law, as it now stood in Ireland, was not sufficiently strong for that purpose, they stated that which was not the fact. He should deceive the House, and betray his duty to the country, if he suffered it to go abroad, that in agreeing to the address that night, he recognized the necessity of enacting severe measures with respect to Ireland. He was ready to do no such thing. Such measures, in his opinion, could not produce good. He was sure that they would not restore peace or security beyond the peace of the passing moment. He would not state the feelings which seized hold of his mind when he reflected on the situation of his native land; but he would remind the noble marquis, that he had, almost nineteen years ago, in his place in that House, called on him and on his majesty's ministers to take into immediate consideration the state and condition of the people of
43
44
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that the address did not pledge the House to support any new penal laws with reference to Ireland. When the subject was before them, gentlemen would dispose of it as they thought fit. He should be enabled to-morrow to lay on the table certain dispatches from the marquis Wellesley, which contained a statement of the present situation of Ireland. He wished those despatches to be in the possession of members before he called the attention of the House to this subject.
45
Sir J. Newport
said, he would not oppose the address, as he understood that on Thursday the state of Ireland would be regularly brought before the House. It would then he matter for consideration, whether any farther measures were necessary for the purpose of strengthening the laws; and also, whether, if restrictive acts were resorted to, they ought not to be accompanied by others of a healing and conciliatory nature. He could not give his consent to any restrictive measure, unless it was accompanied by a measure of conciliation. His opinion, he was aware, would not carry much weight with it; but having for twenty sessions watched over the interests of Ireland, he could not let the present occasion pass without making this observation.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he, for one, if it had seemed good to the House, instead of putting off for an indefinite period, or even to the time to which the noble lord had referred them, the consideration of the unexampled distress which weighed down the agricultural interest, could have wished this, the first night of the session, not to pass without their attention being directly pointed to it. He felt more particularly anxious to have an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this subject, because, from accidental circumstances, he had been prevented on former occasions from taking a part in the discussion of one of the measures—he meant the resumption of cash payments—to which, in his opinion, much—he would not say the whole—but a very large proportion of the present distress might be ascribed. He would, however, yield to what he took to be the sense of the House; namely, that they should not that night go into the discussion of this subject; and he would reserve himself for another opportunity, when he might fully state his sentiments. He did not mean to wait for the period which the noble lord had stated, because he did not understand the purport of his intended proposition, nor did he very clearly collect the time when it would be brought forward. He would, therefore, to-morrow, on the bringing up of the report, submit to the House an amendment, touching the present distressed state of the country, and that which, he would take leave to say, could afford the only effectual relief. He was confident, whether he regarded the nature of the evil or its causes, that the only specific remedy for it, in the present state of the country,
46
47
Mr. Hume
said, that, in order to satisfy those gentlemen who wished for a pledge on the subject of retrenchment, he was prepared to introduce one. The proceedings in that House ought not to be guided by any man or any set of men. All ought to look to the distresses of the country, to the causes which led to them, and to the best mode by which effectual relief could be provided. He was anxious that the motion of the hon. baronet should be carried; but if it were negatived, he would immediately submit to the House an amendment to the address, and his reasons for proposing it. That amendment would constitute a pledge, which, he was sure, would be carried unanimously, if the House entertained a sincere desire to adopt an effectual system of retrenchment.
The House then divided on Sir Francis Burdett's amendment: For the amendment 58. Against it 186. Majority 128. When strangers were re-admitted to the gallery, we found
Mr. Hume
upon his legs. He stated that the House was to consider that the Speech and the Address were both the production of his majesty's ministers; if they were not, he called upon the gentlemen opposite to deny the statement. If the hon. mover and seconder could, let them state that they did not receive the Address, and move
verbatim
48
49
50
51
l.;
l.;
l.
l.;
52
l.
53
No. I.—Mr. Hume's STATEMENT of the ACTUAL EXPENDITURE of the UNITEDKINGDOM, for the Four Years ending the 5th of Jan. 1821, as taken from the Annual Finance Accounts laid before Parliament.
HEADS OF EXPENDITURE.
Year ending Jan. 5th. 1818.
Year eliding Jan. 5th. 1819.
Year ending Jan. 5th. 1820.
Year ending Jan. 5th. 1821.
£
£
£
£
I. Interest on the Permanent Debt of the United Kingdom
29,166,085
28,873,638
29,737,639
29,126,973
Charges of Management
284,589
277,699
274,393
276,419
For Reduction of the National Debt
14,657,559
15,497,402
16,455,967
17,667,536
44,108,233
44,648,739
46,467,999
47,070,928
II. Interest on Exchequer, and Irish Treasury Bills
1,815,927
2,200,414
779,992
1,849,220
II. TOTAL on account of Funded and Unfunded Debt
45,924,160
46,849,153
47,247 991
48,920,148
III. Civil List of England
1,028,000
1,028,000
983,000
857,780
III. of Ireland
163,169
208,167
198,056
204,231
VI. Civil government of Scotland
130,646
129,627
129,988
132,081
TOTAL of Civil Lists in the United Kingdom
1,321,815
1,365,794
1,311,044
1,194,092
IV. Courts of Justice (England)
64,542
67,967
63,157
65,138
IV. Mint
15,000
15,000
15,000
13,800
IV. Royal Family and other Pensions
447,638
457,678
472,234
327,066
IV. Salaries and Allowances
62,920
60,158
58,755
56,948
IV. Bounties
3,841
29,676
6,541
2,849
IV. Miscellaneous
133,270
135,135
372,833
224,897
TOTAL other Charges on the Consolidated Fund
727,211
765,614
988 520
690,698
V. Permanent Charges in Ireland
385,282
374,297
369,090
381,504
VII. Bounties to Fisheries, Manufactures, &c
330,046
387,111
313,933
359,213
VII. Pensions on Hereditary Revenue Excise
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
VII. Pensions on Hereditary Revenue Post Office
13,700
13,700
13,700
13,700
VII. Militia and Deserters' Warrants
93,658
68,660
47,534
51,426
Payments out of the Cross Revenue
451,404
483,471
389,167
438,339
VIII. Navy Wages, &c.
2,524,000
2,424,800
2,281,000
3,454,000
VIII. General Services
2,793,586
2,696,798
2,949,728
1,801,086
VIII. Victualling Department
1,155,476
1,400,116
1,164,824
1,132,713
TOTAL Navy
6,473,062
6,521,714
6,395,552
6,387,799
IX. Ordnance
1,435,401
1,407,807
1,538,209
1,401,585
IX. Army Ordinary Services
7,014,494
7,255,646
7,719,924
7,941,513
IX. Army Extraordinary Services
2,600,370
1,261,398
1,730,727
984,911
TOTAL Army and Ordnance
11,050,265
9,924,851
10,988,860
10,328,009
54
ty's Ministers to make much greater reductions of expence than they had hitherto been able to effect. He had taken the trouble to make out three Statements with reference to the national income and expenditure from which he was about to quote; and in order to enable the noble marquis and the right hon. gentlemen opposite to follow him, he would hand over to them copies of that statement [a laugh]. He regretted that he was not able to give a copy to every hon. member present. [Here Mr. Hume handed two copies of a printed statement* of figures
55
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
1818.
1819.
1820.
1821.
X. Loans, Remittances, Advances, &c. to other Countries
33,273
206
1,230
XI. Issues from appropriated Funds for Local Purposes
42,585
60,079
53,101
49,129
XII. Miscellaneous Services at Home
2,301,699
1,722,956
1,595,207
2,324,653
XII. Miscellaneous Services Abroad
164,784
897,935
260,741
292,048
TOTAL Miscellaneous
2,466,483
2,620,891
1,855,948
2,616,701
Expenditure (less Charges of Management)
68,875,542
68,966,073
69,599,276
71,007,649
Deduct
165,939
144,636
150,376
156,907
Expenditure in the Year
68,710,503
63,821,437
69,448,899
70,850,742
Charges of Management, and Collection of the Revenue
4,351,837
4,408,757
4,249,236
4,136,642
TOTAL Expenditure in the Year
73,069,340
73,225,194
73,698,135
74,987,384
As follows:
For Interest on the Funded and Unfunded Debt, and Charges or Management
31,266,601
31,351,751
30,792,025
31,252,612
Expenses of the Civil List, Military Establishments, Civil Government, and Expenses of Collection
27,277,448
26,520,677
26,600,519
26,224,143
Amount of Expenditure, exclusive of the Sinking Fund
58,544,049
57,882,428
57,392,544
57,476,755
Sinking Fund
14,518,291
15,352,766
16,305,591
17,510,629
Amount of Expenditure, including the Sinking Fund
73,062,340
73,225,194
73,698,135
74,987,384
56
where the revenue was decreasing by the misrule and oppression that was carrying on there. He pledged himself to prove to any man who was acquainted with the first four rules of arithmetic, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, by his management, lost 15 millions to the country since he had taken the administration of the Treasury. Such, at least, was the amount which appeared to have been lost, as far as can be made out from the public accounts. This was no slight charge; and he therefore begged the attention of the House to the statement which he was about to make.* [
See Statement, No. II.
It appeared from the annual Finance Accounts, that the total income of Great Britain and Ireland (exclusive of loans ) for the four years, 1817, 1818, 1819 and 1820, was 235,768,462
l.;
l.
l.
l.
nett surplus
57
l.
No. II.—STATEMENT of the ACTUAL REVENUE of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Drawbacks, and Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks, excluded) for the Years 1817 to 1820, both inclusive, ending 5th of January, 1821; distinguishing the several Heads of Income, and Great Britain from Ireland in each Year.
HEADS OF INCOME
1817
1818
1819
1820
£
s. d.
£
s. d.
£
s. d.
£
s. d.
Customs
12,206,870 3 5
12,265,342 16 5½
11,280,062 6 9¾
10,547,579 2 4¾
Excise
21,553,311 13 2¾
24,712,148 17 0
24,860,345 1 8
28,055,314 2 8¼
Stamps
6,720,747 3 5
6,775,985 2 1
6,581,856 8 11¼
6,538,895 17 11½
Land and Assessed Taxes
8,074,258 14 0¾
8,271,990 1 1
8,279,930 3 11½
8,355,321 18 10¾
Post Office
2,129,995 12 4½
2,185,654 17 2
2,211,678 13 8½
2,122,928 7 6½
Salaries and Pensions
31,864 0 6
34,628 19 5
30,522 11 8
30,811 8 2
Hackney Coaches and Posting
54,785 18 10¾
54,468 4 2¾
56,093 9 10¾
56,988 8 10
Hereditary Revenues
159,630 10 5¾
144,579 0 6
148,192 4 6¾
132,967 7 4½
Total Ordinary Revenues
50,931,463 16 4½
54,445,597 17 10¼
53,448,681 1 2½
55,840,806 13 10¼
Property Tax Arrears
2,568,654 0 3½
658,337 14 0
183,134 6 8
57,043 5 6½
Lottery
189,958 8 4¼
211,225 0 0
679,150 0 0
175,154 10 2
Unclaimed Dividends
236,288 3 3
332,948 6 7
237,512 16 11
283,810 7 11
Imprests, &c.
469,029 3 7
328,930 11 2
334,392 19 1¼
343,902 16 5½
Total Extraordinary Revenues
3,463,929 15 5¾
1,531,441 11 9
1,434,190 2 8¼
859,911 0 0¾
Total of Great Britain
54,395,393 11 10¼
55,977,039 9 7¼
54,882,871 3 10¾
56,700,717 13 11
Total of Ireland
5,822,550 2 0¾
5,956,606 8 5½
5,576,591 19 0
4,933,351 17 7¾
Total of United Kingdom exclusive of Loans
60,217,943 13 11
61,933,645 18 2½
60,459,463 2 10¾
61,634,069 11 6¾
Deduct Balances
2,567,354 8 2½
2,265,704 13 4½
1,779,211 10 0
1,864,389 6 7¾
Total Actual Revenue of United Kingdom
57,650,539 5 8½
59,667,941 4 10
58,680,251 12 10¾
59,769,680 4 11
Total Expenditure, exclusive of the Sinking Fund
58,544,049 0 0
57,872,428 0 0
57,392,544 0 0
57,476,755 0 0
Total Income, exclusive of Loans, for the 4 Years
£.235,768,462
Total Expenditure, exclusive of Sinking Fund, in the 4 Years
231,285,776
Total Net Surplus of Revenue of the United Kingdom in the 4 Years
£.4,482,686
If there had been no Sinking Fund, no Loans would have been required, as the Revenue of the 4 Years, 1817 to 1890 (to the 5th of January, 1821) both inclusive, was 4,462,686
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
No. III.—An ACCOUNT of INTEREST paid in each Year to the Public for the Funded and Unfunded Debt of the United Kingdom, and for the Charge of Management at the Bank of England, for the Four Years ending the 5th Jan. 1821 (exclusive of the Sinking Fund), as charged in the Annual Finance Accounts.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
£
£
£
£
For Interest paid on Funded Debt
29,166,085
28,873,638
29,737,640
29,126,973
Charges of Management
284,589
277,699
274,393
276,419
Amount of Interest and Charges
29,450,674
29,151,337
30,012,033
29,403,392
Interest on Exchequer and Irish Treasury Bills
1,815,927
2,200,414
779,992
1,849,220
Total Charge for the Funded and Unfunded Debt
31,266,601
31,351,751
30,792,025
31,252,612
Average of 1817, 1818, and 1819
£.31,136,792.
58
for the present, take the larger sum as the surplus. Had that four millions and a
59
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
And as it appears by the Account from the Exchequer Office, that the Charge for the Funded Debt, for the Year ending 5th of January, 1822, will be
£.30,180,213
And taking, by Estimate, the Interest on the Exchequer Bills (34,728,691
l.
l.
l.
1,300,000
Making a Total Charge for Funded and Unfunded Debt of
£.31,480,213
instead of (after deducting the 453,929
l.
l.
* STATEMENT of the ITEMS of REDUCTION in the Annual Charge on the National Debt, independent of the Sinking Fund, in the Four Years 1817 to 1820, both inclusive—viz.
In 1817. By Annuities expired
1,229 10 9½
Dividend on Loan of 1798 paid off, the Money for which is charged in the Miscellaneous Expenditure
2,091 9 5
Dividend on Capital cancelled by redemption of Land Tax
2,947 3 4
6,208 3 6½
1818. By Land Tax
3,385 15 11½
1819. Imperial Annuities expired
243,157 15 6
By Land Tax
4,026 14 11½
247,184 10 5
1820. By Land Tax
2,696 9 7
Annuities expired
1,276 14 10
3,973 4 5
Total in the 4 Years (exclusive of what Annuities may have expired out of those created by act of 48 Geo. III.)
260,811 14 4
60
three years 1817, 1818, and 1819, viz. 31, 136,792
l.,
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
61
Under all the circumstances, he put it to the House, whether it would not have been wise to listen to the hon. baronet's recommendation to take time to consider the address, to pause before they congratulated his majesty on the condition of the country. The existing system of finance was temporising, and must be ruinous, and as far as the last four years went, his statements proved it. No man was more desirous than himself, that we should preserve our high station by the maintenance of our public credit; and he trusted, that whatever sacrifices it would be necessary to make would be made by all classes equally; and that there would be no such unjust and unprincipled proposition, as to injure the public creditor for the advantage of any other class. If the House of Commons were under the legitimate control of the people, he would cheerfully give up half his fortune to the exigencies of the state; but, under the existing abuses in the management of the revenue and expenditure of the country he would not consent to give up one shilling of his capital to free the country from
62
The next subject on which the hon. gentleman had touched was the reduction of expenditure. On that subject a pamphlet had recently been published, called "the State of the Nation," which, from beginning to end, did not contain a single accurate statement. Never had there been a more disgraceful attempt to impose on the public; and he begged to guard gentlemen against being led astray by it. Among the misstatements in that pamphlet was the allegation, that in the navy, army, ordnance, and miscellaneous services, there had been, in the last four years, a reduction effected of ten millions. On the subject of the increase of revenue and the reduction of expenditure, he entreated the attention of the House to the similar passages which had been introduced in the various speeches, which, in successive years, had been made from the throne. Taking those speeches as the productions of ministers, it would shew how valueless they were. In the speech of that day was the following passage:—"It is very gratifying to me to be able to inform you, that during the last year the revenue has exceeded that of the year preceding, and appears to be in a course of progressive improvement." In the speech of 1818, the same assertion was made in the following words:—"His royal highness is most happy in being able to acquaint you, that since you were last assembled in parliament, the revenue has been in a state of progressive improvement in its most important branches." In the speech of that day his
63
64
The existing distress of the country be (Mr. H.) attributed to a complication of causes, the chief of which was, that excessive taxation which deprived all classes of a much larger proportion of his income, than had ever been taken from them before, in the history of the country. Reduced in value, as all property was throughout the country, was it possible that the same scale of taxation and of expenditure could be maintained? Was it possible that parliament could continue to repose confidence in ministers, by whom the debt of the country and the difficulties of the land-owners had been so enormously increased, by whom the people had been so invariably deluded? With respect to the reductions which had been effected, if they had deserved to be particularised, did any man believe that the noble marquis or the right hon. gentleman would not have been eager to mention them? What was their nature and character? Some hundred and eighty of the inferior clerks of office, without any regard to their distress and sufferings, had been displaced, while other individuals were permitted to hold situations of large emolument that might well be dispensed with. Were any additional circumstance wanting to show the inefficiency of his majesty's present administration, it might be found in the paltry proposition of assistance to the landed interest, alluded to yesterday by the first lord of the Treasury, and the weak, childish, womanish questions which were, on that occasion, put by that lord to the directors of the Bank of England. Nothing could more completely exhibit the ignorance of those who were unhappily entrusted with the management of the affairs of this great nation, than such an offer of pecuniary aid. It was not money, as he had already stated, that was wanted; it was that sound and substantial credit on which money would be advanced. He believed that many members of that House did not
65
l.
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
66
l.
l.
l.
He would now make an observation or two on the Ordnance department [a laugh]. He had recently taken a view of that department; he thought it right to see, what certainly he could not believe without seeing; he saw storekeepers and others living in palaces, the like of which men of large fortunes could not afford; there was about them every mark of expence and extravagance. From the Ordnance a number of junior clerks had been dismissed—had been thrown upon the world without a shilling. There had been in one branch twelve young men dismissed in one batch; and why he would tell the House—those twelve individuals were dismissed in order to preserve the salary and establishment of 3 or4,000
l.
67
l.
The retrenchment which had been made by the ministers this year scarcely deserved that name. Labourers, carpenters, porters, and such persons, were put out of bread; but did they learn that any of the junior lords of the admiralty had been dismissed? He had heard of a recent appointment which was perfectly characteristic of the ideas of ministers with respect to retrenchment. A gallant general, and a member of that House, who has already three places and two pensions, had been lately promoted to the place of superintendent of gas. In the navy, the army, in every civil department, the same profusion appeared in all the higher offices in the household. Mr. so-and-so was a Cook, and Mr. such-a-one clerk of the Kitchen, none, of them did any duty, although all received large salaries; and this ministers called supporting the splendor of royalty. He would tell them, however, that such degrading useless practices contributed as little to the splendour of the throne, as clothing the guards in the dress of Merry Andrews, instead of the plain, substantial,
68
l.
l.
l.
l.
69
l.
l
The Speaker
said, that the hon. member must on reflection, feel that such language was disorderly. It could not without a breach of order, be imputed to honourable members, that they entertained views contrary to the just discharge of their public duties.
Mr. Hume
said, he should be sorry to say any thing disorderly. As it was out of order to declare in that House that gentlemen came there to benefit not their country, but themselves, he would not say so; but he could not be prevented from thinking so.
The Speaker
said, that he always felt it a painful duty to interrupt members, but it was his first duty to preserve order in that House. The orders of the House were made, not for the advantage of one
70
Mr. Hume
said, he should be happy at all times to bow to the decision of the Chair. As there were not only objections to his expressing the opinions which he held, but also to his entertaining them, he would no longer trespass on the attention of the House. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the following amendment;
"That while we return his Majesty our most grateful acknowledgments for the various reductions which have been made in the naval and military establishments during the last year, by which some diminution of expense may be effected, yet we should ill discharge the duty we owe to his Majesty, if we did not direct his most serious attention to the present condition of his faithful people:
"That we feel it our duty to represent to his Majesty, that the distresses, proved to exist, before a committee of this House, instituted for the especial purpose in the last session of parliament, have considerably increased; and that the owners and occupiers of land throughout a great part of the kingdom, and with them the tradesmen and artizans usually dependent on them for employment, are labouring under unexampled difficulties:
"That we cannot but express most respectfully to his Majesty our opinion, that an excessive taxation, disproportionate to the reduced value of all property, is a principal cause of those distresses; and humbly to in treat that he will be graciously pleased immediately to direct such reductions in every branch of our expenditure, from the highest to the lowest department, as shall enable us forthwith to relieve his Majesty's faithful people from a large portion of that burthen of taxation, which, in their present impoverished condition, presses so heavily upon all classes."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was sure that, before he adverted to the other parts of the hon. member's speech, the House would allow him to remark upon that part of it in which a charge was made against him, of allowing secrets of finance to be known in certain
71
72
en masse
73
74
Mr. Calcraft
said, that if the right hon. gentleman was to be considered as the organ of government on financial matters, they had it now distinctly avowed, that there was to be no reduction of taxation. Ministers had at last screwed up their courage to deny that any benefit would result from such a measure; nay, the right hon. gentleman had gone so far as to assert, that the repeal of any tax, though he did not say what, would not only not relieve, but would be an aggravation of the distress of the country. Did the right hon. gentleman mean to tell the House, that the repeal of the tax on malt, on salt, on soap or leather, would not relieve the country from, a very great and almost intolerable pressure? Did he mean to say, that the people were so "ignorantly impatient of taxation," that on the very first day of the session, when they expected their distresses would at least be considered, they were to be told that the repeal of any one of those taxes would not only not relieve, but aggravate their misery? Was there any table in the country, except the table of that house, over which such doctrine
75
l.
76
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
disclaimed having said that taxation was not an evil, or that the repeal of taxation was not a benefit. What he had stated was, that the simple repeal of taxes proposed by the hon. member, would be productive of more harm to the country by shaking the public credit, than would be commensurate with the relief which such a course might afford to particular classes.
Mr. Calcraft
wished it to be understood, that he would never vote for the repeal of a tax, until he was convinced that such repeal would not affect the public credit of the country.
Mr. Robinson
said, that the calculations and figures brought forward by the hon. member for Aberdeen were so complicated and so various, that it was difficult to pronounce any opinion of their accuracy without previous inquiry. He could not conceive any more unsatisfactory mode of bringing this great question under discussion, than that adopted by the hon. member. It was, he thought, extremely unreasonable, to say the least of it, without waiting to see what had been done by ministers in the way of reduction, to assume that they had done nothing. Let the House examine into facts before they decided. He objected to the proposed amendment, because it went, with one sweeping censure, to condemn a whole system of finance as fallacious. But let the House remember, if that system was wrong, that they had been parties to it. He did not mean to say that the House, upon proper grounds, might not retrace the steps they had taken with respect to any measure. No wish for an appearance of consistency should prevent them from adopting such a course; but, at the same time, he hoped the House would give its most serious and dispassionate considera-
77
Colonel Davies
rose chiefly to put one or two questions to the chancellor of the exchequer. The first was, whether or not he admitted the financial statements of the hon. member for Aberdeen to be correct; and the second was, whether it was his intention to interfere with the metallic currency of the country? The hon. member then went on to observe upon the extraordinary conduct of ministers, who some time ago told the country, that not a single man could be spared from the immense establishments which they continued in time of peace, and now admitted, by their proposed reductions, the extravagance of which they had hitherto been guilty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that in the absence of the necessary documents, he would neither admit nor deny the accuracy of the statements made by the hon. member for Aberdeen. As to the other question, he could give a most positive answer. He could assure the House, that government meant to make no alteration in our circulating medium. He felt convinced of the necessity of preserving the standard currency of the country.
Sir J. Newport
observed, that he was not prepared, in the absence of the fullest information, to go into the consideration of the important question which had been introduced, nor was he ready or willing to condemn at once, what, before, the House had so fully approved. He therefore, though he concurred in the general principle of the amendment, could not agree to those parts of it which went at once to destroy a system upon which they had already solemnly decided. Provided the hon. member consented to an omission of those passages, he would cordially support the amendment. The passages which he would wish to have omitted were these
78
Mr. Hume
said, he had no objection to the proposed alterations. His object was, to pledge the House to a reduction of the burdens of the country.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it was not so much his intention to follow the hon. member for Aberdeen through the various topics to which he had adverted, as to fix the attention of the House upon the true principle on which it ought to come to a vote on the present evening. That principle was shortly this—whether it would be creditable or not to the deliberations of parliament to close so large a question as the hon. member had opened, in the indirect manner that was now proposed. He for one was clearly of opinion, that to decide with such baste as that hon. member wished the House to decide, on a subject that was as important as it was complicated, would neither be consistent with the practice, the dignity, or the wisdom of parliament. He was therefore surprised at hearing the right hon. baronet, who bore a high reputation for financial knowledge, not only come forward to support the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, but also to blame his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, for having distinctly told the House, that relief for the disrresses of the country would be more effectually obtained by supporting public credit than by a reduction of taxation; when the right hon. baronet must have known that any great reduction of taxation could not be made in the present state of affairs, without committing a direct breach of public faith. Not only would his right hon. friend have shown an apathy to the financial relations of the country, totally unbecoming his high situation and character, if he had concurred in the amend-
79
80
81
Mr. Tierney
commenced by declaring, that upon entering the House that evening, it was his fixed intention not to address it. The noble lord, however, by indulging in the language which he had done, and by observing that any man who ventured to vote in favour of the amendment would be committing an insult both to the House and to the country, had made a call upon him to speak, which he found it totally impossible to resist. The noble lord had stated that the words which his right hon. friend had proposed to leave out of the amendment were not of the slightest importance. On that point, however, as on many others, he had the misfortune of differing with the noble lord; for he certainly thought that the omission of the words in question was of very great importance, as it rendered the amendment of such a nature as to deserve the unanimous support of the House. The noble lord had also stated, that the country was looking up to the wisdom of parliament! He felt compelled to observe that the country had been looking for a long time, indeed, up to that wisdom. But it was now beginning to look at the manner in which parliament sympathised with its feelings; and on the present occasion he trusted that hon. gentlemen would embrace the opportunity of regaining its respect and confidence. There was no difficulty in the proposition submitted to the House. The noble lord had indeed said, that there was great difficulty attached to it; but that was by no means the case. He therefore called upon gentlemen to exercise their
82
83
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
84
Mr. Huskisson
stated, that he did not intend to enter at large, on that occasion, into so important and complicated a subject as the distressed state of agriculture, or to consider how far taxation was one of its causes, and applied to it more than to any other part of the public interest. He must say with the hon. member for Wareham, that he could neither follow nor understand the figures of the hon. member for Aberdeen; but he intended to be a little more consistent, and therefore should not join in his conclusion. For that hon. member had stated, that he would give his opinion on the statements of the hon. mover of the amendment on a future occasion, but would give his vote in favour of them that night. This he himself could not do. He was surprised to hear it said, that the alterations in the amendment were important. They were by no means so; but merely of that ingenious nature, that was calculated to conciliate wavering members, and catch a
85
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, the time was now arrived when it was the duty of that House to enforce the severest retrenchment, and to relieve those whom they represented from a part of the burthens under which they were labouring. In the various discussions which must ensue,
86
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he could not see any relief for the distresses of the country except in retrenchment, and trusted that if ministers did not fulfil the pledges which they had given in favour of it, the House would compel them to do so. He called upon ministers to look the distress of the country manfully in the face, and to collect the best information they could relative to its nature and extent. He was convinced, from the language of the Speech from the throne, that ministers were unacquainted with the frightful ravages it had made. If they had seen the individual and collective distress which he had witnessed in that part of the country with which he was connected, he was confident they would have made some more vigorous efforts to relieve it. He felt it his painful duty to support the amendment.
Sir John Sebright,
after expressing the obligation which he, in common with every man in the country, felt to the hon. member for Aberdeen, for the great exertions he had made to produce a reduction in the public expenditure, stated the paramount necessity which at present existed for enforcing a system of economy in every branch of the public expenditure. The noble marquis had called the resolu-
87
Mr. Gipps
also expressed his gratitude to the hon. member for Aberdeen, and his determination to vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Ricardo,
though he agreed with every thing that had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, in favour of economy and retrenchment, could not vote in favour of his amendment, as he differed widely from his hon. friend as to the causes of the existing agricultural distress. His hon. friend stated, that the cause of that distress was excessive taxation; but the real cause, it could not be denied, was the low price of agricultural produce. That taxation should be the cause of low prices was so absurd and so inconsistent with every principle of political economy, that he could not assent for a moment to the doctrine. Agreeing, however, as he did, with his hon. friend, as to the necessity of economy and retrenchment, and as to the impropriety of making loans to the occupiers of lands, be was sure they would be frequently found, in the course of the session, pursuing together that necessary object, a reduction of expenditure and taxation.
Mr. Astell
would vote for the amendment, as it pledged the House to a system of retrenchment. If such a system were rigidly enforced, there would, he was convinced, be left a surplus of revenue to form a sinking fund.
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, was surprised to hear his hon. friend express an opinion, that taxation was not the cause of agricultural distress. If taxation was not the cause of that distress, how happened it that the English farmer was unable to compete with the foreign, when the soil and climate of England and his own industry, fully entitled him to a remunerating price?
Mr. Bathurst
contended, that the question embraced by the amendment, was not one of such mean importance as to be taken up incidentally in the manner now proposed.
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he felt some difficulty in deciding upon the course
88
Mr. Brougham
said, that if he wanted any new argument to fix the vote which he had determined to give—if he wanted any additional reason to influence that vote, it had been abundantly furnished by the hon. baronet who spoke last, one of the representatives for the county of Kent, the most distressed of all the agricultural counties in England. The reasoning of the hon. baronet amounted to this—that nothing from any quarter, save the ministers, could hope for success in that House—that, be the quarter ever so respectable, be the measure ever so sound, be the
89
90
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, in explanation; that the learned gentleman had put such an interpretation upon what had fallen from him, as it could not in common fairness bear. It was not his intention to say any
91
Lord Palmerston
said, that the statement of the learned gentleman, of what had fallen from the hon. baronet, was the greatest misrepresentation of the drift of his argument that could possibly be conceived. The hon. baronet had objected to the amendment upon parliamentary and perfectly constitutional grounds. He felt that it was an attempt hastily to interpose between that House and the fair consideration of a most important question. The original address acknowledged, not only the necessity of retrenchment, but that steps had been taken to make all possible reductions. The hon. member for Aberdeen, however, was determined not to wait to see the extent of those reductions, but wished hastily to drag the House into a vague and general declaration, that it was expedient to reduce taxation to an extent which would be inconsistent with the security of the empire.
Lord A. Hamilton
observed, that the supporters of ministers cast wholly out of their view the inability of the people to pay the oppressive taxes which weighed them down, and talked of the necessity of supporting their system, as if in the resources of the country they had unlimited funds to avail themselves of. If the House looked at the conduct of ministers, they must see what little reliance was to be placed on their pledges of economy. They had over and again made resolutions and declarations, and (to use the noble lord's phrase) had stultified themselves by departing from them. The fact was, they must either stultify their past conduct, or egregiously stultify their future deliberations. In the report of the agricultural committee, the extent of the distress was admitted, but the country was left without remedy or hope. Those with whom he acted saw no other remedy than a practical reduction of the expenditure of the country. It was the grossest injustice to his hon. friend's amendment, to say that it pledged the House to an abjuration, of the sinking fund. It did no such thing. Those who voted for the amendment, pledged themselves to no specific mode of reduction; but those who voted against it, not only discredited
92
Mr. Marryat
observed, that the question here was, whether the situation of the country did not absolutely call for such an amendment as that which had been proposed? It was not only agriculture that was suffering; the distress extended itself to numerous classes of the community. It was objected to the amendment, that it went to pledge those who voted for it to an interference with the sinking fund. He did not take it in that light. It left that question as perfectly open as the original address did. In plain terms, all who thought reduction absolutely necessary were bound to vote for the amendment; all who were of the contrary opinion would vote for the original address.
Mr. Lennard
said, he had waited till the debate was on the point of concluding, in the hope that the object he had in view, in the observation he should make, would have been attained through the means of some member of greater importance than himself. He could not refrain from stating how much he lamented that in the promises of retrenchment which they had heard from the throne, no allusion had been made to a revision of the civil list. He thought that a reduction in that branch of the establishment would be very important, both on account of the actual saving which might be made in it, and because it would be an assurance of the sincerity of those professions of economy, which could not now be listened to by the House with much confidence. The true dignity of the Crown, would not, in his opinion, be at all impaired by a diminution, in this time of need, of the expenditure. On the contrary, he was sure the affections of the people would be more confirmed towards it, if his majesty, and those who composed his court, should show themselves ready to submit to those privations which the present circumstances made all other persons feel. Besides this, it was to be recollected that the civil list establishment had been formed when the value of money was not nearly what it now was. Concurring with the observation of the right hon. member for Knaresborough, that from the conduct of the House that night the country would receive an impression of its real disposition
93
The House divided: for the amendment 89. Against it 171. The original address was then put and agreed to
List o f the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Lennard, T. B.
Astell, W.
Lushington, Dr.
Baring, Henry
Lethbridge, sir T.
Barret, S. M.
Maberly, John
Benyon, Benj.
Maberly, W. L.
Birch, Joseph
Macdonald, J.
Brougham, H.
Madocks, W. A.
Bright, Henry
Martin, John
Burdett, sir F.
Monck, J. B.
Bury, visc.
Moore, Peter
Bennet, John
Marjoribanks, S.
Bentinck, lord W.
Marryat, Joseph
Blake, sir F.
Neville, hon. R.
Calcraft, John
Newport, sir John
Calvert, C.
Nugent, lord
Carter, John
Ord, W.
Clifton, visc.
Ossulston, lord
Curwen, J. C.
Palmer, col.
Creevy, T.
Palmer, C. F.
Curteis, E. J.
Phillips, G. R
Claughton, T.
Price, R.
Denison, W. J.
Robarts, A.
Denman, T.
Robarts, G.
Duncannon, visc.
Robinson, sir G.
Ebrington, visc.
Rowley, sir W.
Ellice, Ed.
Rumbold, C.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Rice, T. S.
Folkestone, visc.
Bickford, W.
Fane, John
Smith, W.
Fox, G. Lane
Smith, Robt.
Grattan, James
Smith, Sam.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Smith, hon. R.
Gipps, George
Scarlett, J.
Haldimand, W.
Sefton, earl of
Hamilton, lord A.
Stuart, lord J.
Heathcote, sir G.
Sebright, sir John
Heathcote, G. John
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Heron, sir R.
Tennyson, C.
Hill, lord Arthur
Whitbread, W. H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Whitbread, S.
Honywood, W. P.
Williams, W.
Hughes, W. L.
Wilson, sir R.
Hutchinson, hon.
Wood, ald.
C. H
Wyvill, M.
James, W.
TELLERS,
Johnson, col.
Hume, Joseph
Lambton, J. G.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Mr. Bernal and colonel Davies were accidentally shut out.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 7.
STATE OF IRELAND.
The Earl of
94
gave notice, of his intention to move to morrow, that the Standing Orders, 26 and 105, relative to the passing of bills, be suspended, and now moved that their lordships be summoned.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he understood the motion of which the noble earl had given notice, had reference to a bill on the state of Ireland. He therefore wished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the papers which had been laid before the House, and on which the necessity for the bill would he founded. He had understood the noble earl to say in the debate on Tuesday that his conviction of the necessity of a legislative measure with regard to Ireland was founded upon urgent representations from the government of Ireland, calling for an extension of the law. Now, upon looking at the papers on the table, he found in them no urgent demand for additional authority—no representation that an extension of the powers already vested in the executive government was necessary. Their lordships, before they passed any legislative measure, ought to have the representation of the Fish government distinctly before them; and be put in possession of all the evidence upon which the application was made. He hoped, therefore, that the noble earl would consent to lay before the House—not all the despatches he had received from the lord-lieutenant on the subject of the disturbances—but such part of them as showed it to be the opinion of the Irish government, that an increase of authority was necessary to the restoration of tranquillity. He was the more induced to make this request, because, after reading the papers which had been laid on the table, though he saw reason to suppose that the Irish government considered the present disposable military force insufficient for the suppression of the disorders, he could no where find in those papers any declaration of an opinion, that the existing laws were insufficient. In one instance only did an individual express a wish for the revival of the Insurrection act. It might certainly be the opinion of the lord lieutenant that a farther extension of the powers of the law was necessary, but there existed no evidence of that opinion in the papers.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that there was evidence sufficient to warrant the proposition he should have to make to the House, on a measure which he expected
95
Lord Ellenborough
expressed his surprise, that in the information communicated to the House, nothing had been said of the cause of the disorders. He thought that when a remedy was contemplated, the cause of the evil ought to be taken into consideration. In the papers on the table there appeared no demand for increased powers. Farther information, certainly, ought to be afforded. He could not help thinking it a very extraordinary circumstance, that though the yeomanry had been formerly called out, it was the yeomanry of the north, not those of the south of Ireland, where the disturbances prevailed.
Lord Holland
considered the course of argument taken by the noble earl opposite to be very extraordinary. He asserted that measures, such as that which was about to be submitted to their lordships, were not usually preceded by evidence of the kind he had required. In his speech he professed, that the proceedings on the measure were in the usual course, and yet his motion had for its object to enable their lordships to pass a bill in a way contrary to the usual practice of the House. From what little attention he had paid to the state of Ireland, it appeared there was reason to fear that an increased force might be required by the Irish government; but there was nothing in the information before the House to warrant the opinion that an increase of
96
Lord King
could not understand for what reason the opinions of the Irish government were not given. This was one of those practices which prevented their lordships from fixing responsibility any where. The servants of the Crown here say they make a proposition on the application of other servants of the Crown; but upon what authority the latter make the demand, was not in evidence before their lordships.
Their lordships were then summoned for to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 7.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—PETITION FROM NORFOLK.
Mr. Coke
rose to present a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Norfolk—a county in which n agriculture was carried on at less expense, and more corn was grown on poor land, than in any other part of the kingdom. He was sorry to say that the state of that county, in consequence of the depression of the agricultural interest, was of the most heart-breaking description; and to no man did that circumstance give more pain than to himself, who had spent the greater part of his life in endeavouring to improve its condition. It was dreadful to behold the distress and alarm which pervaded every part of the county. The requisition calling upon the sheriff to convene the meeting, at which the petition which he held in his hand was agreed to, was signed only by the yeomanry;
97
The Speaker
said, he was sure that a moment's reflection would convince the hon. member that he had transgressed the limits of fair debate.
Mr. Coke
apologized for having said
98
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that after the pointed allusion which the hon. member had made to him, and the reproof to which he had been subjected, he felt it, his duty to explain what he conceived to be a very considerable misrepresentation of what he had said on a former evening, and to deny
in toto
99
Mr. Brougham
said, he need not remind the House that it was as fitting for him to make the observations which he had made upon the hon. member's speech, as it was within the scope of the hon. member's duty to make that speech. He had as perfect a right to state his unbiassed sentiments upon the public conduct of the hon. member, provided he made use of no misrepresentation, as the hon. member had to hold that conduct. If he misunderstood the hon. member, it was open to the hon. member to set him right by
100
Mr. Wodehouse
said, that the distress under which the agricultural interest in the county of Norfolk laboured was greater than at any former period. The petition prayed, and very properly, that reductions might take place, not only in the military and naval departments, but in every branch of the public expenditure. The petition called for a reduction of the civil list, and, in his opinion, such reduction ought to take place immediately. He did not expect that any great saving would be effected by the reductions which might be made, but such measure would conciliate the country, and this was an important object. The hon. member particularly urged the necessity of repealing the tax on malt. The petition concluded with a prayer for the reform of parliament. He confessed he did not know what was the nature of the reform that was asked for. Before he could give an opinion on the question, he must wait till it came before the House in a definite shape. His hon. colleague was in the habit of saying, that he never deceived his constituents. He did not know whether his hon. colleague meant to insinuate that others had not acted so uprightly as himself; but he thought his hon. colleague ought, in common manliness, to name the individual or individuals at whom he pointed.
Mr. Lockhart
contended, that some speedy measures of relief must be adopted to prevent the total ruin of the agricultural interest. It was said by some persons, that public credit and the agricultural interest must stand or fall together—that the stockholder and the agriculturists must go hand in hand. But, how did they go hand in hand? The rentals of the kingdom had been reduced from fifty-one millions, to ten millions, whilst the public creditor still received the same amount of interest as formerly. He did not attribute any callosity of heart to ministers; but he believed their judgment was not sound. They contended that the maintenance of public credit would, of itself, afford relief to the agriculturist. He believed the converse of that proposition to be true. He implored the House to con-
101
Mr. Lushington
said, that his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not, as had been represented, been so callous or hard-hearted as to declare against the reduction of any taxes. What his right hon. friend had contended was, that the maintenance of public credit was the best means of reducing the burdens which pressed upon the country, and that a sweeping reduction of taxes, which would put public credit in jeopardy, must have a bad effect upon the general interests of the community. With respect to the question before the House, he thought the most reasonable course to pursue was, to wait to hear what retrenchment government intended to make before any measure was proposed similar to that brought forward by the hon. member for Aberdeen, which must have the effect of injuring public credit.
Mr. Hume
was sure the hon. gentleman could not have read the amendment which he had felt it his duty to submit to the House. It did not propose to reduce taxation so as to endanger the public credit. Indeed, he had already disclaimed any such intention. The amendment simply proposed, that reduction should not be confined to one or two, but should extend itself to all departments. He had certainly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "Do not reduce taxation, for that will aggravate the burdens of the country." He was happy, however to receive the explanation which ministers had thought proper to give, after eight and forty hours deliberation; though he believed that the declaration of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), that ministers, whatever they might say, would be compelled to reduce the taxes, had conduced to bring it about.
Ordered to lie on the table.
102
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.
Mr. Robert Clive
appeared at the bar, with the report of the Address on the King's Speech. On the motion that it be brought up,
Mr. Curwen
said, that although it might be held in the House, that no member was at all pledged by the contents of the address, yet, as that sort of doctrine was not well understood in the country, he wished to make a few remarks, lest by silence it might be inferred that he for one placed any confidence in his majesty's ministers. In his conscience he believed that ministers were not fully apprised of the extent of the distresses of the agriculturists. Little, therefore, could be expected from them; and what had entitled any man to hope any thing, or at least any thing adequate to the existing evil, from that House, he could not determine. Great sacrifices had been and must be made by individuals; and he had been much disappointed by the Speech, when he found that it contained nothing to lead to the supposition that the Crown would be ready to follow, though not to set such an example. He was glad, therefore, that notice of a motion had been given, the object of which was, to compel the Crown to diminish its expenditure. Ministers had required, that the vote for the Address should be unanimous; but were they in a situation to expect unanimity? They differed amongst themselves most importantly; at least, what had fallen from the Secretary of the Treasury did not at all accord with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former night. The House had distinctly understood the latter to assert, that nothing could be more injurious than to reduce the amount of taxation. Did he still retain that opinion, or, within the last eight and forty hours, had he seen reason to alter it? It seemed quite clear, either that the currency must be altered, or the taxes be reduced; and in his own view, after the important change in the circulating medium recently effected, the abandonment of it was highly to be deprecated. He did not ask that agriculture should be preserved at the expense of manufactures; and he admitted, that to raise the price of grain by artificial means at the present moment would be injurious to the improved commercial condition. He required only such a reduction of taxes affecting the farmer, as would put him on
103
104
The report was then brought up and agreed to.
STATE OF IRELAND.
The Papers relative to the disturbed state of Ireland having been read,
The Marquis of Londonderry
rose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to that part of his majesty's Speech which related to the internal state of Ireland. He trusted the House would think him sincere when he said, that he never had been called upon to perform any duty more painful to him, whether he contemplated it in his public or in his private character. From experience of the manner in which Ireland had conducted herself of late years, it was certainly to have been hoped, either that tranquillity would have been preserved, or if it were disturbed, that it might have been restored without the melancholy contemplation that it was necessary to repress outrage by the strong arm of power. It was a cause of additional distress to him, that it had fallen to his lot to bring forward this subject: it more properly belonged to right hon. friends, who, from their offices, were particularly responsible for the state of Ireland. He could not give a more pregnant proof of the urgency attaching to this business, than to state that he had felt it his duty, not merely at the instance of the administration on this side of the water, but at the express solicitation of the individual now charged with the government of Ireland, not to delay its introduction, until his right hon. friends, the secretary for Ireland, and the secretary for the home department, were able to assist in the deliberations of the House. He therefore threw himself on the indulgence of the House, while he performed a task distressing to himself, and which would come with greater weight and authority from those who were more immediately connected with the interior state of Ireland.—He would now endeavour to state, as shortly as possible, the nature of his propositions, and the
105
Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus
106
Habeas Corpus
107
108
109
110
111
112
Sir J. Newport
hoped the House would feel, after the appeal which had been so pointedly made to him by the noble lord, that it was absolutely necessary for hint to make a few observations. If the noble lord, in his high situation, upheld as he was by a powerful train of supporters felt it necessary to throw himself on the indulgence of the House for a patient hearing, how much more reason had he to entreat their indulgence, whilst he stated as briefly as possible, his opinion on this vital question. However painful might be the feelings which the noble lord stated as actuating him on this occasion, he could assure
113
114
115
116
117
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that determined as he was to oppose the two measures proposed by the noble lord, he was anxious that the motives by which he was actuated should not be subject to any misrepresentation. He was aware of the disgraceful outrages in Ireland, and he agreed with the noble lord as to the absolute necessity of putting them down; but he did not agree that the means proposed by the noble lord would have that effect. In the first place they were not authorised by any thing that was to be found in the papers which had been laid before the House. It appeared that bodies of insurgents, amounting to 2, 3, and 5,000 men, had been invariably dispersed by parties of the military not amounting to more than 30, 50, or 60 men. From these facts, he inferred, that if the powers of the magistracy were enforced by a sufficient number of troops, the insurrection might be effectually put down. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was a measure, in his opinion, by no means applicable to the present condition of Ireland; for such a measure was only called for in case of actual rebellion, or the apprehension of rebellion. There was nothing political in the disturbances of Ireland, whatever might be said of their extent or atrocity; and therefore he could not conceive either of the measures proposed by the noble lord likely to do any good in that country. The noble lord had quoted the precedent of 1803, for the proceeding which he at present pressed; but there was no analogy whatever between the two cases, the insurrection of 1803 being actually rebellion, while the persons concerned in it were of a very different description from those who now appeared to excite the conduct of the Irish peasantry. He agreed with the noble lord and others, that those who had violated the law should be punished for that violation; but then he would call for inquiry as to the causes which had driven the unfortunate peasantry to such acts of desperation. It must be recollected that none of the promises held out at the Union to the Irish nation had been realised. He did not mean the promises with respect to Catholic emancipation and other measures of great importance; but those of inquiry into the general condition of Ireland,
118
119
Lord Mountcharles
conceived, that nothing could have a prior claim upon the attention of parliament than the devising of measures for the suppression of actual rebellion; for it could not be disputed that Ireland was at present in that unhappy state; although the hon. member for Cork had expressed some doubt upon the subject, as if opposition to the king's troops did not amount to rebellion and treason. He differed very widely from the right hon. baronet respecting his conception of the White-boy act and the Insurrection act, as the distinction
120
121
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that he should ill discharge his duty if he did not take occasion to express his opinion upon this subject, especially from his local connection with the district to which the discussion mainly referred. He felt some difficulty in determining how to proceed when the noble secretary of state so confidently declared, "You must pass these two coercive measures, or the insurrection in Ireland cannot be put down, and this you must do without any inquiry into the cause of that insurrection." He was as willing as any man to join in putting down rebellion or insurrection; but he must say, that it would be consolatory to his mind as an Irishman and a friend to common justice, to hear from the noble proposer of these measures, that an inquiry as to the state of Ireland was to be instituted before such measures were passed. The noble lord had stated, that such an inquiry would be gone into at a future time, while he called upon the House to agree to his propositions of coercion merely upon the authority of the papers before the House. But he could not admit that the papers on the table by any means proved the necessity of the measures alluded to, while the authority of lord Wellesley did not appear in evidence, any more than the grounds upon
122
123
124
125
126
Captain O'Grady
said, he wished to state his grounds for voting in favour of the proposed measures. He had been residing in a county since the last session which was by far the most disturbed of any in Ireland. He lamented that disturbance, and the circumstances which had contributed to its origin and progress; but, for many reasons, he was of opinion that the insurrection act was necessary to its suppression, though the strongest measure that could be devised without amelioration would not effectually answer the purpose. The disturbance, he was con-
127
128
129
Mr. G. Dawson
rose, principally with a view to notice the observations of a right hon. baronet, respecting his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for the home department (Mr. Peel). The right hon. baronet had referred to a resolution proposed by him in 1817, for an inquiry into the evils with which Ireland was then afflicted, and which resolution had been opposed by his right hon. friend. The right hon. baronet must have forgotten that his right hon. friend had proposed several Committees in the course of that very year, all having for their object the relief of Ireland from the subjects of complaint. He need only mention the Committee relating to Distillation, and that respecting Grand Jury Presentments. And, because his right hon. friend had, at the end of a session, declined adopting a sweeping motion of the right hon. baronet he was now accused of an indisposition to remove the evils alluded to. He was unable to judge, from the speech of the right hon. baronet, whether he intended to support the present bill or to oppose it, but it certainly would be most extraordinary if he did not support it. He had, in
130
Sir H. Parnell
said, he had lost no opportunity to collect information on the nature and extent of the disturbances in Ireland, and he had come to the decision, that nothing short of the measures proposed could put them down: these measures had become absolutely necessary. He would not at present enter into a detail of the circumstances which justified them; but he must say, that the papers referred to by the noble lord, did not go to the full explanation of the extent of the evil. In voting for these measures, he begged to be understood that lie did not agree with the noble lord as to the condition on which these measures of severity were: to be passed. He thought some time ought to be given to an investigation of the causes which had led to such disastrous results. He was quite satisfied that whatever success attended the proposed measures in the first instance, it would be of a temporary character. If permanent tranquillity was to be obtained, the House must go into an early inquiry as to the circumstances which have led to the existing state of tumult and disorder.
Mr. Butler
said, he did not concur with the noble lord in thinking that strong measures, to the extent which he had demanded, were necessary to the suppression of the disorders in Ireland. It had been allowed on all hands, that they did not originate in politics or religion. Their origin was in local distress; and this he conceived was a reason why magistrates should not be impowered to act according to the terms of the Insurrection act. Those magistrates were not so often great landed proprietors as middlemen: and these men would, in case the Insurrection act passed, have, in the capacity of jurors, the power of transporting insolvent tenants—a power with which they ought not to be entrusted.
Mr. Grattan
was persuaded, that coercive measures of every description would; in the end, be found ineffectual. They might bang and shoot the people, but the evil would still go on; and as for giving increased power to the magistracy he had no hesitation in saying, that constituted as the present magistracy were; he should prefer seeing a kill for de-
131
Sir F. Burdett
expressed his surprise at the conduct of the noble lord, who, having for upwards of twenty years had the opportunity of knowing the real state of Ireland, of ascertaining the numerous evils which pressed upon her, and of becoming acquainted with their causes, had nevertheless neglected all inquiry, and delayed every remedy, until now that he called upon the House to put down by force, those mischiefs which he had thus negligently suffered to accumulate. He confessed lie did not see why the House should consent to go on with measures, which were thus used for a time, and then laid aside until they again became necessary. He was surprised that the noble lord should have the face to get up and call for the repetition of measures of dreadful oppression, without giving the legislature an opportunity of inquiring into the nature and origin of the evils for which these palliatives were required. Was it to be tolerated, that Ireland should know nothing of this country, but through bloodshed and the gibbet? He for one did not think that the evils of Ireland were to be remedied by such means; and that this was the prevalent opinion in the House, he was convinced from what he had heard on the present occasion. He perceived that every member who gave his support to the proposed measures, had done so with considerable reluctance, as if convinced that the remedy of the evil did not lie in them. He was glad to witness this sympathy, and he trusted those gentlemen would act up to its suggestions, by compelling the noble lord to do what he had so long neglected. It was said that the disturbances in Ireland did not arise from any political feelings. He firmly believed they did not. It was impossible that greater affection towards the sovereign could be evinced, or that a stronger sense could be entertained of the compliment paid them, than was shown by the Irish people in the recent visit of his majesty to their country. This feeling was not limited—it was general throughout the island. That visit had he believed, done some good; but it was impossible that his majesty should work miracles. Had ministers taken advantage of the royal visit, as they ought to have done—had they instituted measures for
132
133
134
Mr. Abercromby
begged to state shortly the reasons by which his vote would be influenced. In the first place, no sufficient ground had been laid for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. To a large proportion of the people of Ireland, the noble marquis had himself admitted, that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act would be inapplicable. The higher and the educated classes were, by the noble marquis's own assertion, loyal; and yet parliament was now called upon to suspend the liberties of the people of Ireland in a way that would affect equally the loyal and disloyal, the Protestant and the Catholic, the inhabitant of the North and of the South of the Island. In the total absence of all proof of the necessity of such a proceeding, no conscientious man could, in his opinion, vote for it. He confessed himself very much disappointed at the meagreness of the papers which had been laid on the table. When the noble lord described them as dispatches from marquis Wellesley, he expected they would be found to contain a comprehensive view of the causes of the present discontents. Instead of that, they resembled a newspaper journal of events. In no part of them did the noble marquis state the principles, the motives, and the views of the discontented. But the noble lord opposite contended, that nothing further should be asked after his declaration that the country was in rebellion. That there were very serious disturbances in various parts of Ireland was too manifest; but they were not of a character to which the common acceptation of the term rebellion could be applied. On the contrary, he understood, by recent accounts, from persons on whom he could rely, that the insurrection in Ireland, especially near Cork,
135
136
Mr. Hume
wished to ask the noble marquis a question upon the subject on which all the House were united. He could assure the noble marquis, that he had never heard a single person who did not concur in opinion, as to the necessity of taking into serious consideration the system of tithes in Ireland. The tithe system, both in this country and in Ireland, had for many months past occupied his most serious attention. He had carefully examined every parliamentary document connected with the subject; and he asked the noble marquis, who now proposed measures of coercion with respect to Ireland, whether he would support a motion for a committee to inquire into the tithe system and the church establishment of Ireland? He offered the noble marquis and the House his services on this subject, the importance of which was announced by every post and every paper from that country. He wished, therefore, to know whether he should receive the noble lord's support in the motion which, at a very early period, he should feel it his duty to make on the subject?
Mr. D. Browne
said, that he should not feel himself justified in voting for so monstrous a measure as the Insurrection act, except upon the most clear and overpowering necessity. If it should be the pleasure of the House to pass it, he trusted they would immediately take into consideration the grievances by which Ireland had so long been afflicted.
Mr. C. Grant
felt himself under the painful and melancholy necessity of acquiescing in the proposition before the House. It was about a year and a half since he had the honour of stating to the House his sentiments respecting the act in question. Those sentiments he stilt retained. He was as hostile as ever to making such an act a part of the permanent system under which Ireland was to be governed. He maintained this opinion; but he also maintained, as he always had done, that an exigency might
137
138
Lord Ebrington
objected to the proposed measures, because he saw nothing in the papers laid before the House to call for them. There was not a single sentence in the communication of the lord lieutenant which could be construed into a call for any extraordinary powers, much less for such frightful and oppressive measures as those now before the House. Until he came into the House that evening, lie was not aware of the powers conferred by the Insurrection act: but, having heard the nature of that act, as well as the description of magistrates to whom its operation was to be entrusted, he felt himself bound to oppose it. He would ask the House, how they could entrust to such men, as the Irish magistrates were described to be, the power of at once transporting any individual who was found absent from his house between sunset and sun-rise? He was ready to go as
139
Mr. Brougham
said, he could assure his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Grant) that it would have given him great satisfaction if he could have agreed with him in the view he had taken of this question, especially as his right hon. friend was informed by long experience, and enlightened by large and liberal views of our true policy towards Ireland—views which did him immortal honour, which had conferred great benefits upon the kingdom, and which would have conferred still greater, had his official residence there been prolonged. Indeed, he felt that the impression which his right hon. friend's speech had made upon the House was only to be exceeded by the favourable impression which he had left with the inhabitants of the sister kingdom. He was happy, however, to reflect, that the difference between himself arid his right hon. friend was not great. It extended only to the vote, and not to the principle on which that vote was to be given. He agreed with his right hon. friend, that any confidence which might be demanded for the noble marquis, at present at the bead of time Irish government, was strictly his due, considering his high talent, his energy as a governor, or the enlightened principles on which he had commenced, and no doubt would continue, his administration. It was because the proposed measures were not indicative of confidence in the noble marquis—it was because they did not apply to the evil the remedy which was required—it was because, if they were necessary (which had been loudly asserted, thought not satisfactorily proved), he would much rather arm him with such powers by a specific vote of confidence, than apply a measure which was not the specific remedy for the mischiefs now devastating Ireland, that he felt himself obliged to withhold his concurrence from his right hon. friend. He would briefly state his objections to the measure in question; and first, as to the manner of hurrying it through all its stages in one
140
141
142
143
144
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the course which the hon. and learned gentleman had taken, imposed upon him the necessity of stating a few reasons in
145
146
147
148
149
Mr. Brougham
said, he never dreamt of conferring dictatorial power on the marquis Wellesley or on any other man. What he said was, that sooner than give extraordinary power to the local magistrates, he would give extraordinary, nay, dictatorial power for temporary purposes, to the noble marquis, placed at the head of the government, and responsible for his acts.
List of the Minority,
Abercromby, hon. J.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Barret, S. B. M.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Beaumont, T. W.
Folkestone, lord
Benyon, Benj.
Forbes, lord
Bernal, R.
Grattan, J.
Birch, Joseph
Gurney, H.
Bright, Henry
Hamilton, lord A.
Brougham, Henry
Heron, sir R.
Burdett, sir F.
Hill, lord Arthur
Bury, lord
Hollywood, W. P.
Calvert, N.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Calvert, C.
Hume, J.
Carter, John
James, W.
Clifton, lord
Johnson, col.
Creevy, T.
Lambton, J. G.
Crompton, S.
Lennard, T. B.
Davies, col.
Lushington, Dr.
Denman, T.
Maberly, John
Denison, W. J.
Maberly, col.
Ebrington, visc.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Ellice, E.
Marjoribanks, S.
Ferrand, R.
Moore, Peter
Fergusson, sir R.
Nugent, lord
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Newport, sir J.
150
Ord, W.
Smith, W.
Ossulston, lord
Smith, hon. R.
Palmer, col.
Stuart, lord J.
Price, Robert
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Ricardo, D.
Tennyson, C.
Robarts, A. W.
Wilson, sir R.
Robarts, col.
Wood, ald.
Rickford, W.
Winnington, sir T. E.
Rice, T. S.
TELLERS.
Scarlett, J.
Bennett, hon. H. G.
Sefton, earl
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
On the motion, that the Insurrection bill be now read the first time, the House divided: Ayes 202. Noes 44. On the motion, that the bill be printed, the House divided: Ayes 22. Noes 149. The bill was then read a second time.
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he should feel bound to take the sense of the House upon the bill now going into a committee.
The Marquis of Londonderry
expressed a wish, that the hon gentleman would allow the bill to pass its several stages that night, so that it might be sent up to the other House to-morrow, receive the royal sanction on Saturday, and be transmitted to Ireland this week. The hon. gentleman could not, he thought, gravely persist in his motion of adjournment.
Mr. Denman
said, he would oppose the passing of the bill that night, if the noble lord persisted in his determination of pressing it. Such a measure as this, involving the liberties and rights of a great country, ought not to pass like a bill, to which no objections could be made, and on which no information was required. Powers like those granted by this bill ought not to be granted without the fullest deliberation. If the noble lord persisted in his motion, he would employ the forms of the House to prevent such a precipitate vote.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, as the learned gentleman intended to employ those forms which might stop the passing of the Insurrection bill that night, he would not press it, but would only beg that the other bill might be allowed without opposition to pass through the same stages, that both might proceed together.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 8, 1822.
THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.]
151
Mr. Speaker reported the king's Answer to the Address as follows:
" Gentlemen,
"I thank you for this dutiful and loyal Address. The attachment which you have always shown to my person, family, and government, and the anxious zeal with which you have constantly watched over the interests of my people, satisfy me that every practicable alleviation to their existing distresses, consistent with their permanent welfare, will be afforded. You may rely at all times upon my cordial support in the discharge of your arduous public duties."
ILCHESTER GAOL—Mr. HUNT.]
Mr. Alderman Wood
rose to present a Petition from Thomas Hunt, the son of Mr. Henry Hunt, at present a prisoner in Ilchester gaol. The petitioner complained, that he had been prevented from visiting his father. The alderman said, he understood, that Mr. Hunt had been placed in a very extraordinary situation: he had been precluded from all intercourse even with his solicitor or his son. Mr. Hunt had likewise been very ill, and was prevented from obtaining medical aid so early as the necessity of the case required; the medical gentleman who attended the prison living at the distance of five miles. There were some rules made for the regulation of the prison under an act of parliament. It was necessary, before those rules could be enforced, that they should be signed by two or three judges. The rules bad been in existence for several years; but whether it was that they were considered too severe, or from any other reason, he could not say, but the judges had never signed them until some time since, during the last session of parliament. It certainly appeared very extraordinary, that rules, which had not been signed for so many years, should all at once be signed and put in practice. The petitioner set forth, that his father was debarred from all intercourse with his family, and his medical attendant. The House might be aware, that Mr. Hunt had made an application to the court of King's Bench, and that the court had made an order, that Mr. Hunt should see his solicitor and his surgeon; but beyond that, he was to receive no indulgence. He had not seen the rules, but he understood they were very severe. Mr. Hunt was placed at an iron grating, and was allowed to see his friends only once for a short time in the 24 hours. It ought to be remembered,
152
The Solicitor-General
said, that the individual whose petition was before the House had made an application to the Court of King's-Bench, complaining that his father was not allowed to have intercourse with his solicitor, or with his medical adviser. The moment this communication was made to the court, the judges me, to determine upon what course of proceeding it would be necessary to pursue. The result of their deliberation was, the issuing of an order, the object of which was, to cause an investigation into the circumstances which formed the subject of complaint. That investigation was pending, and the moment the evidence arrived, it would form the subject of consideration with the court of King's-Bench; and if it should appear that there had been any improper conduct on the part of the gaoler, or any other individual connected with the gaol, the court would doubtless correct it.
Sir E. Burdett
said, that the subject before the House was one of the most important that could occupy its attention. What the Solicitor-general had stated with respect to the proceedings of the court of King's Bench was all very well; but there still existed a question for the consideration of parliament. Surely the individual was not to be confined in the manner stated, until he could obtain an order from the court of King's-Bench. The sentence which had been passed upon Mr. Hunt was, under all the circumstances
153
154
155
Mr. Bathurst
said, that the magistrates had the power of making regulations for their several gaols, and when they were certified by the judges they became the law for the government of those gaols. He complained of the mode in which the hon. baronet had impugned the sentence passed upon Mr. Hunt. If that sentence was improper, it should have been made the subject of regular discussion; but the hon. baronet had thought fit now for the first time, and in an indirect manner, to load it with unqualified reprobation. The individual alluded to had himself sought out the quarter, where he would find redress; he had appealed to the court of King's-Bench, that very Court which the hon. members opposite were now holding up to obloquy. But they ought to remember that at the period when the crime, of which that sentence was the punishment, was committed, this country was in a state similar to that of Ireland at the present moment. The state of the manufacturing districts made it necessary to let the country know the strength of the law. The offence was most serious, and the judges had done their duty fearlessly. Nay, it appeared that the country would support the law; for according to the hon. baronet, Mr. Hunt had been acquitted by the judge, but condemned by the jury.
Mr. Bennet
wished to know who those magistrates or judges were, who had made the order complained of. He was confident there were no gaol-rules which would authorize a gaoler to act as the gaoler of Mr. Hunt had acted. What! prevent him from seeing his solicitor, or his son? Gracious God! he should have thought it impossible that any men, having the feelings of fathers, could have proposed such an order. They were told that the court of King's-Bench would consider the matter; but, the question was, by what right the orders complained of were originally made? He would take it upon him to say, that no law had ever been passed which would authorize such orders. It could not be pretended that the measures which had been adopted
156
Mr. Dickinson
denied, that any of the complaints of Mr. Hunt arose out of ill-treatment he received because he had occasioned the recent investigation and exposure at Ilchester. With regard to the rules of which so much had been said, it was proper to observe, that though they had existence they had no operation at the time Mr. Hunt was first sent to the gaol: they had been long prepared, but had never been signed by any of the judges. They had been postponed from assize to assize, by the different judges; and Mr. Justice Burrough and Mr. Justice Holroyd having declined to inspect them, they had very recently met with the approval and signature of Mr. Baron Graham and Mr. Justice Best. He had waited upon Mr. Justice Best with the rules, and had pointed out particularly the effect of one of them upon Mr. Hunt, who wished to be visited by what he called his family, which meant nothing else than that he
157
Sir I. Coffin
was merely desirous of saying, that when he formerly bore testimony to the character of the keeper of Ilchester gaol, he had not the slightest suspicion that thumb-screws were ever employed in it.
Sir T. Lethbridge
maintained, that nothing but the indulgence granted to Mr. Hunt had led to the complaints of which the House had already heard too much. If he had been treated like other prisoners charged with similar offences, all the troubles that had lately arisen would have been avoided. As to the magistracy of Somerset, they were a body of men incapable of acting from impure or unworthy motives, and were as respectable a bench as any in the kingdom. With respect to the petition, if any ulterior proceeding were proposed he should steadily oppose it; for he thought it unconstitutional for that House to attempt to reverse the sentence of a court of law.
Mr. Hothouse
said, he should be glad to be informed whether Mr. Hunt's son was to be considered as an improper person to have access to him. With regard to the female in question, he knew nothing of her, and he would not stand up in that House to defend immoral conduct; but he would say that exclusion from the society of that female was no part of Mr. Hunt's sentence. The hon. baronet had attributed much of the mischief to the concessions which had been made to Mr. Hunt. Was the removing of the thumbscrews a concession? Or was it in the eyes of the hon. baronet a mischief? Surely, the hon. baronet could not have known of the existence of these practices, or he never would have justified such conduct. In a list of sentences for political libels he observed a judgment upon one man of four years and a half. This was a sentence unknown even in the atrocious times of Charles the 1st. It had been said that an improper time was selected for the present complaint, but, in his opinion, complaints of such a nature ought to be brought forward at all times. He thought ministers would be highly culpable if they did not send down an order to relax the severities complained
158
The Attorney General
said, that the hon. member for Shrewsbury, had made a most unwarrantable and unprovoked attack upon the judges of the court of King's Bench. If the gentlemen opposite entertained the opinion they had expressed, why had they not brought forward a specific charge. The hon. member for Westminster had selected a case of heavy punishment for political libel. He (Mr. Attorney General) did not know the case, but he presumed it was that of the "much injured." Carlile. That individual had been punished, not for one libel, but for a series of libels of the most aggravated description, The hon. member for Westminster was mistaken in supposing that Mr. Justice Bayley, who tried Mr. Hunt, did not expect a conviction. The charge of that learned judge to the jury, impartial as it was, clearly showed the opinion of the judge upon the count in the indictment on which the jury returned a verdict. Mr. Hunt had had a most impartial trial: he was tried in a county of his own selection, by a jury of his own selection, and after the trial he had complimented the judge on the impartiality he had displayed on the trial. And now that learned judge was arraigned for the sentence he had afterwards passed. To remove any doubt as to the opinion of Mr. Justice Bayley on the case itself, it would be only necessary to refer to the language of the sentence, which declared that the offence approached very nearly to the crime of high treason. Perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite thought the Manchester meeting was legal. [Hear.] But the jury, the judges, and the majority of tile country thought otherwise. However it was unnecessary to discuss that question at the present moment. All that he complained of was, that the hon. member had not brought the subject before parliament in a proper shape. With respect to the rules of the prison, he did not profess to know any thing about them; but he knew that the moment Mr. Hunt complained to the court of King's-bench by letter, that court had made an order, for giving him redress; a circumstance which
159
Mr. Hobhouse
said, it was not Carlile's case to which he bad alluded, though he knew very well the motive of the learned member in mentioning Carlile with reference to him. The case he alluded to was, a sentence passed, not by the court of King's-bench, but by the quarter-sessions.
The Attorney General
declared, upon his honour, that he had no motive whatever in mentioning the name of Carlile, with reference to the hon. member. As the hon. member was complaining of the conduct of the court of King's-bench, and as the case of Carlile was that in which the court had passed the heaviest of its sentences, he naturally concluded that his was the case alluded to.
Ordered to lie on the table.
KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS—PETITION OF THE CORPORATION OF LONDON.]
The Sheriffs of London presented the following Petition:
"To the hon. the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled." The humble Petition of the lord mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common-council assembled,
"Sheweth—That it is with feelings of serious pain and regret that your petitioners should have occasion again to approach the bar of your hon. House in the language of complaint, and to be compelled, as well on their own behalf as on that of the civil authorities throughout the country, to call upon your hon. House for protection against that lawless and unconstitutional spirit recently manifested in the frequent attacks made by the military against his majesty's unarmed and peaceable subjects, and which your petitioners lament to state, has even extended itself to an outrage, and an attempt at assassination of the head of the civil power of the metropolitan county:
"That upon the melancholy occasion of' the funeral of her late majesty queen Caroline, two persons of the names of Francis and Honey unfortunately lost their lives, in consequence, as it would
160
"That notice having been extensively circulated of the intention of interring the bodies of those unfortunate individuals at Hammersmith, on Sunday the 26th day of August last, and of having a public funeral, Mr. Alderman Waithman, one of the then sheriffs, and a conservator of the public peace of the county of Middlesex, felt it his duty to direct the attendance of the constables and officers of the divisions nearest to and through which the funeral procession was expected to pass, and also to attend in person to prevent or quell any tumult or disorder:
"That the sheriff, being necessarily apprehensive, under the existing irritation of the people, and the melancholy occasion for which they were assembled, that some insult might be offered to the life-guards in their barracks, disposed of the constables chiefly in that vicinity, and actually ranged a body of them in front of the barracks, with instructions to apprehend every individual who should attempt to commit any act of outrage or disorder:
"That the funeral in consequence of these precautions, passed the barracks in an orderly and quiet manner, marked by no other peculiar circumstance than that of a brick being thrown from the barracks. The sheriff's admonitions, and the presence of the constables, succeeded in repressing the provocation which such a wanton act was but too well calculated to excite:
"That when the procession had passed and while the road continued to be crowded with people, the gates of the barracks were thrown open, and the avenue filled with soldiers; that the people gathered round the spot and expressed their displeasure; that a tumult appearing inevitable, the sheriff requested to speak with the officer on duty, but without effect; and it was only by repeated expostulation with the soldiers that he prevailed upon them to retire within the barracks, and to close the exterior gates:
"That shortly after the gates were unexpectedly thrown open, and the soldiers rushed out armed with swords, carbines, and sticks, and attacked the people most furiously, without distinction
161
"That your petitioners observe with surprise and regret, that although his majesty's government apprehended a breach of the peace between the life-guardsmen and the people, from the state of irritation in which the minds of both parties were known to be from the unhappy catastrophe on the day of her majesty's remains leaving Hammersmith, a verdict of Wilful Murder having been given against a life-guardsman in respect of one of the individuals, and the jury remaining then impanelled in the other, yet that no efficient measures were taken by his majesty's government or the officer commanding the troops at Knightsbridge to prevent the same by guarding against a collision of the irritated parties, and that the sheriff of the county was left not only to preserve the public peace, but to
162
"That your petitioners, from a careful, minute, and full examination of the affair, through the medium of a report of a committee of your petitioners, together with the evidence taken by such committee, all which they beg permission to lay before your hon. House, do find, that not only a furious attack was made by the life-guardsmen on the people, thus placing the lives of his majesty's subjects in imminent danger, but that a violent and personal outrage was likewise committed by the soldiers on the sheriff, while in the exemplary execution of his duties by laudably exerting himself, at the great hazard of his life, to preserve the public peace, and in his person in the high and important station which he filled, thus contemning and defying the civil authority with which he was invested, and planting a military power above the law:
"That the day following the sheriff addressed a letter to the right hon. earl Bathurst, one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, detailing the events that had taken place, and although his majesty's government, as represented by the noble earl in his reply to the sheriffs letter, deemed an inquiry necessary, yet your petitioners, with astonishment, take leave to inform your hon. House, that, as far as they can learn, no proceedings or inquiry have hitherto taken place, or the sheriff been required to produce any evidence, or in anywise called upon to substantiate the circumstances and representations contained in his said letter to earl Bathurst; and, notwithstanding the doubts which the noble earl has thought proper to entertain with respect to the correctness of the sheriff's statement, your petitioners cannot forbear impressing upon your hon. House their decided conviction (founded upon the concurrent testimony of the evidence) of the full truth of the sheriffs letter to lord Bathurst, and that it was wholly to the exertions of the sheriff that much mischief and bloodshed were prevented:
"Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your hon. House to institute an immediate and effectual inquiry into the origin, progress, and termination of the transactions and outrage above alluded to
163
On the motion of alderman Wood, the petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Sir J. Newport
said, that he understood, from the noble lord opposite, that the noble marquis at the head of the Irish government had recommended the adoption of the Insurrection bill and of the Habeas Corpus suspension bill, without alteration or modification; and having in every former transaction of that noble person's life admired his talents and entertained the highest opinion of his public conduct, he was disposed to wave his own opinion, and not to press for the modification of measures which, it was said, the noble marquis demanded without modification. He took this course, also, on the conviction, that if he were to persist in calling for modifications, and if the House gave way to his representations, then, should the measure be found inapplicable to the present state of Ireland (as, however modified, he believed it would be), he should be accused of having rendered the act inoperative by the introduction of those modifications. Under such circumstances, the responsibility (and an awful responsibility it was) rested with the head of the Irish government, who required these measures in their most potent form.
Lord Folkestone
said, he felt himself imperiously called upon to enter his protest against the measures proposed by the noble marquis. His right hon. friend had thought proper to wave his objections to the proposed measures, on the ground of his great confidence in the disposition and character of the marquis Wellesley. But for himself, he must say, that upon no authority whatever could he deem it consistent to invest any individual with such authority as these measures were meant to create. Where was the evidence of lord Wellesey's authority for the adoption of
164
165
166
ipse dixit
167
168
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, the noble lord had thought fit to assert, that the declaration of a minister of the Crown, in his place in parliament, was not to be received as evidence—that the House ought not to legislate upon it. He, however, begged leave to combat that position. A minister of the Crown making a statement in his place, and pledging his official responsibility for its accuracy, was as liable to be challenged and impeached, if his statement were incorrect, as if he had laid a false dispatch on the table of the House. If a minister could so far forget himself as to assert that which was not matter of fact, his conduct would deserve the severest animadversion, and would be justly visited by the contempt and detestation of mankind. And surely the man who could have the hardihood to proclaim a false fact to the House, would be equally capable of forging a dispatch. He, therefore, questioned the noble lord's constitutional authorities on this subject. This
169
170
171
Dr. Lushington
said, that in whatever view he contemplated this obnoxious bill, be never could recognize the necessity for its enactment, nor believe that it was calculated to work the result which its supporters anticipated. It was, in the first place, very extraordinary, that the noble marquis, on the discussion of the King's Speech, had not betrayed the slightest indication of the measures proposed. He would go further, and state his belief that, up to Tuesday night, the noble marquis had not made up his mind on the subject. But last night the noble marquis was determined; he proceeded to the accomplishment of his object with a diligence not, as it would seem, proportioned to the necessity of the case, but to the expedition of the engrosser. If the urgency was so pressing in the minds of the king's ministers, how came it that no order had been given to the clerk to take a copy of the bill from the Statute-book. It was impossible, therefore, for him not to doubt the necessity for such a bill, even from the conduct of the noble marquis himself. But, after he bad determined on the measure, what had the noble lord done to induce the House to accede to it? He had referred it to the papers placed on the table, and to a justifiable confidence in the character of the marquis Wellesley. With respect to the papers, he would admit that they contained information of outrages in different counties of Ireland. To check such acts of insubordination some remedial measures were admitted to be necessary; but he never could believe that either prevention or remedy could be found in an Insurrection bill, or any bill of a similar tendency. Far better, in his contemplation, would be the prompt interposition of the constitutional tribunal of those special commissions which should be forthwith assembled at Limerick, Cork and Tralee, prepared
172
173
174
l.
175
Mr. Lockhart
could not agree, that to pass these bills was to sacrifice the constitution of this country. The constitution was already sacrificed in many of the districts of Ireland under the most aggravating circumstances, by those against whom the measures were directed. These persons had set at defiance the constitution, by secret nightly meetings, and by carrying fire and sword into the dwellings of defenceless innocence. The measures might not be exactly what many members hon. members might wish, but if their
176
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that if the right hon. baronet had given his authority to the bills, he would have yielded to that authority; but the right hon. baronet had rested his assent on his confidence in the head of the Irish government. Now, be neither joined in this confidence, nor disclaimed it. Facts and circumstances, and not confidence in any man or set of men, formed the ground of his conduct. He admitted the pressure of the evil, but the Suspension bill was not at all applicable to it. The Insurrection act, if modified, might be found a remedy. If no jury could be found to act, he would have voted for the bill as it was. But juries had acted and done their duty at Limerick. On the bringing up of the report, he would propose a clause to enable the king's serjeant to admit to bail. He would also propose a clause to enable the crown to authorize persons in remote or detached districts to act as justices of the peace. With respect to juries, he would propose to commit the alternative of trying by jury or not to the king's serjeant, who was divested of local passions and animosities.
Mr. Calcraft
felt it necessary to state, the reasons upon which his vote would be founded. He had yesterday come down to the House with a strong bias upon his mind on this question; and, from all that he had since heard, he felt it his painful duty to state, that, however he might be compelled to differ from many of his friends, he should compromise his judgment if he declined to support the proposed measures. He must say, that in the many eloquent speeches which he had heard upon this question, gentlemen dwelt much upon the horrors of the Insurrection act, and the unconstitutional doctrine of suspending the Habeas Corpus act, while they kept out of sight the barbarous atrocities which made such measures necessary. He admitted that both measures were unconstitutional; but
177
178
Mr. Lamb
said, he was inclined to support the proposed measures, upon the ground of the confidence which he reposed in the open statement of ministers. He had heard gentlemen say, on former occasions, that nothing was more abominable than any proposal to parliament upon secret papers, or a sealed bag. It was said, that ministers ought to ask for additional powers upon their own responsibility. This was his opinion; and he was ready, to support the proposed measures from his confidence both in ministers and in the noble lord at the head of the Irish government. He did not agree in the allusions thrown out against that noble lord at an early part of the evening, though it was not his intention at that moment to enter into a defence of the noble lord's conduct in India. This, however, he must say, that that noble lord was not more distinguished for energy of character, than for a zealous and ardent love of public liberty and an anxious desire to advance the interests and happiness of that part of the empire committed to his care. Much, however, as he esteemed and respected that noble lord, he was not, in this instance reposing in him a confidence greater than he should be inclined to bestow upon any other lord lieutenant placed in the same situation, and to whom he had no reason to object on other grounds. He had heard from the gentleman who represented the sister country, that a present and efficacious remedy was necessary, and that, therefore, they should not delay the proposed measures. With respect to the melancholy situation in which Ireland was now placed, and the conclusions to be drawn from that situation, he fully concurred in what had fallen from several hon. gentlemen last night. Many severe reflections had been made upon the noble marquis opposite respecting the government of Ireland. It was true that as far as the evils were known to exist, and the remedies were within the power of the noble lord, he was responsible for not having applied them. But it should be recollected, that evils often took their rise from circumstances, over which neither the noble lord, nor the laws, nor the parliament could have any immediate control. They were told, in the present instances, that bad government and misrule, that: bad laws and bad institutions, had produced the present character of the deluded
179
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he must repeat what he had stated last night; namely, that no case had been made out to justify either of the present measures. What he should recommend would be an increase of military force. The hon. member here read several extracts from the dispatches of marquis Wellesley, in order to shew, that in all the contests between the people and the soldiery, the latter, though twenty-fold greater in number, uniformly gave way and fled. From this he argued, that nothing but an increased military force was necessary to suppress the outrages altogether. God forbid that, in saying this, he should be thought to under-value
180
Colonel Davies
was of opinion that the present bills were necessary to put down the existing disturbances; but when that effect was produced, he thought they ought to be followed up by investigation and conciliatory measures.
The Marquis of Londonderry
opposed the clause, and observed that it was understood the sittings of the commission should be from day to day, and that the difficulty respecting the taking of bail could not be so great as the hon. member had stated it to be.
Mr. S. Rice
said, he had attended every court of special commission in his county and had found that delays of days, weeks,
181
On the question being put, "that the words be there inserted," the House divided: Ayes, 30. Noes, 139.
List of the Minority.
Bright, Henry
Hutchinson, hon.
Benett, John
C. H
Brougham, H.
James, W.
Burdett, sir F.
Lennard, T. B.
Creevy, T.
Lushington, Dr.
Clarke, hon. C. B.
Lambton, J. G.
Denison, W. J.
Martin, John
Duncannon, visc.
Macdonald, J.
Ellice, Ed.
Madocks, W. A.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Nugent, lord
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Robinson, sir G.
Folkestone, visc.
Rice, T. S.
Honywood, W. P.
Sefton, earl of
Hill, lord Arthur
Wood, ald.
Hughes, W. L.
TELLERS,
Heron, sir R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.
On the motion for going into a committee on the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension bill, the House divided: Ayes, 127. Noes, 36. The bill then passed through the committee. On the motion, that the Irish Insurrection bill be read a third time,
Sir F. Burdett
expressed a hope that ministers, before they passed it, would pledge themselves to the Irish nation to pursue a conciliatory line of policy in future, and not to introduce a bill of indemnity, to shelter the outrages which might be committed under it.
Mr. Denman
said, that the bill contained a clause which was equivalent to a bill of indemnity. He then proceeded to observe upon the precipitancy with which the bills were forwarded through the House, by which members who expected an exposition were taken by surprise. It was certainly the first duty of parliament to put down insurrection, and repress the violence of men who were misled by their own passions or those of others; the only question was, whether the present measures were applicable to the case, or whether other measures more effective to that
182
183
The Attorney-General
said, it was agreed on all hands, that the state of Ireland was such as to require vigorous measures of some kind or other. The hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that the application of an additional military force was the best remedy that could be adopted. For himself, he thought, that however all might deplore the necessity of such a measure, the best course was, to renew an act from which the most beneficial effects had formerly resulted. In answer to that part of his learned friend's speech, in which he asserted that several courts of magistracy might be sitting simultaneously in the same county, he begged to refer him to the bill, in which he would find that only one special session could sit in a county at one time. At that session, therefore, either a king's serjeant or a king's counsel, or at least an assistant barrister, who must have been six years at the bar, would preside, and give to the magistrates the benefit of his legal knowledge. As to the question of indemnity, the bill gave no greater indemnity than the general law in England already involved.
Mr. Brougham
said, his learned friend had stated, that the clause in question gave no more protection to the magistrates in Ireland than was already given to him by the law in England. If this was the case, there could be no harm in leaving out the clause altogether.
The Attorney-General
said, that in England this power was given to the magistrates by a a specific act of parliament; but it was not so in Ireland.
Mr. Brougham
was surprised to hear that magistrates in Ireland had been left so unprotected as to make this special provision necessary.
Mr. Bright
contended, that an act by which the constitution was overturned for the time, ought to be so worded as to admit of no doubt whatever with respect to
184
The Solicitor-General
did not understand that the government was to provide for the attendance of a king's serjeant, or counsel; but, if he happened to be there, he was to preside. If neither was there, then the court would be formed by the magistrates and the assistant barrister. By the constitution of the courts of Ireland, the assistant barrister, in such a case, would preside; and, therefore, any further provision on this subject was unnecessary.
The Marquis of Londonderry
declared his dislike to the principle of creating a local magistracy, for a temporary purpose.
The House divided: Ayes 31. Noes 110.
List of the Minority.
Bury, visc.
Hume, Joseph
Bright, H.
Honywood, W. P.
Brougham, H.
James, W.
Burdett, sir F.
Lambton, J. G.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Moore, Peter
Barret, S. M.
Nugent, lord
Calvert, C.
Phillips, G. R.
Denman, T.
Robarts, A.
Ellice, Ed.
Robarts, col.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Ricardo, D.
Folkestone, visc.
Robinson, sir G.
Hutchinson,hon. C.H.
Smith, W.
Hurst, R.
Wyvill, M.
Hughes, W. L.
Wilson, sir R.
Hill, lord A.
TELLERS,
Heron, sir Robert
Rice, T. S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Duncannon, visc.
Mr. Denman
then proposed to omit the clause for the indemnity of persons carrying the Act into effect. Upon which the House divided; Ayes 30. Noes 109,
185
List of the Minority.
Brougham, H.
James, W.
Burdett, sir F.
Lambton, J. G.
Barrett, S. M.
Moore, Peter
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Nugent, lord
Calvert, C.
Ricardo, D.
Duncannon, visc.
Robinson, sir G.
Ellice, Ed.
Rice, T. S.
Folkestone, visc.
Robarts, A.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Robarts, col.
Heron, sir R.
Wood, alderman
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wyvill, M.
Hurst, Rt.
Wilson, sir Rt.
Hughes, W. L.
TELLERS.
Hill, lord A.
Denman, T.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Bright, H.
Hume, J.
On the motion, that the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension bill be read a third time, the House divided: Ayes 109. Noes 27.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, February 10.
STATE OF IRELAND.
The Irish Insurrection bill, and also the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension bill, were read a first time, after which, a motion, made by the earl of Liverpool, for the Suspension of the Standing Orders, No. 26, and 105, was agreed to.
The Earl of Liverpool
rose, to move the second reading of the Irish Insurrection bill. It was, he said, with the deepest regret, that he came forward to state the existence, in any part of the United Kingdom, of a state of things which required the exercise of the powers given by this bill—powers which had never been entrusted to the government of this part of the British empire, but which had unfortunately, on more than one occasion, been found necessary in Ireland. The measure was founded on one which had been formerly adopted; and it was for their lordships to consider, whether the bills now before them, or something equivalent to them, were not necessary. The papers on the table contained the proofs of the necessity of these bills. But, were there no papers on their lordships table, he should have little difficulty in showing, from the outline of facts, so notorious as those which the state of Ireland presented, that their lordships were bound to grant to the executive go-
186
187
188
The Earl of Blesington
said, that had the noble earl accompanied his proposition to the House by an assurance that the bills were proposed on the recommendation of the present lord lieutenant of Ireland, he should not be disposed to view them with so much jealousy as he did. But when the noble earl said, the measures were recommended by the executive government, it became very doubtful in whose advice they originated; for, if the term executive government meant now the same thing as it did in the time of the duke of Richmond, their lordships would have to understand by it the secretary of state for the home-department, and the Irish secretary. With regard to the consideration of the state of Ireland at a future period, he did not anticipate much advantage from it. More than twenty years had passed since the Union, and the state of Ireland had never been properly investigated. The great causes of the evil were obvious. The imposition of heavy burdens, and the misapplication of the
189
Lord King
thought it highly proper that the bill should undergo some modification. If, passed in its present state, parliament would probably have no opportunity of reconsidering it before June or July; a time when it was known to every person, how thin an attendance there was even upon the most important question. He should therefore propose, in the committee, to limit the duration of the bill to the 15th of March, which would be six weeks, in place of six months. It should be recollected, that this bill had its origin in the Irish parliament, the conduct of which, in its mischievous mode of legislating for the country, was one of the arguments urged in support of the Union.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that feeling the strongest objection to the bills on constitutional grounds, he thought it his duty to explain the reasons which induced him not to oppose them at present. With respect to the noble marquis who recommended, it was said, the adoption of some strong measures, he was quite willing to attribute to his recommendation all the authority it deserved. He thought, however, that the subject for their lordships' consideration was rather the particular nature of the facts and disturbances on which these bills were grounded, than the particular measure recommended by the executive government of Ireland. It was upon the horrible and revolting nature of these facts, and upon this alone, that the measures could, in his view of them, be supported. In the dispatches upon the table, he saw nothing wanting of those
190
The Earl of Darnley
said, that if he could abstain from giving his opposition to the proposed measures, it would be from his willingness to repose confidence in the present government of Ireland; but the circumstances of the present case precluded him from suffering the opportunity to pass without declaring his dissent from the proposition. It was now several months since a spirit of Insurrection had burst forth in Ireland. The government saw it increasing, and yet proposed no measures for its suppression, until they came forward, in the extremity of rigour, with these severe and unconstitutional bills. Then parliament were told, that no time was to be lost, and that the necessity for the bills was so urgent, they must be passed without the smallest delay. With reference to the papers on the table, it appeared to him that the great mass of insubordination which had assumed the
191
192
The Marquis Camden
expressed his hope that the present bill would pass. He was one of those who, in supporting the measure, thought it had not been too soon brought forward. He was quite persuaded that, in the present situation of Ireland, measures of this kind, however painful, were absolutely necessary. The noble marquis recited the provisions of the bill, and dwelt on the security against the abuse of power which was furnished by connecting a king's serjeant and barrister of eminence with the local magistracy in the administration of the act. He thought this provision obviated the objections which were felt against the original construction of the bill. Parliament were bound to give the utmost energy to the government of Ireland, in order to put down an extensive spirit of insurrection. He agreed that the state of that country ought to receive the consideration of the legislature, and hoped that the subject would be introduced in a calm and dispassionate manner, unmixed with irritable topics which might defeat the purposes of candid inquiry.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that whilst their lordships were about to pass these very severe laws against Ireland, he hoped they would not dismiss from their minds the absolute necessity, at a very early period, of taking the state of that country into their consideration. He was willing to assist them in putting out the flame; but it was their most sacred duty—a duty which could be no longer delayed without the greatest criminality—to adopt wise and healing measures with respect to that country, in order to prevent the recurrence of evils which they all deplored. He gave his vote in favour of the present measures with the greatest pain: he had read with the utmost attention the papers on their table; and, until he had read them, he did not think it was possible that the marquis Wellesley could have taken up eighteen pages, detailing acts of violence and outrage, without expressing a single, opinion on the state of the country, or the causes which had produced those
193
194
195
Lord Redesdale
declared his opinion in favour of the proposed bills, in order to put down insurrection in Ireland. A good deal had been said respecting the character of the magistracy of that country. When he was chancellor of Ireland, he had taken considerable pains to induce the most respectable persons in that country to belong to the local magistracy. Their answer almost always was, that they should not hesitate to accept the office, if they could secure the support and co-operation of the great owners of property in the country; but it was only in a few instances he could prevail upon them to act. Under such circumstances, the only thing which the government could do was, to take the magistracy as they could find them, and to frame them accordingly. The present insurrection was not mixed up with religion or politics, but was directed against the old established law of the land. The great evil of Ireland was, that she never had been made duly amenable to the laws. Sir John Davies, the Irish attorney-general in the time of James the first., had said, that all were in fault in Ireland; the high and the low, the rich and the poor; and so it had remained to the present day. He knew that too great a spirit of disobedience prevailed, and that too many were found to take advantage of its existence to promote their own peculiar ends. The first thing to be done was, to render all in Ireland obedient to the law, the high and the low, the rich and the poor. Let no man, however high, dare to evade the law with impunity: let no mad, however poor and humble, feel that he was without its equal protection; then the people of Ireland would be found as obedient as any other people were, who knew they enjoyed the equal protection of the law. He had found them, in his intercourse with them, a people most sensible of kindness and attention. He repeated,
196
Lord Holland
agreed entirely with his noble friends near him, as to the character of the proposed measures. He appreciated the feelings of the noble lord (Ellenborough) who had expressed the pain it gave him to vote for these bills; and, though he also concurred in much of what had fallen from the learned lord who had spoken last, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise, that he should have given his vote unhesitatingly for measures of this description. With more generous compassion for the people of Ireland, did the other noble lord confess the pain given by a vote wrung from him by hard necessity. He honoured that noble lord's motives, concurred in his feelings, and, if he could think with him that the proposed bill was calculated
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
The Duke of Wellington
said, he did not rise to follow the noble baron through all the details of the question, his object was principally to advert to the employment of the military force in Ireland. He would first, however, remind the noble baron, who had argued as if the present measure was a permanent and universal one, that it went only to enable the lord lieutenant to proclaim certain disturbed districts in which it was necessary some prompt and powerful measures should be adopted, in order to repress those lawless acts of nocturnal outrage by which life and property were violated. For the absolute necessity of putting these districts under the operation of the law, the lord lieutenant was responsible; and he did hope their lordships would agree with him in concluding that his noble relative at the head of the Irish government, alive to that responsibility, would not allow it to be put in execution, except where the necessity demanded its application. With respect to the military force in Ireland, he must observe, that the amount of force stationed there at this period, was nearly double that which was stationed there before the commencement of the late, war.
209
The Duke of Buckingham
considered the proposed measures ought to be carried, not merely from the confidence he placed
210
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that although he did not think there was any inconsistency in the vote which he should give, yet the subject to which it referred
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that the noble marquis seemed to complain that their lordships had had no specific and detailed recommendation from the marquis Wellesley laid before them, as to the measures necessary to be adopted. Now, he did not think that any such distinct recommendation from the Crown, or from the ministers of the Crown was usual in similar cases. The recommendation from the Crown was usually in general terms, that parliament should consider a question; and he did not feel that it could be required of a minister, like the marquis Wellesley, acting on his own responsibility, to recommend to parliament a specific proceeding. He was ready, however, to concede to the noble marquis opposite, that his majesty's ministers might have laid before the House a dispatch from lord Wellesley, with a long and able argument upon the existing distresses of Ireland, and the views which he took of them. One noble lord seemed to think it most extraordinary, that the marquis Wellesley, with all the powers of his gifted mind, should not have prepared some such representations for the consideration of parliament. He had as high an opinion of that noble marquis as any man; he had known him longer than most men, and was entirely aware of the energies of his mind. But he should not have retained so exalted an opinion of those energies, if the noble marquis, on his arrival in Ireland, in January, before the greater part of the outrages in question had broken out, had sent over to parliament a long dissertation on the evils admitted to exist, their nature, character, and extent; and should have so suddenly matured his judgment, as to be able to prescribe what remedies were proper to be applied to them. If their lordships would do the noble marquis justice, they must feel assured that he would probe the evil to the bottom, before he would hazard an opinion on a subject of the most extensive and complicated character, that could be brought under the notice of parliament. Every exertion that the circumstances of this country would admit of had been made to reinforce the army in Ireland. It was now, independently of the militia, very nearly as strong as it ever had been in that part of the kingdom. To oppose force to force was
218
219
220
The House went into the committee; in which lord King moved an amendment, the object of which was, to limit the duration of the bill from the 1st of August, as at first proposed, to the 15th of May. Upon this, the committee divided: Contents 15. Not Contents 59. The bill was then read a third time, and passed. The Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension bill went through the same stages, after lord Holland had briefly expressed his strong abjection to the passing of such a measure.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 11.
DISTRESSED STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Mr. Brougham,
in rising to bring before the House the present distressed state of the agricultural, and the other classes of the community, said, he was well aware that he had undertaken an arduous task. He was aware, also, that there were many gentlemen to whom it could have been much better in trusted; and if his hon. friend, the member for Essex (Mr. Western) had not been prevented by indisposition, although differing from him materially in opinion, he should have been well satisfied to have left it in his bands. Between himself and many others, indeed, with whom he had conversed upon the subject, the discordance was so wide, that he found it impossible to avoid himself bringing it forward. He did so at the risk of all disadvantages, of which no man was more sensible, but for the purpose of preserving consistency with the opinions he had formerly entertained and expressed, and which, God knew, in subsequent years, but especially in 1816, 1817, and 1818,had been most wofully confirmed. He feared that, in what be should say, it would be his misfortune to give little satisfaction to any of the great interests of the empire. He hardly entertained a hope that the
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.
229
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
230
231
l.;
232
l.
233
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
234
l.;
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
.,
l.,
l.,
l.
l.:
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
235
l.
datum
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
236
l.
s.
d
l.
l.
l.
l.:
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.,
l.
237
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
238
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.:
239
l.,
s.
d.
s.
d.,
s.
s.,
s.,
s.
s.
d.
s.
240
d.,
d.,
d.
241
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
242
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
243
s.;
s.
s.
244
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
245
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.,
s.,
246
l.
l.
l.
247
248
249
250
251
l.
l.
252
l.
l.;
l.
l.
minimum
l.
l.
253
254
255
l.
256
l.
l.
l.
l.
257
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
maximum
258
"Parva metu primo: mox sese attolit in auras,
Ingrediturque
solo."
259
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that in rising to address the House after the long, the able, and elaborate speech of the hon. and learned member, he could assure them, that if he felt convinced of the truth of the proposition which had been laid down (in no very practical or intelligible shape he must admit), he would at once accede to it. The hon. and learned member had certainly a right
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
Mr. Calcraft
said, that those classes of the community who were in distress, would no doubt feel much surprised when they learned, that instead of considering those distresses, ministers were considering the situation of gentlemen at the Opposition side of the House, with reference to their own. The noble lord seemed astonished that such a motion should have been introduced in the absence of full information as to the intentions and plans of ministers. Now, he contended, that a sufficient knowledge of their
267
l.
l.
268
269
270
"—along, both heart and mind,
A fellow-feeling made them wond'rous kind."
Mr. Ricardo
denied that taxation was the cause of the present agricultural distress. A country might, he said, be totally without taxes, and yet in the exact situation that England was at present. It was consistent enough in those who thought that the restoration of the currency had made a change of 50 or 56 per cent. in the value of money, and had consequently increased the actual value of the taxes in that proportion, though their nominal amount still remained the same, to say that taxation was the chief cause of the distressed state of agriculture; but it was impossible for those who held that the restoration in the currency had not created any thing like so great a change, to accede to such a statement. From the line of argument which his hon. and learned friend had pursued in one part of his speech, he was afraid that his hon. and learned friend was going to prove, that the very taxation which he wished to reduce was a source of benefit to the nation. His hon. and learned friend had stated, that the manufacturers of leather, on account of the tax on it, largely increased its price to the consumer, and derived so much benefit thereby as to be ready to represent it to parliament as a very useful and beneficial tax. Surely, by a parity of analogy, the agricultural interest, burdened as it was by taxation, might petition parliament against a reduction of it, since it was as much in their power as in that of the leather-manufacturer, to make it useful in enhancing the price of their commodity to the consumer. His hon. and learned friend had, however, drawn a very nice distinction—so nice indeed, that, for his own part, he was not gifted with ability to discern it—between the circumstances in which the leather-manufacturer and those in which the agriculturist was placed. He had said, that, in the case of the manufacturer, the taxation was paid by the consumer; but that in the case of the agriculturist, it was paid by the seller, and could not be charged to the consumer. He could wish his hon. and
271
272
Mr. W. Peel
opposed the motion. He believed that ministers were quite as anxious to relieve the distress of the country as those who dealt in nothing but assertion and complaint. He was glad that reductions were about to be made from the highest offices to the lowest, as he was convinced that such economical arrangements would tend to remove the evils complained of.
Mr. Brougham
rose to reply; and principally for the purpose of defending himself against the charge of inconsistency, which the noble marquis had brought against him. The noble marquis had stated that he was not justified in finding fault with the extravagance of our military expenditure, seeing that he had been a
273
l.
l.
l.
l.
274
275
ultimunz supplicium
The previous question being put, the House divided: Ayes 108. Noes 212.
276
Majority against Mr. Brougham's motion 104.
List of the Minority; and also of the Majority.
MINORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Macdonald, Jas.
Althorp, visct.
Madocks, Wm.
Beaumont, T. W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Markham, admiral
Baring, sir T.
Martin, John
Baring, Henry
Monck, J. B.
Barnard, lord
Moore, Peter
Bernard, visct.
Neville, hon. R.
Benett, John
Newport, sir J.
Benyon, Benjamin
Nugent, lord
Bernal, R.
Ossulston, lord
Brougham, Henry
Palmer, C. F.
Burdett, sir F.
Pares, Thos.
Byng, George
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Boughey, sir T. F.
Phillips, G. jun.
Burrell, sir C.
Price, Robert
Burrell, W.
Portman, E. B.
Bentinck, lord W.
Ricardo, D.
Carter, John
Robarts, A.
Calvert, C.
Robarts, Geo.
Calvert, N.
Robinson, sir G.
Clifton, lord
Rowley, sir W.
Coffin, sir I.
Russell, lord John
Crespigny, sir W.
Rice, T. S.
Crompton, S.
Rickford, W.
Curwen, J. C.
Smith, hon. R.
Creevey, Thos.
Smith, G.
Calthorpc, hon. F.
Smith, W.
Curteis, E.
Smith, Abel
Davies, T. H.
Scarlett, J.
Denison, W.
Sefton, earl
Dundas, Chas.
Scott, James
Davenport, D.
Stanley, lord
Ebrington, visc.
Stuart, lord J.
Ellice, Ed.
Sykes, Dan.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Tennyson, C.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Titchfield, marq.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Tavistock, marq.
Frankland, R.
Whitmore, T. W.
Farrand, R.
White, Luke
Fane, John
Whitbread, W.
Grattan, J.
Whitbread, S.
Graham, S.
Wilkins, W.
Gurney, Richard
Williams, T. P.
Hamilton, lord A.
Williams, W.
Haldimand, Wm.
Winnington, sir T.
Heathcote, G. J.
Wood, M.
Heron, sir Robt.
Wyvill, M.
Hill, lord A.
Wilson, sir Robert
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLERS.
Honywood, W. P.
Calcraft, J.
Hume, Joseph
Duncannon, lord
Hurst, Robt.
PAIRED OFF.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Scudamore, R. P.
James, W.
SHUT OUT.
Jervoise, G. P.
Birch, Joseph
Lemon, sir W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lennard, T. B.
Browne, Dom.
Lawley, F.
Cavendish, H.
Leake, W.
Cavendish, C.
Maberly, W, L.
Lambtonf J. G.
277
MAJORITY.
A'Court, E. H.
Dundas, rt. hon. W.
Alexander, J.
Evelyn, Lindon
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Egerton, W.
Ashurst, W.
Eastnor, visct.
Astley, sir J.
Fane, Vere
Atwood, M.
Fetherstone, sir G.
Balfour, John
Fleming, John
Bankes, Henry
Fleming, John
Bankes, George
Forbes, C.
Bastard, E. P.
Ford, Matthew
Bathurst, rt. hon. C.
Forrester, Francis
Bentinck, lord F.
Fynes, Henry
Binning, lord
Gascoyne, Isaac
Blair, J. H.
Gifford, sir R.
Bourne. rt. hon. W. S.
Gilbert, D. G.
Bridges, G.
Gladstone, John
Broadhead, T. H. L.
Gooch, T. S.
Brogden, J.
Gordon, hon. W.
Browne, rt. hon. D.
Gossett, W.
Browne, P.
Grant, A. C.
Buchanan, J.
Graves, lord
Burgh, sir U.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Butterworth, Jos.
Greville, hon. sir C.
Buxton, J. J.
Handley, Henry
Cholmondeley, lord H.
Hardinge, sir H.
Calvert, John
Hart, G. V.
Cecil, lord Thos.
Harvey, sir E.
Chamberlayne, W.
Harvey, C.
Cheere, E. M.
Hawkins, sir C.
Cherry, G. H.
Heygate, alderman
Cholmondeley, sir M.
Hill, sir G.
Clarke, hon. C. B.
Hill, Rowland
Clements, hon. J. M.
Holford, G. P.
Clive, visct.
Holmes, W.
Clive, hon. R.
Hope, sir W.
Clive, Henry
Hotham, lord
Cockburn, sir G.
Howard, hon. F. G. H.
Cocks, hon. J. S.
Hudson, H.
Cole, sir C.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Collett, E. J.
Innes, John
Cooper, R. B.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Chandos, marq. of
Jolliffe, W. G. H.
Coote, sir C.
Irving, John
Copley, sir J. S.
King, sir J. D.
Corbett, P.
Kinnersley, W. S.
Courtenay, T. P.
Knatchbull, sir Ed.
Cranborne, visct.
Knox, hon. Thos.
Crawley, Sam.
Lamb, hon. Wm.
Croker, J. W.
Laseelles, hon. W.
Cumming, G.
Leigh, J. H.
Cust, Hon. E.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Davis, R. H.
Lewis, T. F.
Dawkins, Henry
Lindsay, hon. H.
Dawson, G. R.
Littleton, Ed.
Dent, John
Lloyd, S. J.
Dickinson, Wm.
Londonderry, marq. of
Divett, Thos.
Lowther, H.
Dobson, John
Lushington, S. R.
Doraville, sir C.
Lygon, hon. H. B.
Doveton, Gabriel
Macnaughten, B. A.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Macqueen, J. P.
Downie, R.
Magennis, Rd.
Duncombe, C.
Manners, lord C.
Duncombe, W.
Manners, lord R.
Drake, T. T.
Manning, W.
278
Mansfield, J.
Smith, T. A.
Marryat, Jos.
Somerset, lord E.
Martin, sir T. B.
Somerset, lord G.
Milks, C.
Sotheron, F.
Mitchel, John
Stuart, sir John
Money, W. T.
Stuart, W.
Morgan, G. G.
Strutt, T. H.
Morland, sir S. B.
Sumner, G. H.
Mountcharles, lord
Taylor, sir H.
Musgrove, sir P.
Taylor, G. W.
Neale, sir H. B.
Thompson, W.
Needham. hon. F. J.
Thynne, lord John
Nightingale, sir M.
Townshend, hon. H.
Nugent, sir G.
Trench, F.
Nolan, M.
Tudway, J. P.
O'Grady, S.
Tulk, C. A.
Ommanney, sir F.
Twiss, Horace
O'Neil, hon. John
Ure, M.
Onslow, Arthur
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Osborne, sir John
Vernon, G.
Palk, sir L.
Villiers, rt. hon. John
Palmerston, visc.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Paxton, W. G.
Wall, C. B.
Pearse, John
Walker, Joshua
Pechell, sir Thos.
Ward, Robt.
Peel, W.
Warren, C.
Pellew, hon. P. B.
Wells, John
Percy, hon. W.
Wellesley, Rd.
Phipps, hon. gen.
Wetherell, C.
Pitt, W. M.
Western, hon. H. R.
Plumber, John
Wigram, Wm.
Pole, sir P.
Wilbraham, E. B.
Powell, E. W.
Williams, Rt.
Pringle, sir W.
Willoughby, H.
Raine, J.
Wilmot, Rt.
Rice, hon. G.
Wilson, sir H.
Robertson, A.
Wilson, Tho.
Robinson, hon. F.
Wodehouse, hon. J.
Rowley, sir Josias
Wodehouse, hon. E.
Russell, J. Watts
Wood, col.
Scott, Sam.
Wortley, J. S.
Sheldon, R.
Yorke, sir J.
Shiffner, sir G.
PAIRED OFF.
Skeffington, hon. T. H.
Blake, R.
Smith, R.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 12.
SLAVE TRADE LAWS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Dr. Lushington
rose to bring forward his motion for consolidating and amending the several acts relating to the Slave Trade. For a period of 30 years, several statutes had been enacted to promote the abolition of The Slave Trade, which were much at variance with each other. Some of the gentlemen proposing such enactments not having taken the trouble to examine the statutes which had previously passed, great difficulty was often felt in coming to a right conclusion upon the law, or in making a satisfactory distinction between one statute and another. This difficulty was peculiarly felt by our Legal tribunals in the
279
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
DISTRIBUTORS OF STAMPS.
On the resolution for granting a supply to his majesty being read,
Mr. Hume
said, that before he agreed to this resolution, he begged leave to ask the secretary to the Treasury, whether it was the intention of government to adopt any new regulations, or to propose any plan with regard to the office of distributors of stamps? The gentlemen who composed the committee appointed to inquire into this subject last session, were extremely anxious to know what measures were about to be adopted by ministers. He was quite sure, that if the government intended to submit a plan to the House, those who urged the necessity of some new regulation in the last session would not press them. At the same time, it was necessary to know whether any measures would be taken by ministers on this subject.
Mr. Lushington
said, it was certainly the intention of the chancellor of the Exchequer, to submit a plan to the House, with regard to the regulation of this office.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 13, 1822.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
On presenting a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Lewes and Pevensey Rapes,
280
Mr. Curteis
took occasion to observe, that the petitioners had twice laid their case before parliament, and had twice been told, to wait with patience the effects of time: they had waited, and the consequences had been an aggravation of their sufferings and an exacerbation of their feelings. They now once more approached the House in firm, but respectful language, claiming its interference in their behalf. The hon. member then detailed the principal arguments contained in the petition, expressing his decided approbation of them: he also adverted to the question of averages, to the warehousing system, and to the effect of tithes and poor-rates upon land, and argued, that protecting duties might afford the farmer the relief he sought, inasmuch as the effect of them would be to prohibit the competition of foreign grain, and to raise the price of our own. He had already this session given two votes in favour of economy and retrenchment; and as his constituents were unanimous upon the subject, he should not fail to follow them up by other votes against the extravagant system pursued by ministers.
Mr. Ellice
contended, that the notion of protecting and prohibiting duties, though still maintained by Mr. Webb Hall and other visionaries in their reveries, had long been given up and exploded both in parliament and in the country. Relief was, in fact, only to be obtained by effecting the greatest possible reduction of taxation. He was surprised to hear that the hon. member was still a disciple of Mr. Webb Hall, from whose project of high prices the utmost injury would result, if it were attempted to be carried into execution. The hon. member hoped to see the corn grower and corn-consumer put upon the same relative footing in this country as on the continent.
Mr. Wodehouse
also expressed his astonishment that any member should still be inclined to support the doctrines of Mr. Webb Hall.
Mr. Hume
said, that the hon. member for Sussex complained with a very ill grace that the petitioners had been sent back unredressed in the last and in the preceding session. Why had they obtained no relief, but because the hon. gentleman and others constantly voted with ministers in favour of their extravagant expenditure of the public money? True it was, that within the last fortnight he had given two votes for economy; but
281
Ordered to lie on the table
THOMAS FLANAGAN.]
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, he had been intrusted with a Petition from an individual who complained of many hardships. It stated, that an Orange faction having obtained various securities of his, proceeded against him and obtained a verdict from an Orange jury, on a charge of an assault in attempting to escape from the custody of an officer; that he had been unable to obtain justice in consequence of the detention of various papers; and that several interviews he had had with the marquis of Londonderry had been ineffectual for that purpose. He prayed therefore for copies of his correspondence, and of the information under which he had been convicted.
Mr. Peel
said, that while he was chief secretary for Ireland, he did not recollect having heard of any circumstances of the kind.
The petition being read, it appeared to be from Mr. Thomas Flanagan, of Sligo.
Mr. Peel
immediately added, that the name of an individual so notorious brought the facts to his recollection. He was perfectly certain that the petition contained many very gross falsehoods.
Ordered to lie on the table.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—OPENING OF LETTERS SENT TO MEMBERS.]
Mr. Hume
complained, that a letter, addressed to him from a convict on board the hulks, had been opened and sent to him, marked "Opened by the Inspector." He thought this an invasion of one of the privileges belonging to members of parliament.
Mr. Peel
said, that the regulation that no letter should be sent by convicts on board the hulks, unexamined by the inspector, had existed from the earliest institution of the punishment of transportation, and it had been uniformly observed: and he saw no reason why a letter to a member of parliament should be excepted from the general rule, as that hon. gentleman might otherwise be made the innocent instrument of fraud. In April last, the escape of some convicts was prevented by the opening of a letter; the very criminal who had addressed the hon. member had been very recently detected in a fraud, which might have been effected but for the opening of a letter. If he recollec-
282
Mr. Hume
added, that as late as last Saturday week the conduct of that convict had been highly applauded by the persons in authority on board the hulks.
Mr. Peel
observed, that the fraud of which he spoke had been detected since that day.
Mr. Bennet
much doubted the fitness of the rule which prevented unopened communication between members of parliament, and convicts who might have just ground for complaining of treatment, food, or other grievance. He apprehended that it was a breach of privilege to open a letter addressed to a member of parliament; and he read an extract of a letter from lord Sidmouth to support his opinion. He had accompanied his hon. friend to the hulks, in consequence of the letter in question, and found that the prisoner had no ground of complaint.
Mr. James
complained, that the keeper of Lancaster-gaol had opened a letter he had sent to a person confined for only a misdemeanor. He thought such conduct highly improper.
Mr. Brougham
wished to enter his protest against the doctrine, that it was not a gross breach of privilege to open a letter sent under cover to a member of parliament. It was the constant assertion, that the privileges of members were given them for the public benefit; but where were those privileges if they were to be thus invaded with impunity? He did not go so far as to maintain that it was a breach of privilege to open, under such circumstances, a letter franked by a member; but to open a letter addressed to a member was as violent an outrage of his privileges as to put his person under arrest.
Mr. James
gave notice, that to-morrow week he would bring forward a motion on the subject of breaking open letters addressed to members of parliament.
MOTION RESPECTING SIR ROBERT WILSON'S REMOVAL FROM THE ARMY.]
Sir Robert Wilson,
rose and said:
*
*
283
284
285
à deo rex, à rege lex,
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
*
*
296
297
*
298
incidents of the day, and was, I am confident, so understood by the magistrate.
299
"
Horse Guards, 27th August,
"Major-general sir Robert Wilson called upon sir Herbert Taylor, and stated, that he understood that there were many calumnious misrepresentations afloat, in regard to the part which he took in the proceedings of the 14th August; but that, as no official communication had been made to him on the subject, and as he learns from sir Herbert Taylor that he had not been instructed by the commander-in-chief to make any to him, he did not feel that he was called upon, or that he could with propriety notice them in any representation to his royal highness, but that he feels at all times prepared to refute them. Under these circumstances, sir Herbert Taylor declined receiving any private communication from sir Robert Wilson, Read to sir Robert Wilson and approved by him.
" (Signed) H. TAYLOR."
300
"
Horse-Guards, September
"Sir,—I have it in command from his majesty, to inform you, that he no longer requires your services. I am, sir,
FREDERICK, Commander-in-chief.
"Sir Robert Wilson."
301
302
303
"
Paris, Sep.
"SIR;—Having just seen in the Times newspaper of the 20th inst. the statement of a reported conversation that passed between you and myself, on Tuesday the 14th of August, I address myself, with confidence, to you, for the contradiction of that statement; as you will be sensible of its perversion of the fact, and the injurious tendency of its fabrication. You will doubtless have felt, that, so far from any hostile language having been uttered by either party to each other, I presented myself to you with such peaceable spirit, that you-informed me you had given no orders to fire—that you regretted the firing had taken place —that you, moreover, kindly received the suggestion made to keep the magistrate (whom I introduced to you at the same time) close by yourself; and that, eventually, according to another suggestion, when you stated, you conceived your further continuance with your detachment was no longer required by your orders; that instead of passing your detachment to the rear (to use my own expressions at the time), by the hearse, through an irritated populace, and a long line of flint stones, you advanced your detachment, and took the first street in the New Road, leading into the town.
"I have already requested a court of inquiry, or court-martial, before which all the transactions of the day, in which I was concerned, may be investigated:—but I could not treat a relation, which engaged so much attention, from the introduction of your name, with that silent forbearance which I have observed towards the other various calumnies to which active currency has been given in some public journals; and as it would appear from them in magisterial inquiries. I have the honour to be, &c.
"R. T. WILSON.
"As your receipt of this letter, and your answer, is of so much consequence, I have passed it through the hands of a
304
"
Hyde Park Barracks, 30th Sept.
"SIR;—In reply to your communication, recorded yesterday evening, I have to inform you that I cannot consent to to make myself the organ of contradiction to the various reports in circulation, respecting the affair in which we have been represented as mutually concerned. Were I to yield this point in one instance, I should feel myself bound to notice every succeeding rumour; or my silence would be a sanction to the inferences which might be drawn from it.—I have no hesitation in saying, that the statement to which you have particularly alluded, did not originate with me; and I have not a suspicion who can be the author of it. Beyond this, I must decline a compliance with your request: but, as in the hurried and tumultuous scene, to which you refer, some misconception may be supposed to arise; I think it right to admit, on the one hand, and declare my ignorance, on the other, of the different points you enumerate. It is distinctly in my memory, that you asked me upon that occasion, if I had given orders to fire, and my answer was that I had not: also, that I retired by a blank movement, I believe down King-street; which, though pointed out by you, would naturally have occurred to myself, as the most eligible; but, as to any expression of regret that the firing had taken place—any exchange of courtesy between us—on being introduced by you to the magistrate, until the very moment I received his orders to withdraw, when you announced me to him, by saying, Here is the officer," I have not the least recollection.—From the commencement of this business, I have most scrupulously avoided making a matter, so closely connected
305
"I have the honour to be, &c.
"RICHARD OAKES."
"Sir;—Understanding that you were the magistrate to whom I had the satisfaction to address myself on the 14th of August, and who permitted me to present him to the commanding-officer of the detachment of life-guards, towards the conclusion of the tumult at Cumberland-street, I apply to you, under the circumstances in which I am placed by a proceeding of his majesty's government, for an answer to the following questions, to which I hope you will not find it inconsistent with your duty to reply. In the intercourse which we had on the 14th of August, did I, or did I not, express to you an earnest desire for the restoration of tranquillity, and the authority of the law? Did you, or did you not, observe my conduct to be in unison with that declaration? I think it right to add, that my wish is, to have the power of referring to, or producing your answer in parliament, or wheresoever else I may judge such reference or production to be essential for the interests of justice.' I have the honour to be, &c. R. T. WILSON.
"
Howick, Nov. 16th,
I quit this place on Tuesday, and shall be at Lambton Hall, Durham, till the 1st of December."
"Sir;—Your letter of the 16th instant
306
"
Lambton Hall, Nov. 23rd,
"Sir;—I have received your letter. I lament you should have refrained from giving an answer to the questions I proposed, not merely in behalf of my own individual interests, but of those of truth and justice. I think it, however, right to acquaint you, that I shall be obliged to advert to the conversation which passed between us on the 14th of August: nor will it be possible for me to avoid noticing the application which I have subsequently made, with your reply thereto. I have the honour to be, &c. R. T. WILSON."
307
308
309
Lord Palmerston
said, that the hon. member had himself stated, that his observations were not grounded on the comparatively narrow basis of personal injury, but on broader and more enlarged principles; and that the interests of a large class and the liberty and safety of all Englishmen were involved. Now, he was prepared to resist the motion, by appealing to the very same principles, and to call on the House to resist it as calculated to affect one of the main pillars which upheld the balance of the constitution, and on which the lives and safety of every Englishman depended. If there were any prerogative of the Crown undisputable and undisputed, it had been always held, and was now held to be that of the right of dismissing any officer without trial, without assigning, reasons, and without reference to whether his commission had been purchased or not purchased. It rested on the most ancient and uninterrupted usage. Instances innumerable were to be found, not only in late times, but in those times which gentlemen on the other side, were accustomed to call the best of times. But he appealed to facts which were admitted in both Houses of Parliament in 1734, when
310
311
312
313
Sir R. Wilson—
What I said was, "It is disgraceful to continue firing in this manner."
Lord Palmerston
observed, that it was immaterial whether the precise words used by the hon. gentleman were, that the men "had disgraced themselves," or that "it was disgraceful to continue firing." The meaning was the same in both cases. What judge was the hon. gentleman whether the men had disgraced themselves or not? The hon. gentleman had admitted that he did not know at the time whether they were acting under orders [no, no!]. Why, the hon. gentleman said, that he afterwards asked the officers whether they had given orders to fire? If at the time
314
Mr. Lambton
confessed, that he had entered the House with feelings of indignation at the treatment his hon. and gallant friend had received. He would not drop the title of "gallant," although gentlemen on the other side had dropped it. He still remembered that his gallant friend had been an officer twenty years, and that he had fought and bled in the service of his country. [Cheers.] The feelings with which he had entered the House were not molified by the tone which the noble lord had taken on the other side; by the sneering style which that noble lord had adopted, not only to the gallant gentleman below him, but also to another hon. and gallant member on his right hand (sir R Fergusson), whose military services perhaps, if well appreciated, might bear comparison with the civil exertions of the noble lord himself; and of whose title even to sit in the House the noble lord was so ignorant as to say, that he sat, "he rather believed, for some Scotch boroughs." The tone which had been used towards both these honourable members, reflected very little credit upon the feeling of the noble lord, or upon the manner in which ministers were disposed to treat appeals for justice. The House had been told of the antiquity and prerogative in question. He denied the fact. Was it necessary for him to remind the noble lord, that in ancient times no such
315
316
317
"Dissentient, 1st. Because we conceive it is the inherent right of this House to address the Crown, to be informed, who are the advisers of any measures that may he prejudicial to his majesty's government, or dangerous to the liberties of the nation—2nd. Because the removal of two officers of such rank and dignity, and of such known fidelity to his majesty's person and government, without any cause assigned, or any known or alleged neglect of their duty, gave the greatest alarm to many of his majesty's most faithful subjects; we therefore thought it for his majesty's service, to give him this occasion to publish to the world, the just grounds of his displeasure, or to detect the calumny of their accusers: and consequently to withdraw his confidence from such pernicious counsellors.—3rd Because, that as the practice of displacing officers has grown more frequent in proportion to the increase of their numbers in both Houses of Parliament, the world may entertain (however unjustly) an opinion, that the free use of their votes has been the real cause of their disgrace; and the more so, since most of the persons, who have been removed have happened to be members of one or other House of Parliament.—4th. Because applications of this nature to the Crown may hereafter protect many of his majesty's faithful subjects from the
318
"Dissentient, Because we were not conscious, that any neglect or breach of our duty can be laid to our charge, much less any want of zeal and attachment for his majesty's person and government; we therefore must testify our earnest desire, that this motion had past in the affirmative, that we might have had an opportunity given us of knowing our supposed crimes and accusers; and we hope, of justifying ourselves to his majesty and the world,
(Signed) "BOLTON, COBHAM."
319
l.
l.,
320
Mr. N. Calvert
was of opinion, that the prerogative in question was advantageous to the people, as well as to the Crown, when properly exercised; but allowed that it might be abused in such a manner as to become highly obnoxious. In the present case, he confessed that when he came down to the House it was with a strong impression on his mind unfavourable to the hon. member. Having, however, heard the clear statement made by the hon. member himself, and having heard the speech of the noble lord in reply, he could not do otherwise than vote for the motion, as the hon. member's case seemed to him to prove the truth of the old adage, "When you want to beat a dog it is not difficult to find a stick."
Sir I. Coffin
adverted to the dismissal of lord G. Sackville, and declared it to be his opinion, that no unprejudiced man, either in that House or out of it, would say, that the royal prerogative had been exercised harshly, or unjustly in the case of the hon. gentleman.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he did not know whether he was to be the next victim or not but he would tell the noble lord opposite and his adherents, that in spite of all their power and all their threats, while he sat in that House he would always give an independent vote. After the plain statement made by his gallant friend, it appeared to him impossible for any candid man to deny that his gallant friend had been grossly injured. It was evident that the exercise of the prerogative had been abused. Ministers were responsible for the advice which they gave in the exercise of every prerogative possessed by the Crown. It was so with regard to the highest of those prerogatives, the extension of mercy; and surely it ought to be so with regard to that inferior and more painful prerogative, the infliction of punishment. With respect to the treatment which his gallant friend had endured, it appeared to him to be a miserable, a base assassination of private character for the purposes of political intrigue [hear, hear, hear!] His gallant friend, (gallant he
321
Lord Palmerston
assured the gallant general that he had not the slightest intention to reflect upon his parliamentary conduct. He had merely said, that no officer had ever been dismissed the service for his conduct in parliament, and had instanced the gallant general, who had always (conscientiously and constitutionally, no doubt) voted against his majesty's ministers. He was therefore justified in contending that the reason given on the other side for the dismissal of the hon. mover, was not the true one.
Mr. Bennet
said, that although his gal-taut friend was no longer an officer in the British service, he stood high in rank abroad, and was possessed of a character as a soldier of which no minister could deprive him. He should always call him the gallant officer as he had been accustomed to do. He could bear testimony to the accuracy of the statement of his gallant friend, for he had accompanied the funeral procession of her late majesty to do honor to the character of the illustrious deceased, and to mark his hatred of her inveterate persecutors. Up to the arrival of the procession at Cumberland gate he accompanied his gallant friend the whole of the way; and he could declare that with respect to the whole of what passed during that time, the assertions of his gallant friend were perfectly correct. For the sake of the argument, he would admit the king's prerogative; but it should not be forgotten, that the prerogative must be exercised by responsible advisers, and all that was desired was, to know who those advisers were on the present occasion. The
322
323
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he could assure the House, that in rising after the hon. gentleman who had just sat
324
325
Sir R. Wilson.
—That is not the law, what section of the Mutiny act is it?
The Marquis of Londonderry.
—It is the 22nd Article of War. It was made law by the Mutiny act. Besides if the hon. gentleman objected to this article of war, why had he not long ago, and before he himself felt the operation of it, brought it under the consideration of parliament? He held in his hand a paper containing the names of no less than 212 officers, who, in the last ten years, had been removed without a trial; and that paper proved, that so far from the doctrine being true, that a court-martial was the only ground for proceeding to the dismissal of an officer, there were instances after instances in which, after acquittal by a court mar-
326
327
328
329
330
Sir R. Wilson
said, the noble lord was mistaken in having supposed that he had addressed the people, and told them the blues were popular. That was not the case. The fact was, he had met a gentleman, whom he was told was sir R. Baker, and to him he said, that the blues were popular, and it was so far fortunate, as it would be more likely to prevent mischief. At this observation, there was not more than one person present.
331
The Marquis of Londonderry
was sorry to have mistaken any part of the transaction. He had understood that this observation was made to the people, or made loudly in their presence.
Mr. Lambton
said, that the noble marquis had unintentionally, no doubt, misrepresented what had fallen from him. He had not said that an officer had as much right to his commission as if it were his freehold. What he had said was, that it would be as unjust to deprive an officer without trial of his commission, as it would be to deprive a man of his freehold without a cause.
Sir John Newport
said, that his vote upon the question before tile House would have no reference to the motives which actuated his majesty's ministers to advise the Crown as they had upon this occasion. It appeared to him, that the House had but one choice in a case of this nature, which was between the prerogative in question being left in the hands of the Crown without any control or being liable to appeal to the House of Commons, in order to review the decisions of the Crown in the exercise of it. The latter he thought to be full of extreme dangers; especially as regarded its consequences upon military discipline. In the first place, such a course would tend to bring the officers of the army and that House into dangerous contact. They all knew the consequences of the fatal error, in a former period of our history, of bringing the officers of the army and committees of the House of Commons, into too close a communication. It was, therefore, because he thought a most unadvised act had been committed, which he felt the House was not empowered to go into, that he could not support this motion. For such was the nature of the act, that if the papers were laid on the table, the House must inquire into the subject matter of them. The principle went to render the army independent of the Crown, and dependent upon that House, or rather upon any party it might be able to command in it—a principle which, it was obvious involved many dangers.
Mr. Hume
said, he was anxious to offer himself to the attention of the House on this question, as he had accompanied his gallant friend on the day to which the motion referred. He had witnessed the whole of his conduct on that occasion, not having been absent from him for ten minutes during the day; and he could
332
333
334
335
Mr. Twiss
said, that the hon. members opposite seemed to be all agreed, that the case was one which ought either to have been sent to a court martial, or submitted to that House. It was on this proposition that he desired to say a few words, with a view to show in what way such a suggestion, coming from his side of the House, would have been met by the same hon. members with whom it originated. If his majesty's ministers, instead of meeting the case manfully as they had done, by the exercise of that power which they possessed, had brought forward a proposal that such a matter should be referred to a court martial, it would have been said, and with truth, that they were afraid to advise the exercise of the prerogative. It would have been said, that they wished to take an indirect means of accomplishing their object without suffering the odium of it; and that for this purpose they selected a body so constituted as to be under complete subjection to their will—thus substituting for a responsible an irresponsible power. His majesty's ministers, however, not having done this, the thing was now seen in a different light; and the act was arraigned as unconstitutional, and as depriving the individual of the security of martial law. He did not mean to say that military officers might not be competent to meet a question of this nature; but, at the same time, it certainly was one upon which it was almost impossible for military officers, in the employment of the Crown, to be free from bias. It was plain that there must be many objections to entrusting the important power of dismissing officers from the service to a tribunal, which, though not free from ministerial influence, was free from its responsibility. A minister, however, might be responsible, though not accountable. In cases of money, the minister was both responsible for its use, as well as accountable for its application; but he was not accountable for the administration of a prerogative.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that the noble marquis would not, by granting the papers moved for, give the House an opportunity of going into an inquiry into this extraor-
336
337
338
339
340
341
Sir Robert Wilson
said, he should not
342
343
Mr. Brougham
said, he could give the most ample confirmation to that part of the gallant officer's statement which fell under his observation. There were no preparations for any obstruction when he passed the church at Kensington in the morning, where he believed the first obstruction to the procession took place.
Dr. Lushington
merely rose to confirm, so far as his knowledge went, the statement of his gallant friend. What he could say was, that, after his own coach had passed through Cumberland-gate, he for the first time heard the firing. It naturally attracted his attention, though he had no idea that it was firing with ball. Where he was at that moment, there were certainly no stones thrown: he would not say that none were thrown, but he certainly did not see any. Sir Robert Wilson rode at that time up to his coach, and said that he believed the military were firing; and that he should go up and prevent the consequences. He (Dr. L.) remarked, that such an interference would expose him to danger, and that he had better not. He, however, persevered in saying that he would go. He soon after returned and stated, that he had found the military in disorder, believed that he had prevented further firing, and hoped that no more bloodshed would take place.
Mr. Ellice
assured the House that he had travelled from Paris in company with the gallant general, and that he had not quitted his company until four or five o'clock on the evening previous to the day of the Queen's funeral; so that it was impossible that what was stated to have taken place at the public house at Hammersmith could be true. He could further state, that the gallant general had, before returning to Paris, consulted him, as to the best mode of proceeding with respect to the rumours which appeared in the public papers, and observed that he should wish to contradict them, were it not that he feared his doing so would be the cause of his being called as a witness before the coroner's jury, to which he had a decided objection, as he did not wish to prejudice the question either way.
Colonel Cavendish
felt it necessary to
344
Mr. Lambton
said, his statement was, that murder had been committed on that day; and he had used the expression on the authority of the verdict of a coroner's inquest. It was a fact that two men were killed on that day, and unless gentlemen could say that the multitude had fired upon each other, he was at a loss to know how they could be shot but through the instrumentality of the military. With this explanation, he begged to stand on his original expression.
Lord Uxbridge
said, that the hon. gentleman had spoken on the authority of an inquest, the evidence adduced at which aught not to be believed. As a proof of it, he would only say that there were a number of men ready to go up in a body before the coroner, and swear that he (lord Uxbridge) was the man who shot one of the persons who fell, when it was notorious that he was more than 200 miles from the spot at the time.
The House divided: Ayes 97. Noes. 199.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, J.
Denison, W. J.
Althorp, visct.
Denman, T.
Beaumont, T. W.
Duncannon, visct.
Baring, sir T.
Dundas, C.
Barnett, S. M.
Ebrington, visct.
Benyon, B.
Ellice, E.
Bernal, R.
Farrand, R.
Birch, J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Brougham, H.
Grattan, J.
Browne, D.
Graham, S.
Bright, H.
Guise, sir W.
Burdett, sir F.
Gurney, H.
Bury, visct.
Hamilton, lord A.
Bentinck, lord W.
Heathcote, G. J.
Buxton, T. F.
Heron, sir R.
Boughton, sir. W.
Hill, lord A.
Calvert, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Calvert, N.
Honywood, W. P.
Chaloner, R.
Hughes, W. L.
Calcraft, John
Hume, Joseph
Chamberlayn, W.
Hurst, R.
Carter, John
Hutchinson, C.
Clifton, visct.
James, W.
Coke, T.
Johnson, col.
Crespigny, sir W.
Lenox, lord G.
Creevey, T.
Leycester, R.
Davies, T. H.
Lushington, S.
345
Marryat, J.
Russell, R. G.
Maberly, John
Rice, T. S.
Macdonald, J.
Smith W.
Monck, J. B.
Smith, Samuel
Moore, Peter
Scarlett, J.
Normanby, visct.
Scudamore, R.
Nugent, lord
Sefton, earl
O'Callaghan, J.
Stanley, lord
Ossulston, lord
Stewart, W.
Palmer, col.
Stuart, lord J.
Palmer, C. F.
Sykes, D.
Pares, Thos.
Tennyson, C.
Phillips, G. R.
Tierney, G.
Powlett, hon. W.
Webb, colonel.
Price, Robt.
Whitbread, S.
Plummer, John
Williams. W.
Rickford, W.
Wilson, sir R.
Ramsden, J. C.
Wood, M.
Ricardo, D.
Wyvill, M.
Roberts, A.
TELLERS.
Roberts, Geo.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Robinson, sir G.
Lambton, J. G.
Rowley, sir W.
PAIRED OFF.
Rumbold, C.
Lemon, sir W.
Russell, lord J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 15, 1822.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Lord Nugent
said, he had a petition to present, to which he begged leave particularly to call the attention of the House. It was signed by 430 owners and occupiers of land, in the vale of Aylesbury, at a meeting convened by farmers alone, and by whom all the resolutions were drawn up, to only two of which any opposition was manifested; and what were these two resolutions? Why those which called for a reduction of taxes and for the establishment of a more equal representation of the people in that House. This opposition was, however, made only by three persons. Indeed, reduction of taxes and parliamentary reform formed at present the general cry of the country. The public had beard much about the boasted "indemnity for the past and security for the future;" but, in what instance had, indemnity been obtained? What, indeed, but a series of losses and calamities; and what was to be contemplated for the future but gloom and despair? Such was the reduced condition of the country under the operation of a system, the principal authors and advocates of which at present wielded the powers of the government! Of this state of things his constituents very naturally complained. They apprehended, justly, that such a crisis could not possibly continue. Perhaps in the course of that night
346
Sir Isaac Coffin
said, that as so much stress had been laid on the necessity of a, reform in parliament, he would give his opinion on the subject. "I think," said the hon. and gallant member, "that the best qualification consists in the possession of talents and property. Now the sooner the House is weeded of those who, like myself, have neither one nor the other, the better," [a laugh].
Mr. Gooch
presented a petition from the occupiers of land in Suffolk, of whom he was glad to say, that they did not mix up their case with politics. They had too much sense to assist in raising any cry for reform, which, if it were carried to-morrow would not put a shilling in the pockets of the agriculturists.
347
Mr. Bennet
begged the last speaker to consider, that if reform would not immediately operate to put a shilling in the pocket of the agriculturist, it would save him from having a shilling taken out of it.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he rose to present a petition, which had been unanimously agreed to at one of the most numerous and respectable meetings of the electors of Westminster he had ever witnessed. He had great satisfaction in presenting it, because he concurred in all its sentiments, with a very trifling exception; and because it stated, in a very clear and able manner, the real cause of the grievances under which the country laboured. It did not merely complain of the pressure of taxation, but it complained of those gross violations of law, and of those monstrous infringements of the constitution, which the country had of late years witnessed. The part of the petition in which he did not entirely concur, was a clause at the end of it, which ascribed the distresses of the agricultural interest to the operation of what was commonly called Mr. Peel's bill. He did not mean to enter at present into the discussion of this subject, but he wished to state shortly, the reason why he could not concur in that opinion. He had examined all the papers laid before the House, from the year 1800 up to the year 1821, and he there saw that the price of agricultural produce by no means bore such a relative proportion to the price of bullion, as to make it possible for him to conclude that one was the cause, and the other the effect. On the contrary, he observed this very remarkable fact, that the period at which the depreciation of the currency was so slight, as scarcely to affect the large concerns of a great country—not for instance more than 7 or 8 per cent—was the time at which the value of agricultural produce was highest; and again, that at the time of the greatest depreciation of the currency, the value of agricultural produce was extremely low. In point of fact, it did not appear that there was any immediate or necessary connexion between the two circumstances of the depreciation of the currency, and the price of agricultural produce. It appeared to him, that to attribute any effects to Mr. Peel's bill, except such as might hereafter be extremely beneficial to the country, was the greatest of all possible mistakes. It appeared, from the documents on the table, that for nearly three years previous to Mr. Peel's
348
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had been desired by his constituents, to support the prayer of this petition. In so doing he begged to state, that in unison with his hon. colleague, he concurred entirely in all the sentiments of the petitioners. He believed there had never been laid on the table of that House, a petition more replete with wholesome truths than that which had just been presented. The petitioners first stated, that the prayers of the people had been constantly disregarded. This was a point which he apprehended would not be denied, even by those who had uniformly opposed themselves to what they were pleased to call popular clamour. The petitioners next adverted to the defective state of the representation, and the corrupt demoralising system of rotten boroughs; a system which was contemplated with so much satisfaction by those who were interested in maintaining it. The petitioners were blind enough not to coincide in those views, nor could they perceive that that system could contribute to the happiness of the nation. To the corruption of parliament they attributed the loss of America, and all the calamities which had afflicted us both abroad and at home. To the same cause they ascribed the restrictions on our liberties, and that pressure of unparalleled taxation, which had at length reduced us to the lowest stage of misery and degradation. Among the grievances which pressed upon the country the petitioners were unwise enough to place that which had been held up the other night as the bulwark of English liberty—he meant a standing army. The petitioners had the misfortune to differ in this respect from the noble lord opposite, but they differed in common with the best, and bravest, and wisest men of all ages and countries—they had all history for them, but they had the misfortune to have the capacity of the noble lord against them. The next point to which the petitioners adverted was the unparalleled amount of taxation. They mentioned a fact which was hardly credible, but unfortunately too true, that the amount of the taxes was no less than the enormous sum of 1,000,000
l.
349
l.
Mr. Price
presented a petition from Ross, in the country of Hereford, complaining of agricultural distress. The hon. member took that opportunity of observing, that he was firmly convinced that the time was arrived when the general distress of the landed interest was to be met, not by minor arrangements, but by a most severe and rigid inquiry into every department of the state, with the view to an efficient diminution of the public bur-
350
Ordered to lie on the table.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—AND THE FINANCIAL MEASURES FOR ITS RELIEF.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said:
Mr. Speaker
; In rising to call your attention to the important paragraph in his majesty's most gracious Speech, which the clerk has just read, I am sure the House will believe me when I unfeignedly declare, that on no occasion of my public life have I ever experienced more anxious feelings than at the present moment; because, among the many measures of great public importance, which it has been my duty to propose to the consideration of parliament, I sincerely believe, that it has never fallen to my lot to open to them a question, embracing topics of greater difficulty and complexity, or one which has excited stronger anxiety both within and without these walls; more or less involved as the interests of every individual in the community are, in the decision of parliament on this subject. This being the nature of the question, the House must be aware that I feel very anxious as to the possibility of adequately discharging the duty which I have undertaken; labouring as I do, on the one hand, under the desire not unnecessarily to occupy the time of the House, but to compress into as small a compass as possible the information which I have to communicate; and, on the other hand, convinced as I am, that I should not be warranted, from consideration for their convenience or my own feelings, in abstaining from the statement of
*
351
data,
352
353
354
355
across the table,
356
Bushels.
1791,
1792,
and
1793,
was
27,011,073
1794,
1795,
—
1796,
—
26,131,162
1797,
1798,
—
1799,
—
29,879,506
1800,
1801,
—
1802,
—
21,128,681
1803,
1804,
—
1805,
—
25,081,462
1806,
1807,
—
1808,
—
24,935,460
1809,
1810,
—
1811,
—
24,631,362
1812,
1813,
—
1814,
—
22,383,637
1815,
1816,
—
1817,
—
23,487,829
1818,
1819,
—
1820,
—
24,448,115
that the consumption in
1821
was
28,697,057
357
l.
s.
l.
lbs.
1790,
1791,
and
1792,
was
17,468,301
1793,
1794,
—
1795,
—
19,424,566
1796,
1797,
—
1798,
—
20,963,781
1799,
1800,
—
1801,
—
24,249,560
1802,
1803,
—
1804,
—
20,933,725
1805,
1806,
—
1807,
—
20,734,453
1808,
1809,
—
1810,
—
20,552,565
1811,
1812,
—
1813,
—
20,948,081
1814,
1815,
—
1816,
—
23,310,798
1817,
1818,
—
1819,
—
21,904,925
and that the mean of the consumption of the two years
1820, and 1821,
was
22,461,592
l.
l.
l.
l.
358
359
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
360
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
361
362
363
364
365
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
366
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
367
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.,
368
[
Here the Clerk read the Resolution, as follows:
"That to provide for the exigencies of the public service, to make such progressive reduction of the national debt, as may adequately support public credit, and to afford to the country a prospect of future relief from a part of its present burthens: it is absolutely necessary, that there should be a clear surplus of the income of the country, beyond its expenditure, of not less than 5,000,000
l.;
l.
Sir, I will now call the attention of the House to the situation in which parliament and his majesty's government are placed with reference to the subject matter of the Resolution, thus wisely recorded in our Journals; and in strict conformity to the principle of which Resolution, his majesty's ministers have since acted, in all they have done, with regard to the finances of the country. The first question is—what, after comparing our income with our expenditure, is the clear surplus which we can use in furtherance of the object declared to be "absolutely necessary" in the resolution which we have just heard? The accounts which I am now about to submit to the House, are prepared on the principle of exhibiting the whole of our nett annual receipts and charges, and, the arriving at a balance, without involving the account in the details of the system of the sinking fund as at present established by law. I begin with the income; and I take the
369
l.
l.,
l.;
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
I now proceed to the statement of the Expenditure for the present year. The charge upon the consolidated fund, exclusive of the sinking fund is divided under two heads:—29,609,000
l.
370
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
On the subject of the Army Estimates, I wish to observe, that therein it is assumed, that 200,000
l.
371
And now, Sir, before I enter into the measures which parliament ought to adopt, in consequence of the means which, by the surplus of the revenue over the expenditure, are placed at its disposal, I feel that I should not do justice to the House—I feel that I should not do justice to my right hon. friend, near me, if I did not sincerely congratulate them on the eminent financial position to which the country has now attained. Notwithstanding the numerous and complicated difficulties, and the severe pressure under which it has been labouring, not more than three short years have elapsed, since the passing of the Resolution which has been read by the clerk; and vet, in that time, my right hon. friend has accomplished the labour to which he was pledged by that Resolution. He has secured for the country, a clear, undisputed, available surplus revenue of 5,000,000
l.
372
And this brings me, Sir, to the policy of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, as contrasted with the policy of his majesty's government. The question for you to decide is, will the interests of the country be best consulted by sweeping away all this surplus revenue which you have been at so much pains, and have bestowed so much labour, to create; and by giving it at once le the people, under all the hazards of such an act, even to the regular payment of the dividends to the public creditor; under all the inevitable depression of public and of private credit; under the danger, or indeed the certainty, of suddenly impairing the resources of the country, public and private; for the purpose of affording what, in point of fact, would, after all, be a very limited relief to those who are now undergoing a temporary distress? Will you, for purposes so inadequate, and at the risk of evils so incalculably great, abandon at once, as the hon. and learned gentleman recommends you to do, all the great principles on which you have hitherto sustained both public and private credit? Or, will you not rather, standing on the firm vantage ground which you have created for yourselves, determine to consult the true interests and permanent prosperity of the nation (and of no part of it more than of those who are at present suffering), by resolutely maintaining your long established principles of public faith, and of public credit?
It must be in the recollection of the House, that from the first moment at which my right hon. friend, after the return of peace, opened the view on which his majesty's government were desirous of acting, with respect to the finances of the country, their object has invariably been to sustain and improve the public credit, in such a manner as might enable them eventually to relieve the country from a very considerable part of its pressure, by diminishing the high interest on a large portion of the public debt. To that subject I wish now to advert, lathe first place, the House are aware, that the capital of that part of the national debt which bears an. interest of five per cent, is not less than 155,000;000
l.;
373
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
If we steadily adhere to the Resolution to which we stand pledged, a considerable reduction will annually take place in the amount of our debt, sustaining in every way the public credit of the country. accelerating the rise of the funds, and, in consequence, the lowering of the interest of money, thereby affording a substantial relief to every class in the community; the final advantage of which will be most extensive and important. Instead of breaking down public credit, and losing all the advantages thence to be derived, we shall maintain public credit, and be enabled in the management of our finances, to avail ourselves of all the favourable occurrences growing out of such an improved condition of public affairs. By pursuing the course which I have described, not only shall we be enabled to afford a present relief to the community, but we may look forward to the prospect of progressively reducing, and that at no very distant day, not only the whole of the five but also the four per cents, possibly to a three per cent stock. Such a state of things cannot immediately be expected, but the House will recollect, that it was only six years after Mr. Pitt first established a sinking fund of a million (which bore a much less proportion to the then debt, than that which the House, if they persevere in the system I recommend, will maintain), when on the basis of that security to public credit, the three per cents from being as low as 58, rose to 97 and a fraction. If the public credit, therefore, should be sustained as his majesty's government propose to sustain it, a shorter period may he required with the operation of a sinking fund of 5,000,000
l.,
l.,
374
To judge of the utmost extent of resource that may be derived from the conversion of this part of the public debt into funds bearing a lower interest, we may suppose, although the operation cannot be otherwise than progressive, the whole reduced into a three per cent stock. Taking the estimate upon this scale, a clear saving of 3,700,000
l.
I am convinced, therefore, that when I say the sum of 3,700,000
l.
I conjure the House, therefore, as they have had the manliness to face all the difficulties hitherto opposed to them —as their sense of moral duty has induced them, in spite of every obstacle, to re-establish the true standard of our currency; which, I trust, no situation of things will ever tempt us to depart—I conjure them to be no less firm and resolute in establishing the standard of our public credit. In doing so, they will confirm the public prosperity; for, as sure as the needle is true to the pole, so sure is it that the general prosperity of the country depends substantially on the maintenance of her public credit. Standing on the strength
375
l.
In looking at what may he the immediate relief to the country from a reduction of the five per cents, I shall take the four per cents at the price at which they were a day or, two ago when I made my calculation, namely 97. It is intended, in the
376
Taking, therefore, the market price of the four per cents at 97, the conversion of the 155,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
377
l.
The question now is, assuming that the conversion of the five per cents into four per cents will place a saving of interest to the amount of 1,400,000
l.
l.
l.
Sir, I should deeply lament if this relief were afforded by injuring the integrity of
378
It is usual on occasions like this, to look forward a little to the probable operation of any measure beyond the present year; and perhaps I may be allowed to enter into such an anticipation. At the same time, I feel that although in what I have already stated, as to the present year, I am borne out by actual accounts, what I am about to state of the probable results in succeeding years, must be in some degree conjectural. I hope, therefore, in a matter necessarily involving so much uncertainty, the House will receive what I am about to state with indulgence. I certainly do contemplate, consistently with the integrity of that system which I hope parliament will determine on no account to impair, a possible additional remission of taxes in the next session of not less than another million sterling—of course reserving, if such remission should be decided on, until that period shall arrive, the consideration of the best way in which it can be made.—I hope the House will forgive me if I venture to travel one step further, and endeavour to present to them a slight sketch of what appears likely to be our progress, in the six years following the next year; always presuming that the House will not destroy the system which they have themselves established for the support of the public prosperity, before it has had sufficient scope for the attainment of its object.
The million to be remitted next year may be expected to arise in the following manner:—Greenwich hospital, 320,000
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.;
379
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
House will, I trust, receive with indulgence this statement, which of course cannot be expected to be strictly accurate, but which is sufficiently so to show the striking contrast between the system recommended by his majesty's government, and that proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. I shall be perfectly prepared, at some future period, to explain the nature of the data on which the calculations, the general results of which I have just communicated to the House, are founded. I know that the hon. and learned gentleman may say, that some of the materials on which I calculate prospectively, are to be equally found in his system. This is true to a certain, but to a very limited extent. No doubt, the dead expense would equally fall in whichever course was pursued. The charge of Greenwich Hospital and Ireland might equally be saved; but the new sources of relief on which I rely would be wholly extinguished by the hon. and learned gentleman's suggestion. The aid to be derived from the reduction of the higher rates of interest payable on our debt, estimated at
380
l.
l.
Having thus, Sir, stated to the House, the general financial position of the country, its income, expenditure, and, surplus resources; and having described the mode, in which, according to the view of his majesty's government, those resources ought now to be administered, I think I have opened to the view of parliament, largely, the means of relieving the country, and of contributing to its prosperity; not at the expense of justice and good faith, but, in a manner consonant to that proud and honourable British character, which it has always been our object to maintain. I think I have opened a progressive system of reduction in taxation, which, combined with that general prosperity which the maintenance of public credit is calculated to ensure, will bring to every subject in the realm a relief; infinitely more copious and substantial, than could result from the destructive schemes, to which the hon. and learned gentleman would have us to resort. But; sir, his majesty's government feel, that they would not have done their duty, if they had confined themselves to this view, although by far the most important, of the position of the country. They feel, that they: would not have done their duty, if they had not directed their attention to consider what other and collateral aids, founded on sound and solid principles of financial and political economy, might assist in re-animating the industry and commerce of the country, in all their branches, and accelerating the march of returning prosperity. And this brings into view a question, which has been most anxiously discussed and dwelt upon both in and out of this House for, there is scarcely a single petition, that has been presented to us, which, does not, in some manner or other, allude to that question, and which does not attribute the embarrasments of the country to something connected with the state of the circulation.
On this subject, I entirely concur with the hon. baronet opposite, the member for Westminster, in entering a solemn and unqualified protest against shaking, in the slightest degree, that sound system of currency, which, so much to the honour of parliament and so much to the honour of the moral character of the country, has
381
l.
l,
Sir, it is no reproach to the Bank of England, when making their preparations for a return to cash payments, that they acted on a principle of extreme precaution in reducing their advances to government more perhaps than, as it now appears, was
382
l.
Here, Sir, is a new state of things, in which, the best of all guides, experience, justifies his majesty's government and the Bank in thinking, that some addition may be advantageously made to the unfunded debt; and therefore the Bank, as I have already stated, have agreed, on the security of Exchequer bills, bearing an interest of three per cent, repayable, if called, for, by instalments, and at short notices, to place at the disposal of parliament 4,000,000
l.
383
l.
384
I have hitherto argued this loan from the Bank as constituting an effective relief in itself, were it simply thrown into circulation through the supplies of the year: but there is a further question for parliament to consider; and that is, whether this fund of 4,000,000
l.,
If his majesty's government, at a former period of distress, found it expedient to assist the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country by a loan of 5,000,000
l.
385
386
I have opened to the House all these various views which have been successively entertained by his majesty's ministers on this subject, feeling as I do that we should not have performed our duty if we had not thoroughly investigated every proposition by which it might be practicable to relieve the existing distress of the country. But, although his majesty's government do not think it advisable to propose the adoption of any of the suggestions which I have hitherto, described;
387
l.
388
l.
Sir, I am happy to state that there is only one other branch of the important subject under our consideration, to which it is necessary for me to call the attention of the House: but I should think that his majesty's government had taken a very imperfect and unsatisfactory view of the agricultural interests of the country, if we had omitted to apply our minds to the important and extensive subject of the corn laws; especially after the inquiry of last year and the minute and valuable information on that great question, furnished by the investigation of the committee appointed for that purpose. I certainly did fairly avow, in the face of parliament and of the country, when the question was
389
390
While I offer these remarks to the House I cannot but congratulate them on the change of sentiment which appears to have taken place since we last met. It seems to me to be a most auspicious circumstance that the tone of the public mind has improved so greatly on this question: that the prejudices and exaggerations which formerly existed with respect to it, have subsided, and that we may now look to the adoption of more calm and solid opinions, as to the future course which it may be desirable for the public good to pursue. In what I have to suggest so the House on the subject, I must begin by fairly avowing, that on the very face of it, nothing we can do can have an immediate operation advantageous to the farmer. It is evident, that no part of the difficulties under which the farmer at present labours, arises from a want of protection against the foreign grower of corn; for, the home cultivator is already, and has been since February 1819, in possession of a monopoly of the home market. He is protected against the importation of foreign corn up to eighty shillings a quarter; while the existing market price is only fifty shillings. Of course, therefore, nothing that we can do can operate immediate relief. But his majesty's government certainly feel, after the report which has been laid on the table, and after the most mature deliberation on all the difficulties of the subject, that we should fail in our duty, if we did not propose the revival of the agricultural committee, for the purpose of enabling it to re-consider, and by some practical measure, to correct the admitted defects of the existing corn laws. I have already declared, that I did not expect any immediate relief to the farmer, from any modification of the existing law. The change might, however allay in the public mind somewhat of that anxiety and alarm, which, not unnaturally, presses upon it, with respect to the possible effects of a future opening of our ports, as the law now stands to the import of foreign corn. What I wish is, to interpose a security against those inconveniences and dangers, the possibility of the occurrence of which, is admitted on all hands. I certainly think, that after the views which have been opened by the committee, and after the admissions of all parties in condemning the law as it now stands, it is desirable that
391
392
We must not, however, deceive ourselves by supposing that England is the sole country which at present suffers; and that all other countries are enjoying the blessings derived from flourishing agriculture and successful commerce. We are, on the present occasion, as we have been on so many former occasions, rather the favoured spot of the world. The distresses which our agriculturists are suffering, great as I admit them to be, are infinitely less than those to which the cultivators of the soil in America, or those towards the sea coast in Europe, and stilt more in the interior, are at this moment exposed. The distress in the interior of Germany has arrived to such a height, in. consequence of an overstocked market, as to involve all the classes of people connected with agriculture in the most serious difficulties. In Silesia, so great was the excess of produce in the last harvest, that many of the landed proprietors did not think it worth the expense of collecting and getting in; and the finest crops in the world were allowed to rot on the ground. In Bohemia, the farmer can get only an eighth of the price which he received for his corn during the war. When such large portions of the world, therefore, are thus circumstanced, do not let us show so little of the character of Englishmen as to think only of ourselves; and do not
393
394
I further wish to have it considered, (having already stated the fallacy of a single average of six weeks, determining the actual state of the internal supply) whether the interests of the agriculturist, with which eventually those of the consumer are inseparably connected, cannot be placed in some degree under the
395
communibus annis,
396
397
Sir, I feel that I have greatly, although I hope, when the nature of the subject is considered, not unjustifiably, trespassed on the patience of the House; but I should not have satisfied my own sense of duty at such a moment, if I had withheld any of those various considerations which have occupied my own mind, or which appear to me to be worthy of being reviewed by the intelligence and ability of others. In the course of my statement, I have felt called upon to allude to, and to support some of the first and most important principles of national policy—some of the most irrefragable maxims of moral conduct—maxims, front which, neither states nor individuals can ever depart, without being doomed to taste the bitter fruits of such desertion—maxims, which powerfully inculcate the sacrifice of present and fugitive, for the maintenance of future and more permanent advantages. In endeavouring to perpetuate the system of an adequate sinking fund, invariably applicable to the reduction of the national debt, I feel that I have had a sacred cause to defend—I feel that I have been treading on consecrated ground. Sir, however feeble the voice which addresses you,—however impossible it is for me to bring back to the recollection of the House the effect of that eloquence, which first induced parliament to establish the system which the honourable and learned gentleman now ventures to impugn, and proposes to us to abandon—however impossible it is for me to recall to the House, the full conviction, with which the voice of Mr. Pitt impressed on parliament the expediency of laying, in the sinking fund, the foundation of the lasting prosperity of the country—the foundation of that strength, which enabled her to persevere through all the difficulties of the arduous struggle from which she
398
399
400
l.
Mr. Brougham
in offering himself to the House, begged to assure them, that he had listened with the utmost possible attention to the very able statement of the noble lord who had preceded him. He had listened to that noble personage with an anxiety due to the great and important question before them, and he was happy to congratulate the House on the change and amendment which had taken place in the tone and temper of the noble marquis's opening address to them on that evening. It was not long since the noble lord had taunted the Opposition side of the House, for having hastily proposed any measure of retrenchment or economy. But the noble lord had lived four days since that period, and no doubt the noble lord, had grown wiser and better from the experience afforded in the interim. From the noble lord's statements it appeared that he was now prepared to treat the question of the public distress with more gravity. They had not on that evening heard from the noble lord his usual taunts upon one set of persons, and his sneers and jokes upon another. It was gratifying to find that the noble lord had at length determined to bring some portion of his mind to bear upon the great and important question before them. It would appear, however, that the plan which the noble lord had propounded was like one of those beauties which were best seen in the dimmest light, and which he was anxious therefore not to expose to the broad glare of day. It was not easy to distinguish the features of the plan laid down by the noble lord; but as far as they could be recognized, as far as he could estimate the amount of what the noble lord intended to do for the relief of the country, he would beg leave to make a few observations upon it. The noble lord had taken a glance at futurity, and had stated, in general terms, that the destinies of all governments were at the disposal of that Power whose influence; extends over all mankind; that there was no comparison between what a man held in his hand, and what he might look to from change, from accident, or from
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
l.
l.
l.,
408
409
410
l.
l.;
l.
l.
411
The Marquis of Londonderry.
—They do form a part of his statement.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had thought so, and would mention a short conversation which had occurred between himself and an hon. friend, in illustration of the reasons why he had thought so. His hon. friend, in listening to the speech of the noble lord, had asked him (Mr. B.) what had become of the retrenchments which had been promised in the opening of the speech. "Surely," said he, "the noble lord must be coming to the retrenchments which he spoke of." He (Mr. B.) replied, that his friend was very much mistaken, for the noble lord had passed by them. "Impossible," said his hon. friend, and turned round with a smile of indignation. The matter had, however, turned out just as he had stated, much to the surprise of his hon. friend, but not at all to his own; for he had grown gray in experience of the noble lord's line of policy, and was now perfectly acquainted with all the tact and tactics of his adversary. All that was to be got by abolishing useless civil places all that was to be got by abolishing those heavy burthens upon the people which were now become intolerable, all that was to be got by extending to them every relief to which they were so justly entitled, all attempts to afford them that decent comfort of which their situation was so susceptible, and to show them that the House would not continue to mock their misery, all those manifestations of feeling towards thorn were to be left untried. The system of jobbing for parliamentary purposes and court influence out of the public purse, when the people were starving for want, was yet untouched. Besides these, were the ministers to overlook all that was to be gained, all that was to be secured, for still higher purposes, for more sacred interests, for renovating the British constitution, and saving it from being at length overwhelmed by the corrupt influence of ministers improperly wielding the patronage of the Crown? Why were not these attempts made, in a crisis like the present, to secure public confidence? He had heard, indeed, that one measure of reduction was contemplated by his majesty's government—a 10 per cent deduction from official salaries. This, he supposed, was to be an average offering to secure the main interest a sort of premium of insurance, which all placemen were to render or do by way of policy
412
l.
l.
413
414
415
416
417
Mr. Huskisson
began by remarking, that the motion then before the House was simply for an account, to the production of which there could be no possible objection. But inasmuch as the comprehensive speech of his noble friend (lord Londonderry), who had introduced that motion, necessarily embraced topics similar to those which had been brought under the view of the House by an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) on a preceding day, and again that evening, the present discussion might be considered in the light of an adjourned debate upon the nature and causes of the present distress. He was the more at liberty to look at it in that point of view, without violating either the forms or the rules of the House, as the hon. and learned gentleman's motion, on Monday last, had been met, and most properly disposed of, not upon its merits, but by the previous question. That motion, however, had answered the hon. and learned gentleman's purpose. It enabled him to range over the whole manor of political economy, to fire his shots at random, and then to day, when the minister of the Crown was obliged to go over the same beat, the hon. and learned
418
419
present
past
420
panacea
421
422
423
424
425
minimum
data
426
427
Iliad
428
l.
429
depreciation
diminution
430
diminution
depreciation.
Par.
431
432
seignorage
l.
s.
d.
par
433
434
435
diminished
436
increase
437
438
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
439
440
nominal
real
441
442
443
444
Mr. Brougham
said, he was not in the House on any of the evenings when Mr. Peel's bill was in its progress through parliament, except on the third reading, and it was too late then to enter on discussions in which he had previously taken no part. He was absent from severe and dangerous illness.
Colonel Davies
began by remarking on the extraordinary manner in which the right hon. gentleman had come down to comment on a speech delivered several days ago, while be made no adequate reply to what had been said in the debate
445
Mr. Hume
said, he had not intended to claim the indulgence of the House at that late hour, but he could not refrain from making a few observations on the speech of the right hon. gentleman; and, on the extraordinary proceeding, he believed somewhat novel, of coming down with an answer to a speech delivered a week before. He had endeavoured to lead the House from the subject which was before it, by treating the argument of his hon. and learned friend in a most uncandid manner. The speech of the right hon. gentleman was in itself full of contradictions. The right hon. gentleman had called the attention of the House to the distressed state of the manufacturing interests in 1816, from which he said it recovered when left to itself. But what was the conclusion to which he came with respect to the agricultural question? He said he would not leave the agricultural interest to itself, as he had done the manufacturing interests, to recover from the depression under which it at present laboured; but wished to resort to the wild scheme of borrowing four millions from the Bank, for the purpose of buying corn with the public money. He would not leave the agricultural, like the manufacturing interest, to find its natural level; but thought that its distress might be
446
447
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
448
l.
l.
ne plus ultra
449
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
The motion was agreed to, and the said accounts were laid on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 18, 1822.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Lord Suffield
rose to present a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Norfolk. The petition complained of Agricultural distress, stated taxation to be the principal cause, and prayed for retrenchment of the expendi-
450
451
452
Lord Calthorpe
concurred in all the allegations of the petitioners as to the extent of agricultural distress. He was induced to offer a few observations on the subject, because he was compelled to acknowledge, from the state of public feeling, which he had witnessed at the county of Suffolk meeting, that that feeling was decidedly in favour of retrenchment, and of some degree of parliamentary reform. At the meeting to which he alluded, and which was attended by persons of property and independence in the county, a most unanimous vote was given.for retrenchment. The unanimity of the meeting was in some measure interrupted, by what appeared to him an unseasonable resolution in favour of reform. This resolution was carried by a great majority; but, whether it met with the concurrence of the principal land-owners who were present, he could not ascertain, because it was agreed to with acclamation by the majority. The manner in which the resolution was voted, left no doubt of the general concurrence of the great body of the people in the opinion that parliamentary reform was necessary. But he was convinced that the opinion was growing in other classes, and that it had spread itself through the well-educated and well-informed part of
453
454
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 18,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Mr. Lockhart,
in presenting a petition from certain owners and occupiers of land in the two parishes of Repton and Gresley, took occasion to observe, that unless some plan were devised for the relief of the agricultural interest, more effectual than that which was supported by the noble marquis, the clergy would shortly be without endowments, the landed proprietors without rentals, the poor without relief, and the sources of every charitable institution would be annihilated. To show the distress which affected the labouring classes at present, it would only be necessary to state one fact. A gaol had been built at Bury, in Suffolk, for the reception of 80 prisoners; but, at present, it was filled by 200 individuals, 60 of whom were labourers. They had been committed for poaching; and it was a fact, that the labourers went out poaching in the open day, for the purpose of being apprehended; as they preferred the support which was afforded to them in gaol to the want and
455
SAVING BANKS.]
Mr. Ricardo
presented a petition from Mr. John Woodson who, he observed, had taken a great deal of pains in examining into the best mode of relieving the poor, and who was of opinion that the principle on which the Saving banks were at present conducted was not the most beneficial that could be devised. He conceived it would be much better, if those who vested their money in these banks were paid by way of annuity, but at a less rate of interest than was now given. Their money might be allowed to accumulate, and thus a comfortable provision would be insured to them, when they arrived at an advanced age. He (Mr. R.) thought the plan deserved the attention of the legislature.
Mr. Curwen
was of opinion, that the plan proposed by the petitioner, was likely to be attended with most beneficial effects. It would be particularly serviceable to unmarried servants, who might be able to lay by small sums of money. As the Saving banks were now conducted, they only operated beneficially for those persons who were able to spare comparatively large sums, but were of very little use to the mere labourer.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the order of the day for going into a Committee of Supply, to which the accounts of Exchequer bills and Irish Treasury bills were referred,
Sir J. Newport
said, that the estimates should be laid on the table, before they proceeded to a vote of supply for the Navy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the necessary documents would be ready in the coarse of a few days, and would be placed in the hands of members.
Sir G. Warrender
remarked, that the vote in question was a mere matter of course.
Mr. Hume
said, that with respect to the vote for the Navy, which the hon. baronet stated to be a mere vote of course, he could not agree to proceed with it until the estimates were before the House. This was the first vote of supply in the present sessions, and the House must see bow utterly impossible it was to decide on the nature and propriety of the charges contained in that vote, unless a full estimate were laid before them. In the account which had been printed, he found
456
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
457
l.;
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
Sir G. Warrender
said, that in the committee of supply on Friday, he would give the hon. member all the information he required.
Sir J. Yorke
said, that if the advice of the hon. member were pursued, we might as well blow up our dock-yards and burn our ships, for in the course of a very short time we should have no seamen. It was
458
The House then went into the committee of supply.
SCOTCH COMMISSARY COURTS.
Lord A. Hamilton
said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish several useless offices in Scotland. The House would be surprised to hear that those offices had been twice reported on by two separate commissions, agreeing that they ought to be abolished. He would state, in the first place, what the offices were; secondly, the grounds on which he would move that they should be abolished; and, thirdly, the means of effecting it. It would be necessary to travel far back, were he to trace minutely the origin of those offices. They were remnants of the old ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the counties of Scotland, and were conducted by 23 commissaries, who succeeded to the jurisdiction of the Scotch bishops. There were 23 commissary clerks, and 23 procurators fiscal; not paid, it was true, by government, but paid, by the subject, from whose pockets the money, in the shape of arbitrary fees, was extracted. Now, as to the grounds for their abolition, he would remind the House, that they were declared not only useless but inconvenient, by a commission appointed as long ago as the year 1808, and which reported in 1810; and from 1810, his majesty's government and the successive lords advocate were culpable in not having followed up the recommendation of that Report. The present lord advocate, indeed, had the least share of blame; because he had been the least time in office. The noble lord then proceeded to state the substance of the Report of 1810, by which the House was informed, that under all the circumstances, the inferior commissary courts were not only useless, but even injurious to the subject, and ought to be abolished, and their jurisdiction transferred to the sheriffs' court. This Report, which ought not to have been neglected, was not acted upon for five years; at the end of which time, the then lord advocate brought in a bill, which, among other objects, had in view the abolition of those courts at the expiration of two months from its passing. The bill was read a first time on the motion of the lord advocate, and, he believed, a second
459
460
The Lord Advocate
said, that if the noble lord had communicated with him, either in the House or out of it, the facts which he could have stated, might have precluded the necessity of the present application. He begged to state, that he had been, for some time in direct communication with the different individuals concerned in the offices in question, and that he stood prepared to submit, in the course of the session, the same description of bill which the noble lord asked leave to introduce. Under such circumstances, he trusted the noble lord would withdraw his motion. The noble lord had thrown great blame upon his predecessors in office, for their neglect of the measure in question. For those who had preceded him he could not speak; but certainly he took no blame to himself for delay. He had found on his table, when he succeeded to his office, eight reports of commissioners proposing different reductions. That any man should consider all these reports in one session was impossible; but he had commenced, and he meant to go on
seriatim,
l.
461
Sir John Newport
said, that if compensations were to be given, in any cases, they could only be given where the proceedings had been legal. Now, it was doubtful whether most of the officers in question had not long been taking monies to which they were not entitled. When individuals were convicted of misconduct, it was usual to dismiss them without compensation; and why should not the same course be taken with respect to classes?
Mr. W. Dundas
was of opinion, that the cases of fraud, instead of being general, were confined to a very few instances.
Lord A. Hamilton
declared, that in the reports of the commissioners, scarcely an individual was named who had not been guilty of exaction. The truth was, that the abolition ought to have taken place ten years ago; but, as there were forty places to be at once disposed of, such a waver of patronage was not likely to be hastily made. The noble lord then proposed that the Lord Advocate should acquiesce in the present motion for leave; and that he should afterwards bring in the
462
The Lord Advocate
pledged himself to bring in his bill as soon as possible; but thought it would come more regularly, if the noble lord withdrew his present motion.
Mr. Peel
said, that where any of the offices in question had of late years been filled up, the appointments had been given with a full understanding that, in case of abolition, no claim to compensation should accrue.
After some further conversation, the motion was negatived.
MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
moved, "That the Report pf the Committee on the Agricultural Distress, presented the 18th June, 1821, together with the several petitions which have been presented to the House in the last and present sessions of parliament, complaining of the depressed state of Agriculture of the United Kingdom, be referred to a Select Committee, to enquire into the allegations thereof, and to report their observations there up on to the House."
Mr. Gooch
said, he was desirous of correcting some of the misrepresentations which had taken place respecting him at several public meetings. He had been described, as having brought forward this subject last year, in collusion with the government, in order to prevent enquiry. If he had acted such a part, he should have thought himself unworthy to represent that county which sent him to parliament, or any other. Having been sent there to represent one of the first agricultural counties in England, he had believed it to be his duty, when he saw their table covered with petitions, all describing the existence of one unusual scene of distress, to call the attention of the House to it. Though little qualified to perform such a task, he had determined on taking it up as nobody else did. He wished for that inquiry which had taken place; but which, he was sorry to say, had done little. He had, in the first instance, thought it right to ascertain his own strength, and the strength of those opposed to him. Feeling no wish to raise the landed interest to the injury of other interests, he had not anticipated much opposition from the commercial
463
l.
464
Sir John Shelley
said that the hon.
465
Mr. Wodehouse
observed, that the principal object for which he rose was, to ask the noble marquis a question. He would first, however, make a few observations on the subject immediately before the House. Although some of the views of his majesty's government appeared to be rather enigmatical, he had no doubt, that on the whole, the measures which they proposed would be beneficial. He felt it his duty, however, to express the obligation which he felt to two distinguished individuals on the other side of the House. To the one, he owed a two-fold obligation; he meant the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Brougham). Although he differed very much from the hon. and learned gentleman on some points of his arguments, he yet thought that that hon. and learned gentleman had done more service to the cause of agriculture than any man in the House. Such, indeed, were the transcendant talents with which he was so marvellously gifted, and such the extraordinary force of his reasoning, that it really required great firmness to resist him in his conclusions. The other obligation which he owed the hon. and learned gentleman, was, for having, m the course of his argument on the sinking fund (that rock on which our public credit rested), done justice to the memory of that great man who was the author of that measured and who could never be estimated too highly. The other individual to whom he wished to express his obligation was, a noble lord (John Russell) not
466
467
468
469
Mr. Davenport
said, that from the flourishing description which the noble marquis had given of the state of our finances, he hoped there would be some reduction of taxation, which now bore so heavily on the country. The noble marquis had stated, that the taxes on the farmer were not more than five per cent. on the incoming and outgoings of his farm. Now, in answer to this, he would state, that in Cheshire, the occupiers of dairy farms paid five per cent. on one article of consumption alone; namely, that of salt; the tax on which he considered the most oppressive that ingenuity could devise.
Mr. Curwen
was anxious to know, whether the noble lord meant to open the whole extensive question which had last session occupied the House. If so, he was persuaded little would be done with it during the present session. Did the noble lord wish for further information as to the distressed state of the country? Was it for that the noble lord wished to open the question? If so, the committee would spend the whole of the session as they had spent the last, and would come back with a similar report. Instead of referring the subject to a committee, it was the duty of government to be prepared with a measure. He wished the noble lord would take the subject into his own hands. No man could do more justice than the noble lord had done to the subject in the committee last year. The noble lord must be aware, that if it were again sent to the committee, a great diversity of opinions would necessarily arise, and, after all, the committee would make just such a report as the noble lord and his friends would recommend. Thus the session would be allowed to pass and no measure would be adopted to prevent the possible influx of foreign corn. He would ask whether the country ought to be left in this uncertain state—whether something should not be done to ascertain the price at which importation should take place; unless the noble lord wished this country to be placed in the situation in which he had described Silesia to be, where the price of corn would not pay for its removal from the ground. The noble lord perhaps considered that he was taking a great step towards relief, in removing a
470
471
472
Mr. Benett,
of Wiltshire, said, he concurred with the hon. member for Norfolk in his praise of the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), but he did not concur with him in differing from the hon. and learned gentleman's conclusions. He certainly had never heard any subject so clearly stated, or so convincingly reasoned on; and the country was deeply obliged to the hon. and learned gentleman, not only for the eloquent manner in which he had stated the claims of the agricultural interest, but for the sagacity with which he had indicated the mode of relieving them. He concurred in thinking, that on the subject of the distresses of the farmers, and the means of affording relief, the noble marquis should be more explicit; for, except that l
s.
473
474
475
s.
s.
476
477
l.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, that much blame had been imputed to his hon. friend, the member for Suffolk, for the opinions which he had expressed with regard to the exposition of the noble marquis. Now, he also must confess, that he had listened to the noble marquis with very great satisfaction; and thought that he had pointed out to the country means of relief much more immediate, effectual, and expedient, than any that could be derived from a reduction of taxation. When the hon. gentleman who spoke last said, that the landed interest had arrived at their present condition principally through their own fault, he was perfectly ready, for one—if any blame was to attach to them generally—to take his share of it. Far from regretting the share which he had taken in supporting the measures in question, he felt that, if the landed interest had not given that support to the government of this country, the hon. gentleman himself would have had a much less stake to preserve than what he now possessed. For his part, he always felt that in supporting that momentous war, he was supporting a war for the preservation of the liberties of the country. [Repeated cries of "hear," from the Opposition.] In spite
478
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
479
l.
l.
l.
l.
maximum
s.
Mr. Ricardo
began by observing, that the hon. member had stated, that the operation of the sinking fund in the purchase
480
l.
l.
l.;
481
482
Mr. Brougham
observed, that the case he put on a former evening was that of the distress of the landed interest becoming intolerable.
Mr. Ricardo
said, he might in some degree have misunderstood his hon. and learned friend, but he would offer a word or two on the subject of this distress. It was not very long ago since they were all in a state of the greatest alarm, on account of the distressed manufacturers. It was conceived that our manufacturers were declining and the most gloomy apprehensions were indulged on their behalf. But he then took the liberty of intimating his opinion, that those distresses were not permanent; and, happily, his predictions had been fulfilled. He was disposed to hope equally well of the agricultural interests; but not while such a system of corn laws as the present existed. He thought it was most desirable to fix some system by which the prices of corn might be rendered less variable, and by which a proper and adequate compensation might be secured to the grower, One of the measures of relief proposed was, an advance of four millions by the Bank at three per cent interest. This was an hazardous experiment, unless the Bank had issued four millions more than was necessary for the circulation of the country. The House would do him the favour to recollect, that, in the session of 1819, he expressed an opinion on the Bank question, for which he received a reproof at the time from an hon. director, that the Bank should not then buy gold, but rather sell it. His fears, he would confess, were now the other way.
483
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
484
485
486
Mr. Manning
defended the conduct of the Bank in carrying into effect the measure of restoring the currency. The directors had a difficult duty to perform in fulfilling the intentions of parliament, and they had performed that duty to the best of their ability. He denied the assertion, that the Bank, in resuming cash payments had narrowed the circulation so much as to produce the prevailing distress, and showed that, including jointly the paper and gold which had been issued since the passing of Mr. Peel's bill, our currency was greater by one million than before. The depressed state of agriculture was therefore to be ascribed to different causes. Among these was the superabundance of produce occasioned by successive plentiful harvests and extended
487
Mr. Sykes
said, he was anxious to bring back the debate to the question at issue, which was, whether or no the Corn Committee should be revived. After having heard the speech of the hon. member for Suffolk supported by that of the hon. member for Cheshire, he confessed he saw no good in going into a committee a second time. The hon. gentlemen had admitted that they had been completely mystified by the right hon. gentleman who drew up the report; and, according to the language of the member for Suffolk, dust had been thrown in their eves, for the purpose of hindering them from seeing the real situation of the country. He therefore could see no advantage in going over the ground again; for if twenty gentlemen had employed the whole of last spring in pursuing an inquiry which had only produced a report contradictory and inconsistent in many parts, and delusive and unpractical on the whole, he could see no prospect of a different result in the present session. It would end, as the last had clone, in the country gentlemen being mystified, and the agricultural interest being disappointed. It was, however, a consolation to him, that gentlemen were now shaking off the dust which had been so profusely thrown in their eyes, and that the hon. members for Suffolk, Cheshire, and Norfolk, were beginning to take a correct view of the conduct of ministers. He could not say that he heard with the same pleasure the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire: for he never was mare surprised than when he heard him express his almost unlimited satisfaction at the speech of the noble marquis, the other night; and be listened with all his ears to learn the cause of his hon. friend's complacency. This pleasure he found was derived from the noble lord's statement, that, in the next year, he should have a sinking fund of five millions. But, did not his hon. friend recollect, three years ago, the chancellor of the exchequer held out the same hopes—aye, and carried his expectations to the
488
489
pro tanto
490
s.
l.
l.
l.
491
Mr. Peel
observed, that the hon gentleman who had just sat down had opened his speech by stating, that he would call back the attention of the House to the question before it. But if this was his mode of confining himself to the subject under discussion, he could not conceive how largely the hon. gentleman might think himself entitled to expatiate, when the whole question of agricultural distress should be brought forward. In offering himself to the House, he would rather follow the example of the hon. gentleman, than his precept. In the first place, he begged leave to make a few observations on the bill that went by his name, however small a portion of merit he had in the measure—a bill that had of late been the subject of discussion with every one who speculated on the prevailing distress, both within and without the walls of parliament. From the share he had in introducing it, as chairman of the committee at which it was recommended, he might he allowed to say a few words on its character and effects. At the time that he presented it to parliament, and when it was more popular than it was at present, he had arrogated no merit for the work—
492
493
494
s.
s.;
s.,
s.
s.
495
496
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.;
l.
s.
497
498
Mr. Ellice
felt himself called upon to address some observations to the House after the speeches of the hon. member for Portarlington, and the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, in justification of the opinions he had uniformly maintained, of the changes in our currency forming one main, if not principal ingredient in all our difficulties and embarrassments. In doing this he had no objection in the outset at once to admit the general principles laid down by his hon. friend and the right hon. gentleman. It was perfectly true and could not be denied, that, at particular periods, the market price of gold was precisely as they had stated it; and that at the period of passing the right hon. gentleman's bill, that price was relatively to our paper money only about six per cent below the mint price, but the question at issue between them vas this, not whether gold could not be purchased with Bank notes at that moment at 4
l.
s.
499
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
500
l.
s.,
501
l.
s.
502
503
504
505
506
Mr. Huskisson
observed, that some honourable members had called him the author of the report which had been laid before the House last session, relative to the distressed state of agriculture. Now, he had always understood, that a report was considered as the production of the whole of the committee to which the subject discussed in the report was referred; but as a different opinion seemed to prevail with respect to the report he had mentioned, he would explain the facts connected with its production. When the committee came to deliberate upon its proceedings, several members proposed different resolutions. After hearing those resolutions, he had taken the liberty to propose a series of his own. The committee approved of that series of resolutions and had done him the honour to request that be would draw up a report founded on them. He appealed to the gentlemen who had been members of that committee, whether he did not, as long as he could, protest against the imposition of a task, which did not properly belong to him, as he was not the chairman of the committee. The committee, however, pressed him so strongly, that he yielded, and drew up the draught of a report, which was discussed paragraph by paragraph, and many alterations were made, in the propriety of which he did not concur. Those alterations affected not only the wording, but the principle of the report. Under these circumstances,
507
s.
508
l.
Sir J. Newport
deprecated its being held out as it had been, out of parliament, and rather invidiously, that this was a pure and absolute boon to Ireland; whereas, it was only part and parcel of the act of Union, or at least carrying into effect the provisions of that act. It must not however be left out of view, that the situation of Ireland was very peculiar. With regard to the order of reference, he recommended strongly that the objects to which the committee were to direct its attention should be specifically defined. They would otherwise, probably, travel into matters not at present in the contemplation of the House, and would protract the report beyond the period when it might reasonably be expected. He much doubted, whether it would not have been better for ministers to have brought down their measures at once, without waiting for the deliberations of a committee.
The Marquis of Londonderry
agreed, that it might become advisable to restrict the subject of inquiry to those practical results he had in contemplation; at the same time, if this were necessary, it might be done afterwards, when any member could come to the House to prevent the committee from wandering into too wide a field of inquiry. All the members would be fully apprised of the objects in view; and, as to the nature, extent, and operation of the distress, he apprehended that it would not be necessary to go further than the former committee had done. The state of the foreign markets, however, was a part of the great subject not yet sufficiently investigated; and he hoped, that to this the committee now appointed would proceed without delay, so that very early after the holidays some practical measure might be founded upon its report.
The motion was agreed to; and a committee was appointed consisting of the following members; viz. The marquis of
509
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 20.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. Lockhart,
in presenting a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Scarsdale, in the county of Derby, complaining of Agricultural distress, observed, that the petitioners were of opinion that excessive production was one of the causes of the present distress, and that this was one of the strongest reasons why that production should not be increased by foreign importation. They were utterly unable, however, to comprehend the doctrine which had been recently broached in that House, that taxation was not the cause of their distress, and were firmly persuaded that unless the strictest economy and retrenchment were enforced in every department of the state, not only the agricultural interest, but every class of the community, would be inevitably involved in ruin.
Mr. Jones
thought the measures proposed by his majesty's ministers were insufficient to afford effectual relief to the agricultural interest. The reduction of 1
s.
510
d.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ILCESTER GAOL—TREATMENT of Mr. HUNT.
Mr. Hume
rose, to present a Petition to the House which was signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 inhabitants of Preston, in Lancashire, and its vicinity; complaining of the severity of the imprisonment of Mr. Hunt. If the circumstances stated in it were true, he hesitated not to say, that the petition demanded the attention of parliament. He had written to the individual himself; to know whether the statements contained in the petition was, or was not correct, and as far as he was concerned, his statement went to substantiate the facts alleged. It appeared that Mr. Hunt had been placed for a number of days in solitary confinement—not a human creature being allowed, during that period to have access to him. He was taken ill and sent for his surgeon; but that individual was not allowed to see
511
512
513
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, it was quite impossible for the magistrates of the county of Somerset to act from such motives as had been ascribed to them by the hon. member. It was very hard that magistrates, while acting conscientiously in the performance of their arduous duties, should be subjected to such unmerited attacks. He thought the House would do well to set its face against such proceedings. He would not oppose the bringing up of the petition; but, in his opinion, the House should do something to show its disapprobation of the calumnies that had been cast on the magistrates of Somersetshire, ever since they had any thing to do with this individual. With respect to the prayer of the petition, he conceived it would be very wrong for the House to set aside, in any manner, the sentence pronounced by a court of law. The hon. member was wholly in error, if he thought that Mr. Hunt had been treated with malice or caprice. He was equally wrong if he supposed that that individual was treated as a prisoner sentenced to solitary confinement. The fact was, that when Mr. Hunt was first placed in the prison, he received indulgences which no person, under his circumstances, had a right to expect: and the privations of which he now complained were occasioned by the withholding the indulgences that were originally extended to him. He denied, altogether, that Mr. Hunt had been improperly treated.
The Solicitor General
said, it was extraordinary that the hon. member for Aberdeen had thought fit to repeat the attack on the magistrates of Somersetshire, which had been indulged in some days ago, on an occasion similar to the present. He had stated to the House at that time the situation in which Mr. Hunt stood. That individual had made application to the Court of King's Bench, praying that he might be attended by his surgeon and attorney. It was not, however, customary for the court to act, except on affidavit; and they took the necessary steps to enable Mr. Hunt to state, on oath, what he had to allege against the magistrates. Those very judges who had been so scandalously libelled by the member for Aberdeen, contrary to the usual course which obtained in such cases, and although the
514
515
Mr. Bennet
said, that Mr. Hunt had made no application to the Court of King's Bench, but had merely written a letter to Mr. Justice Bayley. He was not in the habit of corresponding with Mr. Hunt, but he had received a letter from him that morning, complaining of his treatment. Perhaps the severity exercised towards him might have originated in his having so successfully exposed the malpractices that had long existed in Ilchester gaol. He believed that the arrangements made in the gaol, under the order of the judges, were not applicable to persons under sentence for an offence like Mr. Hunt's. Those rules and regulations were, in fact, directed against felons; and he believed it was the first time that a person in the
516
Mr. Lockhart
was of opinion, that the House had a right, when it was necessary,
517
The Solicitor General
again offered himself to the notice of the House, for the purpose of explaining what had passed in the Court of King's Bench with respect to Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt did not, indeed, make a regular application to the Court of King's Bench; but he wrote a letter to Mr. Justice Bayley, who immediately communicated it to the other judges, in which he complained that his surgeon and solicitor were excluded from him, and expressed a wish that an order should be made to allow of their attendance. The Court of King's Bench could make no order, and could give no judgment, except on affidavits; but the judges did all they could do. They sent to the gaol, and desired that the solicitor of Mr. Hunt should be admitted to him, in order that he might draw up the affidavits which were necessary for a regular application. An hon. member
518
The Speaker
said, that however mysterious the language of the hon. and learned gentleman was, he could know what meaning they were intended to convey, and he was sure that the House would see the propriety of his interfering, as the words in his opinion conveyed a meaning which would tend to invade the order of the house.
The Solicitor General
could assure the House that he had no intention but to justify himself.
Mr. Hume
said, he would put the House in mind that allegations of a similar nature, which an hon. baronet had on a former occasion denied, had upon examination, turned out to be well founded; and he had no doubt but the present allegations would turn out to be so. It had been asked, what authority there was for saying that Mr. Hunt had been in solitary confinement? He had just received from Mr. Hunt a letter, which stated, that the complaints were literally true. Twenty-six days had elapsed since Mr. Hunt preferred his complaint, and he was in solitary confinement still. The learned gentleman, in replying to him, had made use of abuse, instead of argument; he had put the word ''infamous" into his mouth, but he could assure the learned gentleman that he must use argument, and not abuse, if he hoped to obtain any credit with him. It was very well for gentlemen clothed in a little brief
519
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that if it should turn out that Mr. Hunt was even for eight hours in solitary confinement, he should be the foremost to say it was improper. But at present he did not believe it even on the authority of a statement signed "Henry Hunt."
The petition was ordered to be printed.
ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND.
Lord Archibald Hamilton
rose and said:—Mr. Speaker; I rise for the purpose of persuading this House, to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider the Reports which have been made to it, by its own orders, on the subject of the Royal Burghs of Scotland. After the length of time, which this subject has been before the House and the public, and the share which I have taken in the investigation of it, I owe it, as a duty to the petitioners, to this House, and to myself, to endeavour at last, to bring it to some specific, some profitable termination. Until my efforts are superseded by some decision of this House, those efforts shall be directed towards the success of the cause, in which I originally embarked, without being aware, I must confess, of the time or the labour it would require, or of the opposition I should encounter—I mean, to the attainment of some reform in the internal constitution and internal management of Scotch Burghs. It is a cause in which some 500,000 of my countrymen are interested, who have no representatives—at least no direct representatives—in this House—in which revenues of more than 100,000
l.
520
521
522
523
too well
524
*
*
525
526
527
528
529
l.
s.
d.
530
*
*
in perpetuo;
† "The mode in which the books of the city have been kept, and their (council) ignorance of the true state of its revenues and expenditure, may serve to account for the present situation of its affairs. No book exhibiting an account of the debts of the city, or of its property, or of its nett revenue, or of the necessary annual charges on the revenue; or of the comparative amount of annual expenditure and revenue, has ever been kept, &c."—P. 19.
531
*
*
*
*
† "In 1816, the sum of 59,000
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
‡ "And in 1817, provost Hadden, for the first time, recorded the resolutions of the inhabitants of 1799, as a probative writ in the sheriff's court books; in order, if possible, to establish that liability !!!"—P. 22.
§ "In consequence of this (bankruptcy), the treasurer, magistrates, and town council, and new street trustees, made over all the property, feu-duties, and funds under their charge, to trustees, for payment of the treasurer's creditors."—P. 23.
॥ "With respect to the property of the burgh, which is denominated common good. The fishings of the Dee and Don, now producing about 10,000
l.
l.
s.
d.;
¶ "Mr. Hardie, the chamberlain, states, that there is not one charitable institution under the management of the town council, whose funds have not been lent to the treasurer, and involved in the town's insolvency."—P. 24.
*
*
532
l.,
l.;
*
dente, that these statements (to the burgesses at annual courts at Michaelmas) as long as he can remember, never did exhibit, and never were really intended to exhibit, a statement of the money affairs of the town. In 1810 the debt is stated to amount in whole to 6,874
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l."
*
l.
533
*
*
534
enactment to enable the burgesses of Dundee to choose their own magistrates, would give general satisfaction, and be a very great benefit both to the town and country."—P. 31.
535
536
537
538
*
Desuetude
*
539
*
*
540
541
542
The Lord Advocate
stated his surprise at the conduct pursued by the noble lord. After the three voluminous reports of three different committees which had been laid on the table of the House, he had expected that the noble lord would have followed one of two courses—either that he would have brought forward some specific remedy for the evils of which he complained, in the shape of a legislative measure; or else, that he would have waited till he had seen the bill, of which he (the lord advocate) had given notice, and which the committee had deemed sufficient for the object in view. The nature of that bill he was not bound to state; but he thought that the noble lord, from the recommendation of the committee, might have guessed that it was of a comprehensive nature, and sufficient to effect a remedy for the existing grievances, without injuring any chartered rights, or violating any article of the Union—which the reform proposed by the noble lord was certainly calculated to do. He made no scruple in declaring, that his plan would not alter the constitution of the royal burghs. He thought it right to state it thus explicitly, because he could not view any alteration in the constitution of them in any other light than that of a parliamentary reform of the boroughs of Scotland. Such a reform might, or might not, be right, but, at any rate it ought to be judged by its own merits, and not be determined upon by a side wind. That the noble lord himself considered the question of burgh reform as calculated to produce parliamentary reform, was evident from many of the steps which he had taken, but more especially from this—that though there were both burghs of regality and burghs of barony, whose internal government was replete with the same abuses as the royal burghs, the noble lord had not attempted to obtain any reform in their constitution. And what was the reason for this conduct? He would tell the House in a few words:—The royal burghs (at least those for which the noble lord had interested himself), returned members to parliament;
543
544
l.
545
Mr. Hume
rose at that stage of the debate to correct several inaccuracies in the speech of the learned lord. As the learned lord had however observed, that the committee was unanimous, that all the allegations of the petitioners against abuses in the Scots burghs were fully proved, it was well that the House should know what those allegations were. The petitioners alleged, that the magistrates were self-elected and irresponsible; that the public property had been wasted and sold by them, that the funds of public and private charities entrusted to them,
ex officio,
546
547
l.
548
549
l.
l
l.
Lord Binning
expressed his satisfaction at hearing the hon. member for Aberdeen avow, that parliamentary reform was the real object of the course which
550
551
Mr. Kennedy
said, that if the motion were not agreed to, the people of Scotland would have reason to complain of the conduct of that House, and of the principles upon which they acted. One set of gentlemen had objected to this motion, on the ground that it insidiously went to introduce the principle of parliamentary reform into Scotland. But upon this ground, any proposition of amendment might be resisted, as every such proposition must lead to reform. For himself, however, be was ready to say, that he should not think any proposition of amendment in Scotland worthy of support, that did not tend to the establishment of reform in that country, where the system of popular representation was so egregiously unequal, that Edinburgh, for instance, containing a population of no less than 120,000 souls, was represented in that House by a member who had only nineteen votes; for that was the number who voted for the return of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Dundas). But if the House would go into the proposed inquiry, the gross injustice of the general system of representation for Scotland would be fully exposed. The hon. member defended himself and others with whom he acted, upon the subject of their secession from the committee appointed in a former session to investigate the corrupt condition of the Scots burghs, alleging that they were influenced on this occasion by a fact which was quite palpable, namely, that several gentlemen came into that committee with pre-conceived opinions or impressions, not at ail likely to yield to any evidence that might be adduced. Against such prepossessions he and his friends thought it vain to contend; and therefore they seceded from the committee, notwithstanding their conviction of the means which they possessed to establish all the allegations of the various petitioners. With regard to the articles of the Union, to which the noble member for Rochester had alluded, he was prepared to maintain, that those articles offered no obstacle whatever to the adoption of any measure for ameliorating
552
Mr. C. Forbes
said, that the embarrassments of the burgh of Aberdeen had been very much exaggerated. The magistrates had effected very large reductions in the debt, which debt he doubted not they would soon be able to pay off, with 5 per cent interest. He must beg to contradict one part of the statement of an hon. member, who had said, that if all the revenues of the burgh of Aberdeen were mortgaged, they would be insufficient to defray its debts. The House would not fail to observe with pleasure, by the speech which they had just heard delivered by a noble lord, that arrangements had been adopted by the magistrates which reflected upon them the highest credit. Indeed, the improvements which had been effected in Aberdeen within the last twenty or thirty years were truly surprising; and such as no person, at that distance of time, would have ventured to predict. The manufacturers were active, and trade was in a most flourishing condition. He then adverted to the conduct of the burgh magistrates, and vindicated them from a charge which had been most unfairly thrown out against them, of having applied the public money in a very improvident manner. He had lately received a letter from one of those respectable individuals, informing him that the hon. member for Montrose had himself declared to them, that he never meant to insinuate any thing against their honour. After such a declaration, it was somewhat singular that the hon. gentleman should hazard aspersions, reflecting upon those magistrates. In allusion to one part of the hon. gentleman's speech, about the number of independent votes, he would be glad to know what chance the hon. gentleman conceived he had of beings re-
553
Mr. Hume
denied that he had charged the magistrates of Aberdeen with corruption, or attempted to cast the slightest imputation upon their character. All he had said with respect to these gentlemen was founded upon a letter written by one of them to his noble friend, in which letter the writer went the length of stating, that under the present corrupt administration of the burgh alluded to, it was impossible for any man concerned in that administration to act any other than a knavish part.
Sir R. Fergusson
conceived, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Forbes) had unjustly characterized the speech of his hon. friend who had never said that the burgh of Aberdeen was bankrupt, but had contended, that it was so far bankrupt as to have given up its property to trustees. The noble lord (Binning) had said, in answer to the speech of the noble mover, "Wait, gentlemen, for God's sake, for the bill of the Lord Advocate; see what that will do." Now, he, for one, could not wait, and he would tell the House why. That learned lord seemed to propose to take no notice of the greatest evil complained of; namely, self-election. Unless they did away with that, the House would do nothing. The noble lord was so horrified at the mere sound of "reform," that he exclaimed, "Good God! how can people talk of reform in these days, and thereby endanger the constitution?—Two noble lords opposite had lately expressed their great admiration of old parchments and charters; if they were so fond of these documents, he wished they would look a little to the old declarations made by former members of parliament, who had protested that they felt it to be their bounden duty to listen to the complaints of the people. If, instead of searching into old parchments and charters, those noble lords would attentively examine the Journals of the House, he thought they would employ their time much better.
Mr. Maberly
conceived that a fair statement had not been made to the House of the affairs of the burgh of Aberdeen. He had reason to know that the burgh was once nearly approaching a state of bankruptcy; but by good ma-
554
Lord A. Hamilton,
in reply, contended, that by receiving the report the House had, in effect admitted the allegations of the petitioners to be true; and he was naturally induced to suppose they would either devise some remedy for the alleged evils, or grant a committee to inquire into the best means to be adopted for their removal: but they had done neither the one thing nor the other. What he now asked was, not that they should pledge themselves to, any specific measure of relief; but that, having admitted the truth of the facts stated by the petitioners, they would grant them a committee for the purpose of considering their case. The opponents of the motion had mixed up with it the general question of parliamentary reform, with which it had no connexion. This was in itself a proof of the weakness of their cause. The learned lord opposite was pleased to say, that there were other burghs in which similar abuses were stated to exist. If the learned lord could show one half the grievances in those burghs which he had shown to prevail in the royal burghs, he would agree with him in any measure which might be productive of their correction. The learned lord had also stated, that the gaols of the burgh of Hamilton were in a most inefficient state. He believed it was so, as well as most of the gaols in Scotland; and having sat on the committee which inquired into those matters, he could state that it was found to be owing to the scandalous misuse of the funds. The learned lord had said there was no corruption in those burghs. Now, he had made no charge of peculation; but he would say, that the magistrates of Aberdeen had sanctioned the representation of their debt at 6000
l.
l.
555
The House divided Ayes 46. Noes 81.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Langston, J. H.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Lockhart, W. E.
Bury, lord
Maberly, J.
Brougham, Henry
Maberly, jun.
Chaloner, R.
Maxwell, J.
Chamberlayne, W.
Monck, J. B.
Claughton, T.
Newman, R. W.
Crespigny, sir W.
Normanby, lord
Creevey, Thos.
O'Callaghan, col.
Davies, colonel
Price, Robert
Denison, W. J.
Rice, S.
Denman, T.
Robarts, Geo.
Dundas, T. H.
Robinson, sir G.
Ellice, Ed.
Scarlett, J.
Ebrington, visc.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Webb, colonel
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Williams, W.
Guise, sir W.
Wilson, sir Robert
Heathcote, J. G.
Wood, alderman
Heron, sir Robt.
Wyvill, M.
Honywood, W. P.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
TELLERS.
Hume, Joseph
James, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Johnson, col.
Kennedy, T. F.
Lambton, J. G.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, Feb. 21.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Earl Stanhope
said, he held in his hand a petition from 1,100 owners and occupiers of land in Kent, complaining of Agricultural distress. The petitioners considered the distress the more to be regretted, as it appeared to them that it did not result from temporary causes; and they complained that nothing had been done by parliament for their relief. They were convinced that their distress did not proceed from over production. They regarded over taxation as the real cause; and were further of opinion, that the pressure of that taxation was greatly aggravated by the alteration which had been made in the value of the currency. The distress had been attributed to foreign importations; but it was to him utterly incredible, that the reduction of price produced by any importation could be felt through a series of years. He could form some idea of this being the cause where the depression was confined to corn only; but it was well known that cattle and all other articles of agricultural produce were affected. He
556
557
ultimum supplicium
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, Feb. 21.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. Denison
said, he held in his hand a Petition from the freeholders of the county of Surrey, complaining of the impoverished state of the Agricultural interest. The petition was proposed at one of the most respectable meetings ever held in that county, and was carried almost unanimously. The petitioners, in respectful language, stated the deep distress, amounting almost to pauperism, in which the county, and more particularly the agricultural interest was involved. They attributed that distress to the wasteful expenditure of the public money, which they conceived to arise, in a great degree, from the want of a proper representation
558
Mr. Ramsden
said, he had little doubt as to the degree of distress which pervaded the country. What the farmers would say, when they heard of the relief which the noble marquis offered to the country on Friday last, he knew not. He was convinced that the plan would afford no relief; and thought that the shilling per bushel on malt, had better have been kept in the hands of ministers than sent out to insult the country. He wished the gentlemen opposite to keep their places; but he thought it was their duty to manifest some sympathy towards a suffering country: and he must say, that he could not support any set of ministers, unless they greatly lessened the expenditure, and agreed to such a reform in the House of Commons, as would ensure amongst its members a sympathy with the distresses of the country at large.
Ordered to lie on the table.
RESOLUTION ON THE PLAN PROPOSED FOR THE RELIEF OF THE COUNTRY.
Lord Althorp
said, he felt it necessary to explain why he considered it desirable that some question should be brought before the House upon the subject of the noble marquis's plan. When the noble lord first brought forward his proposition, it was extremely difficult to know whether the House could, on any particular day, come to a direct vote of approbation or disapprobation upon that plan. He, therefore, conceiving it essential to give a distinct opinion upon that proposition, took the first opportunity of giving the notice in pursuance of which he now addressed the House. He was aware that, if it were merely argued whether the plan proposed was satisfactory or not, his observations would be brought within a very narrow compass. But he felt himself, in fairness, called upon to state his own views of the policy which ought to be adopted in the present distressed state of the country. In giving those views, he found himself unequal to the details which belonged to the subject, but he would compress his observations within as short a limit as he could. The first consideration which presented itself
559
560
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
561
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
562
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
563
l.
l.
l.
l.
564
Mr. Robinson
said, that whatever he might think of the course suggested by the noble lord, he was bound to do justice to the motive which actuated him, and to the manner in which he had brought his proposition before the House; and nothing could be more inconsistent with the duty of ministers, than to blink the fair question by a technical objection. If such a course would be contrary to the duty and to the dignity of his majesty's ministers, so was it contrary to their intention. Ministers thought that the House ought to have the question directly before it: all they asked for was the decision of the House, and they thanked the noble lord for giving them an opportunity to obtain it. Now, in looking at the plan which the noble lord had suggested to the House, and in contrasting it with that proposed by ministers, it was material that the House should sedulously keep in mind the circumstances under which it discussed the question in point. Because the question before the House was, not whether there should be a reduction, or no reduction, of taxes—not whether the House should now immediately proceed to commence a reduction of the taxes; but whether it would be wiser to carry the extent of that reduction to the fall amount of the surplus of income over expenditure, or to endeavour to combine the maintenance and integrity of that surplus with a gradual progressive reduction of taxes? Now this was the first time for nearly forty years, that the House had been in a condition to discuss what it would be best to do with an actual, undisputed surplus of revenue; and the country ought to look, even upon the noble lord's view of the case, at the circumstances by which that surplus had been produced. The circumstances to which that surplus was attributable were, the reduction of expenditure and the improvement of revenue. He did not think it necessary at present to follow the noble lord through the particular details to which he had referred, but he would say this, that even if the noble lord and those about him could satisfy parliament that the reduction effected by ministers was insufficient—that there were farther objects to which that reduction might apply—and that its in
565
566
567
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
568
sæva necessitas,
ultimum supplicium,
569
"robur et æs triplex circa pectus"
l.
570
l.,
l.
571
Lord John Russell
said, he gave credit to the right hon. member for the way in which he had met the proposition of his noble friend, and was pleased that the right hon. gentleman had moved his own resolutions instead of merely proposing to negative the motion of the noble lord. He could not help thinking, however, that many parts of the right hon. member's speech might have been spared without prejudice to the cause which he attempted to sustain. Amazing stress was laid upon the fact, that the House was now, for the first time these forty years, discussing the disposal of a real surplus revenue. What! after hearing for ever of the wonderful effects of Mr. Pitt's sinking fund, were they to rejoice because they now found, for the first time, that they had any sinking fund whatever? Why, parliament had voted the existence of a surplus in 1819. It was now, he believed, generally allowed, that Mr. Pitt's expectations as to the efficacy of a sinking fund were so extravagant as to amount pretty nearly to a delusion. During the war, at all events, according to Dr. Hamilton, the fund was an additional expense of 30,000,000
l.
l.;
572
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
573
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.
574
575
576
577
Mr. W. Whitmore
rose, to express his satisfaction at the statement which he had heard from the noble marquis on a former evening, respecting the finances of the -country, and to add, that, considering the best interests of the country to depend upon the inviolability of its faith towards the public creditor, he thought that, under all circumstances, every reasonable
578
rationale
l.
579
s.
s.
s.
580
l.
s.
s.
581
Mr. Robert Price
observed, that the
582
l.
583
584
Mr. Wilmot
assured the House, that as the question had been so frequently debated, he would confine himself to the arguments which had been urged that evening, and to which he would advert as shortly as possible. And, first, he would apply himself to the removal of two erroneous statements which had been made in the course of the debate. First, the noble mover and the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, said, that his majesty's ministers attributed the improved condition of the manufacturing interest of the country, to their own measures. Such an assertion had never been made. Secondly, the hon. gentleman who spoke last said, that government declared last session that no further reduction of expenditure could be accomplished. This, too, he positively denied. All that they said was, that the reduction had at that time been carried as far as was consistent with the interests of the country. Now, though he was prepared to contend, that such an assertion on the part of ministers was perfectly correct, he should refrain from doing so at present in order to confine himself more directly to the question before the House. It was true that any member might agree in the necessity of pushing reduction as far as possible; but it did not follow that he would therefore agree in the necessity of abolishing the sinking fund, which was a question at once different in its nature and greater in its importance, since it involved in it the credit and good faith of the country. Now, in considering in what manner a reduction of expenditure should be effected, the House was bound to consider two things—first, that the reduction should not injure the efficiency of the office so reduced; and, secondly, that if the duties of it should ever increase, and it should become necessary to place the office on its former establishment, it should not occasion a greater expenditure to renew it than had been saved by the proposed reduction. As to the observations which the noble lord had made upon the civil list, he begged leave to remind the House that there were now charged upon it several pensions which had been conferred on deserving individuals for their conduct during the war, and which at the time of conferring them had been approved by parliament. The mention of this circum-
585
586
Mr. T. Wilson
said, that the remedies which had been proposed by ministers had not in general been deemed satisfactory; he, therefore, might be pardoned if' he took the liberty of throwing out another for the consideration of parliament. The view which he took of the present distress was not confined to its effects on the agricultural interest only, but upon the whole community. It had been avowed, that the million and a half of taxes that it was intended to take off would hardly be felt as
587
s.,
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.
Mr. Bankes
said, that though he was aware that the subject to which the hon. member who had just sat down had alluded, was not altogether relevant to the debate, he could not help thanking him for having mentioned to the house a mode of relief which he conceived to be best adapted to the distress of the country. There could be no doubt of the general proposition, that a diminution of taxation
588
l.
l.
589
590
591
Mr. Tierney
said, that in rising to follow the hon. gentleman who last spoke, he had to claim the patience of the House while he stated the reasons which influenced him, on the present occasion, to depart from the opinions he had long entertained in the course of his political life, upon this particular subject of the sinking fund. He should have left the House on that night most reluctantly were he doomed to give a silent vote under such circumstances. He was prepared at the outset to be visited with every species of attack for the opinions he was about to deliver. After the treatment his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) had received for delivering his sentiments; after he had been abused, and vilified, and charged with being prepared to do this and do that, taking advantage of a period of public distress, he (Mr. T.) could have little reason to hope that he could escape after the delivery of his opinions upon what was called, most perversely called, a sinking fund. The hon. gentleman who spoke last seemed to think that he also had been exposed to much misconception and misrepresentation: possibly he had been, it was that to which they were all liable, and few men had escaped through public life without their share. The hon. gentleman had proposed in the course of the last session, an address respecting economy and retrenchment; and had obtained the credit of then acting from the conviction of his own impressions and independent of the government; but this night it came out, from what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson), that to the government the whole credit of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bankes) proposition was due; and that he whom they were wont to consider as the Nestor of wisdom and independence on subjects of economy, had, on the occasion alluded to, acted merely as the mouth-piece of his majesty's Treasury. The right hon. gentleman had freely and candidly avowed, that, in truth, the proposition came from government, and that they took full credit for its adoption.—On the subject of the prevailing agricultural distress, and the remedial measures which the present crisis called for, he should explain directly, why he was now ready to depart from the line of conduct which he had before pursued, when the sinking fund was talked of. He would, however, in the first instance remark, that
592
l.
l.,
593
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
594
l.
595
596
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
597
l.
l.,
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
here intimated, that he had computed the amount of redemption at 39,000,000
1.
598
Mr. Tierney
did not object to the noble lord's correction, and, as he was fond of round numbers, he would say 40,000,000
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
l
l.
l.
599
l.;
l.
600
601
602
603
l.,
.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
pro tanto
l.
604
l.
l.
605
l.
606
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the right hon. gentleman had stated what he conceived to be the origin of the sinking fund, as established by Mr. Pitt. He had, however, not stated it quite correctly. The right hon. gentleman complained that the system of Mr. Pitt had been departed from with respect to the sinking fund; but he should have stated, also, that if that system had been adhered to, the country would now be subjected to 17 millions of additional taxes. If the right hon. gentleman conceived it intolerable to keep up a sinking fund of five millions, how much more oppressive should he, in fairness, consider it to preserve entire the system of Mr. Pitt, which would subject the country to 17 millions of additional taxes? Such a sum would have enabled us to reduce rapidly the public debt, and to perform great financial results. The sacrifice, however, would have been in proportion to the advantage. Instead of being able to remit taxes after the peace, we should now have been labouring under the great burthen and unalleviated pressure of 17 millions of taxes. The property tax, and other taxes which had been reduced, would have been necessarily kept up to their war amount. It was true that our sinking fund of five millions was small, when compared with 17 millions; but it seemed adequate to the support of public credit, if religiously guarded and properly applied to redeem the debt. Though nominally greater before the late change, it was never so effective; for it could not be denied that, however great the nominal amount of a sinking fund, the only part of it applicable to the redemption of debt was the surplus of the public income over the public expenditure. It had been asked, if the nominal sinking fund had been abolished, why keep up the machinery by which its operations were carried on? To this he replied, that, connected as it was with all the late acts of parliament regarding finance, the entire sweeping away of the machinery would require other changes, and therefore was a measure not to be
607
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
608
l.,
l.
l.
l.
609
After a short reply from lord Althorp, the House divided: For the original motion, 126; Against it, 234. Mr. Robinson's resolutions were then put, and agreed to.
List of the Minority; and also of the Majority.
MINORITY.
Allen, J. H.
Crespigny, sir W.
Boughton, sir. W. E.
Crompton, S.
R.
Curwen, J. C.
Barham, J. jun.
Creevey, T.
Benett, John
Davenport, D.
Baring, sir T.
Davies, T. H.
Barrett, S. M.
Denison, W. J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Dundas, hon. T.
Benyon, B.
Dickinson, W.
Bernal, R.
Ebrington, visct.
Bentinck, lord W.
Ellice, E.
Birch, J.
Ford, M.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Fergusson, sir R.
Brougham, H.
Farrand, R.
Browne, D.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Bright, H.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Butterworth, J.
Fairlie, sir W. C.
Burdett, sir F.
Grattan, J.
Byng, George
Guise, sir W.
Calvert, N.
Hamilton, lord A.
Calvert, C.
Heathcote, sir G.
Chaloner, R.
Heathcote, G. J.
Calcraft, John
Heron, sir R.
Cavendish, C.
Hill, lord A.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Clifton, lord
Honywood, W. P.
Coffin, sir I.
Howard, hon. W.
Concannon, L.
Hughes, W. L.
610
Hume, Joseph
Ramsden, J. C.
Hurst, R.
Ricardo, D.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Ridley, sir M. W.
James, W.
Robarts, A.
Johnson, col.
Roberts, Geo.
Jones, John
Robinson, sir G.
Kennedy, W. F.
Rumbold, C.
Lambton, J. G.
Russell, lord John
Lennard, T. B.
Russell, R. G.
Leycester, R.
Rice, T. S.
Leake, W.
Scourfield, W. H.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Smith, hon. R.
Langston, J. H.
Smith W.
Lawley, F.
Scarlett, J.
Maberly, John
Sefton, earl
Maberly, W. L
Stanley, lord
Macdonald, J.
Stewart, (Tyrone) W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Stuart, lord
Markham, admiral
Sykes, D.
Maxwell, J. W.
Shelley, sir John
Monck, J. B.
Tavistock, marq.
Moore, Peter
Taylor, M. A.
Marjoribanks, S.
Tennyson, C.
Normanby, visct.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Newport, sir J.
Titchfield, marq.
Nugent, lord
Tulk, C. A.
O'Callaghan, J.
Ware, J. A.
Ord, W.
Webbe, Edw.
Ossulston, lord
Wilkins, W.
Palmer, C. F.
Wilson, sir R.
Pares, Thos.
Wells, John
Peirse, Henry
Wood, ald.
Pelham, hon. C. A.
Wyvill, M.
Phillips, G. R.
TELLERS.
Price, Robt.
Althorp, lord
Pym, F.
Duncannon, lord
Ramsbottom, J.
MAJORITY.
Apsley, lord
Blackburne, John
Alexander, J.
Bankes, Henry
Alexander, J. D.
Bankes, George
Arbuthnot, rt. hn. C.
Bathurst. rt. hn. C. B.
Atwood, M.
Bridges, G.
Acland, T. D.
Brandling, C.
Astley, sir J. D.
Burrell, W.
A'Court, E. H.
Corbett, P.
Ashurst, W. H.
Cook, sir C. H.
Astell, W.
Cranborne, lord
Bective, lord
Cole, sir L.
Bastard, E. P.
Chaplin, C.
Bastard, John
Childe, W. L.
Blake, R.
Campbell, Arch.
Binning, lord
Curteis, J. E.
Browne, J.
Curtis, sir W.
Browne, rt. hon. D.
Cockerell, sir C.
Browne, Peter
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.
Bruce, Rt.
Croker, J. W.
Balfour, John
Courtenay, T. P.
Bernard, visc.
Courtenay, W.
Bourne, W. S.
Cherry, G. H.
Brogden, J.
Coeks, hon. J.
Burgh, sir U.
Canning, rt. hon. G.
Baillie, John
Cooper, R. B.
Brownlow, C.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Buchanan, J.
Cholmondeley, lord H.
Bradshaw, R. H.
Calvert, John
611
Chandos, marq.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Copley, sir J. S.
Knox, hon. T.
Cartwright, R. W.
Kingsborough, visct.
Clive, Henry
Keck, G. A. L.
Cockburne, sir G.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Cust, hon. E.
Lowther, visc.
Cheere, E. M.
Lowther, John
Claughten, Thos.
Lowther John jun.
Chamberlayne, Wm.
Legge, hon. H.
Clerk, sir G.
Leigh, F.
Clinton, sir W. H.
Lewis, W.
Congreve, sir W.
Lucy, George
Cripps, J.
Lascelles, hon. W.
Curzon, hon. Rt.
Lyndsay, hon. H.
Dundas, rt. hon. W.
Long, rt. hon. C.
Dawkins, J.
Londonderry, marq. Of
Dawkins, Henry
Lygon, hon. H.
Doveton, Gabriel
Luttrell, H. F.
Divett, Thos.
Luttrell, J. F.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Littleton, Ed.
Dawson, G. R.
Lewis, T. F.
Dawson, J. H. M.
Marryat, Jos.
Downie, R.
Magennis, Rd.
Davis, Hart
Musgrove, sir P.
Don, sir A.
Macqueen, T. P.
Estcourt, T. G.
Morland, sir S. B.
Evelyn, L.
Monteith, H.
Ellison, Cuthbert
Montgomery, Jas.
Eastnor, visct.
Macnaughten, E. A.
Egerton, Wilbraham
Morgan, G. G.
Ellis, C. R.
Mountcharles, lord
Elliot, hon. W.
Macdonald, R. G.
Fynes, Henry
Money, W. T.
Fane, John
Manning, W.
Fane, Vere
Martin, John
Fleming, John
Mansfield, J.
Fleming, John
Mills, C.
Fellowes, W. H.
Mitchel, John
Forbes, C.
Neale, sir H. B.
Gurney, H.
Nightingale, sir M.
Grant, right hon.
Nolan, M.
Greville, hon. sir C.
Nicholl, rt. hon. sir J.
Gilbert, D.
Nugent, sir G.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Owen, sir John
Gifford, sir R.
Onslow, Arthur
Goulburn, H.
O'Grady, S.
Gordon, hon. W.
Pringle, sir W.
Gooch, T. S.
Prendergast, M. G.
Gower, lord. F. L.
Pollen, sir J.
Grant, A. C.
Paget, hon. B.
Gipps, G.
Paget, hon. sir C.
Handley, Henry
Pechell, sir Thos.
Harvey, sir E.
Phillimore, Dr. J.
Hotham, lord
Peel, rt. hon. R.
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Peel, W.
Hill, sir G.
Palmerston, visc.
Hill, Rowland
Pitt, W. M.
Heber, R.
Pearse, John
Heygate, alderman
Pennant, G.
Hawkins, sir C.
Ryder, rt. hon. R.
Huskisson, rt. hn. W.
Raine, J.
Hardinge, sir H.
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Helford, G. P.
Robertson, A.
Holmes, W.
Rice, hon. G.
Haldimand, Wm.
Rogers, Edw.
Innes, John
Rowley, sir Josias
Irving, John
Sotheron, F. F.
612
Sandon, visc.
Wrottesley, H.
Stewart, Alex.
Wilson, W. W. C.
Stuart, W. (Armagh)
Wilson, sir H.
Skeffington, hon. T. H.
Wilson, Tho.
Scott, Sam.
Wellesley, Rd.
Sheldon, R.
Willoughby, H.
Sumner, G. H.
Wodehouse, hon. J.
Strutt, J. H.
Wodehouse, hon. E.
Shiffner, sir G.
Wildman, J.
Smith, T.
Williams, Rt.
Smith, Sam.
Wood, col.
Smith, Abel
Wynn, C. W.
Smith, R.
Wortley, J. S.
Smith, Christ.
Wilmot, Rt.
Thompson, W.
Whitmore, W. W.
Townshend, hon. H.
Wetherell, C.
Twiss, Horace
Ward, Robt.
Taylor, sir H.
Walker, Joshua
Ure, M.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Upton, hon. A.
Wall, C. B.
Vernon, G. V.
Yarmouth, earl of
Vivian, sir H.
TELLERS.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Lushington, S.
Villiers, rt. hon. C.
Osborn, sir J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 22.
NAVY ESTIMATES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved the order of the day, for going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Hume
said, he would not consent to the House resolving itself into the committee at present if he could prevent it, and he would state his reasons. In the last session it was stated by ministers, that, for the future, every information would be given that might be requisite to explain the particulars of the proposed estimates. Notwithstanding this promise, which the noble marquis was bound to fulfil, they now refused to grant any account in detail of the application of the large sums which they called upon the House to grant. They on this night called for a sum of not less than 1,781,325
l.
sub silentio,
613
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
614
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
615
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
616
l.
l.
l.
617
l.
l.
Mr. R. Ward.—
I wish to inform the hon. gentleman, that since the estimates were presented, a further reduction has taken place, which makes them amount to not more than 81,000
l.
Mr. Hume
was glad to hear that such a reduction had been made; but still that did not at all affect his argument. He wished to have detailed accounts of the manner in which the money voted for the Ordnance estimates was expended; because he had heard from pretty good authority, that 20,000
l.
618
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
619
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.
l.
620
l.
621
l.,
Mr. Croker
commenced by stating the regret which he felt in having to come forward to oppose any thing like examination into the public expenditure of the country. He was convinced, however, that it was his duty to do so upon the present occasion, inasmuch as the hon. member for Aberdeen had not satisfied him that ministers had been anxious to withhold from him any information which they could communicate consistently with their duty to the public. Of all the myriads of papers for which the hon. member had moved, these would be the first that government had refused him. He trusted, however, that he should be able to show, that they refused them upon grounds that were just and satisfactory, and not altogether unconnected with the public safety. He must premise what he had to offer to the House, by observing, that the navy estimates had been voted for about 160 or 170 years in the very same manner in which they were now proposed, and that the present was the very first time, among all the wild fancies that had entered into
622
623
624
in prospectu.
625
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
626
627
l.
628
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
629
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
630
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
631
632
Mr. Bennet
said, he wished to bring back the House to the real question before them, and from which the hon. gentleman had attempted to divert them, by
633
634
Mr. Croker
said, the hon. gentleman had done him more credit than he deserved, by attributing to him any wit; but the hon. gentleman had used the expression "the wit which he knew how to use here and elsewhere." Now he assured the hon. gentleman on his honour as a gentleman, that out of that House he had never taken the liberty to make the slightest sinister allusion to the hon. gentleman or his friends.
The House divided: for Mr. Hume's Amendment, 54; Against it, 144.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord.
Lambton, J. G.
Birch, J.
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Bury, lord
Markham, adm.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Maxwell, J.
Benett, J.
Newman, R.
Baring, sir T.
Palmer, C. F.
Crespigny, sir W.
Palmer, col.
Calvert, N.
Price, R.
Crompton, S.
Parnell, sir H.
Creevey, T.
Phillips, G.
Clifton, lord
Price, Rd.
Davies, colonel
Rickford, W.
Guise, sir W.
Ramsden, J. C.
Graham, S.
Robarts, A.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Sefton, lord
Heron, sir R.
Sykes, D.
Honywood, W. P.
Scott, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Stuart, lord J.
Hurst, R.
Smith, hon. R.
Hughes, col.
Wyvill, M.
Johnson, col.
Wilson, sir R.
James, W.
Webb, colonel
Jervoise, G. P.
Wood, alderman
Leycester, R.
Wilkins, W.
Lennard, T. B.
TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr.
Hume, J.
Lockhart, W. F.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
On the motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Hume,
in rising to move for the production of some other papers, said, he would take that opportunity of making some observations upon what had fallen from the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Croker) upon a former occasion. A great part of what the hon. gentleman pretended to answer, he (Mr. Hume) had never uttered; and that which he
635
636
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
637
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
638
l.
s.,
l.
s.
l.
l.
639
l.
l.,
640
l.
l.
l.,
Mr. Croker,
reminded the House, that he had commenced his former speech by saying that the ordinary vote was about 1,900,000
l.,
l.
641
The House divided: for the Amendment, 54. Against it 158.
Althorp, lord
Maxwell, J.
Bury, lord
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Nugent, lord
Brougham, H.
Normanby, lord
Barrett, S. B. M.
Newman, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Pryse, P.
Baring, sir T.
Palmer, C.
Chaloner, R.
Robarts, A.
Calvert, N.
Roberts, W. A.
Crespigny, sir W.
Robinson, sir G.
Crompton, S.
Ricardo, D.
Creevey, T.
Ramsden, J. C.
Fergusson, sir R.
Stuart, W.
Graham, S.
Sykes, D.
Guise, sir W.
Sefton, lord
Haldimand, W.
Scott,
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Stuart, lord J.
Heron, sir R.
Smith, hon. R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wyvill, M.
James, W.
Williams, W.
Johnson, col.
Wilkins, W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wood, alderman
Leycester, R
Webb, Col.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, sir R.
Lennard, T. B.
TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr.
Hume, J.
Monck, J. B.
Davies, Colonel
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the Navy Estimates were referred, sir J. Osborn moved, "That 21,000 men be employed for the Sea Service for 13 lunar months; from the 1st of January 1822; including 8000 royal marines.
Mr. Hume
said, he must again ask what were the circumstances of the country which required that there should be 2000 men now more than in 1817, for the same purpose? The reductions that had been made in the Navy were not owing to the economy of ministers, but to the death of Buonaparte. The number of the marines he thought disproportionate with the number of seamen, and he should, therefore, propose as an amendment, that "19,000" be substituted for "21,000."
642
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that on the opening of a former war the country had suffered materially from the want of a sufficient number of marines to man the Navy with. The consequence was, that they were obliged to employ soldiers to their great dissatisfaction; and to the detriment of the service; for they were all sea-sick as soon as they got out to sea. Upon this it was thought better to keep up a large number of seasoned marines, who in peace might be employed in doing garrison duty in the sea-ports, and in the event of war, be ready to man the service. The Admiralty did not want to increase the number of seamen for the service of the ensuing year, and they were loath to diminish the body of marines. They might have been able to reduce more, had it not been for the increased demand from South America and the Mediterranean; and it should be remembered, that out of 13,000 seamen, 1,500 were employed round the coast for the security of the revenue.
Sir I. Coffin
expressed his conviction of the propriety of maintaining the marine corps at as high a rate as possible. It was obviously desirable that young men should be educated for the public service; for in the event of a new war was it tolerable that the defence of the country should be entrusted to such old men as himself, who had served forty years in the Navy, and who were scarcely able to step over a three-legged stool.
Mr. Bennet
said, he should like to be informed why 8,000 marines were now to be kept up? Was a war now more probable than in 1817? In 1822 the peace establishment was larger than in 1817, while the country was labouring under increased distress. The difference was at least 200,000
l.
643
Sir G. Clerk
said, that if hon. members would look to the other parts of the navy estimates they would see there was a reduction equal to two millions. He hoped the House would not reduce any part of that useful body of men, the royal marines.
Mr. Hume
said, that the estimate for 1817 was 5,985,415
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Croker
said, the hon. gentleman had omitted to take into his consideration 671,000
l.
Mr. Hume
pledged himself to prove that the hon. gentleman was in error. He had added the sum of 671,000
l.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 53. Against it, 157. On the resolution, "that 532,350
l.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he saw very clearly that ministers intended to refuse every kind of information that could enable the House to investigate the subject. All propositions for inquiry were met by a direct negative, supported by the ordinary ministerial majority; and as this course had been pursued quite long enough for one night, he would move "that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Upon this, after a short conversation, the Committee divided: Ayes, 47. Noes, 147.
The resolution was then agreed to.
644
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 25.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—OPENING OF LETTERS ADDRESSED BY OR TO MEMBERS.
Mr. James
begged to call the attention of the House to a violation, as it seemed to him, of the privilege of its members. There was a gentleman confined in the gaol of Lancaster, who had terrified government by attending a reform meeting in 1819, whose letters, from prison, to him (Mr. James) had been broken open; and his letters to that gentleman had experienced a similar treatment; one letter, indeed, had been withheld altogether; and a copy only delivered in its place. Petitions forwarded to be laid before the House had shared the same fate with other communications; and, strange as the decisions of Parliament had been, it would hardly sanction so gross a proceeding. Upon the effect of the practice it could not be necessary to say a word. The most signal injustice—the most atrocious cruelty—might be committed in prisons, under the operation of such a system, and no means of complaint would be open to the sufferer. It might be urged, perhaps, that prisons were visited by magistrates, and that to those magistrates, if necessary, complaints might be addressed; but, let it be remembered that in one gaol at least (Ilchester), cruelty and torture had been inflicted upon prisoners, notwithstanding the visits of such appointed magistrates; and that gentlemen had risen in the House to eulogize the character of the manager of that institution, unconscious of the conduct of the man of whom they were speaking. As far as he had been able to learn, this inquisitorial practice of opening letters had originated in 'the wish of some Lancashire magistrates to pry into the secrets of the advocates of parliamentary reform. Inquiry being made into the legality of the course, those magistrates laid a case before counsel, and obtained an opinion, that the proceeding was lawful: they then, from having merely desired the gaoler to open certain letters, added a formal regulation to the rules of the prison, that all persons confined for peculiar offences should be subject to an unqualified inspection of their correspondence. Now, that such an order was contrary to English law, he had no doubt. The 9th of Anne, commonly called the Post-office act, declared that no person should presume to open a letter unless by
645
646
Lord Stanley
did not see on what ground the motion for declaring the opening of a letter from a prisoner to a member of parliament a breach of their privileges, could be sustained. A similar question had been started last year, and referred to a committee of privileges, and he had never heard that they felt it incumbent upon them to bring the subject forward. That the practice complained of would, under some circumstances, amount to a breach of moral justice between man and man, no one could deny; but there were limits to the privileges due to letters, and when he found that even the judges of the land, were strongly in favour of the practice complained of, he could not think that there were sufficient
647
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that if he understood the hon. mover, his object was, to establish two propositions; first, that the opening of a letter franked by him was illegal; and secondly, that it was a breach of the privileges of the House. If he should be able to disprove both these points, he apprehended there would be an end of the hon. gentleman's case. Before he proceeded with his argument on the first point, he could not but express his surprise at the opinion of a learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), on a former evening, as to the opening of letters sent by convicts on board the hulks; and he thought that, on a little more mature reflection, the learned gentleman would not himself persist in the opinion then given. It would not be denied, that
648
649
650
Mr. Bennet
said, that if he understood the right hon. gentleman right, he had laid it down as the law of the land, that magistrates, when their regulations were sanctioned by judges, had a right to legislate for gaols, and that they could not only enforce, but aggravate punishments, by placing persons in solitary confinement. Now, the magistrates might make regulations, and the judges assent to them; but such regulations could only relate to the hours of labour and of diet, and such matters. The magistrates might take care that the prisoners had all the advantages consistent with their situation and sentence, but beyond that they had no power at all. He would put it to the House, whether a judge had a right to increase the term of
651
652
The Attorney General
said, that though he was fully prepared to admit, that neither the magistrates nor the gaoler had a right to increase the punishment of any individual beyond the degree mentioned in the sentence of the court, still he was prepared to argue that they had a right to make such regulations as they thought proper for the internal government of the prison, liable, however, to the subsequent confirmation or rejection of the judges of the assize. Now, a set of regulations having been agreed to by the magistrates of Lancashire, and subsequently approved of by the judges, it became the duty of the gaoler implicitly to obey them. Indeed, the gaoler would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty, if he had obeyed the hint given him in the letter of the hon. member for Carlisle, and had refrained from opening the letter sent to the prisoner under his custody. In the, case of the Gloucester gaoler, he took upon himself to stop the letters of prisoners, without orders from magistrates. The letter of lord Sidmouth written upon that occasion, was not a circular. It was transcribed by some of the magistrates of Somerset, and afterwards entered upon the journals of Ilchester gaol, where Hunt found it, and supposed it to have been a circular. Would any member say, that he had a right to enter into any gaol in the kingdom, in order to hold communication with those confined in it. Now if hon. members had not a right to communicate personally with all persons confined in gaol, how could they have a right to communicate with them in all cases by letter? As to a breach of privilege, he was quite confident that none had been Committed.
Mr. Bernal
contended, that the absence of all exceptions in the statutes which had been quoted, saving the privileges of members, was a proof that it was not supposed that the general rule, by which those privileges were secured to them, was affected. If this privilege were not-maintained, cases of great severity might exist in prisons, which would never be known to the world. It would be far better to suffer the danger and inconvenience of a solitary instance of an improper use of the privilege, than the much greater danger and inconvenience of preventing acts of oppression from being brought to light. In his opinion, there ought always to be the most free mad unrestrained communication between
653
Sir R. Wilson
trusted, that parliament would not allow its privileges to be got rid of by the regulations of any set of magistrates. He was no great stickler for precedent; but he had found one peculiarly applicable to the matter before the House. In the first year of William and Mary, it was resolved by the House, that the breaking open a letter sent by, or directed to, one of its members, was a gross infringement of the privileges of parliament. After such a resolution, there could be no doubt of a breach of privilege having been committed in the present instance. When hon. members read the report of the commissioners on the state of Ilchester gaol, they would discover an additional reason for not allowing the letters of prisoners to be intercepted; for they would see, that there was no longer any great confidence to be placed either in gaolers or in visiting magistrates.
Mr. Wynn
maintained, that neither a breach of privilege nor of the law of the land had been committed. That the law of the land had not been infringed, was clear from the act of queen Anne, on which so much stress had been already laid. That the privileges of the House had not been violated, was also evident from this—that the resolutions to which allusions had been made only referred to the delivery of letters by the post. With regard to the resolution of 1689, the circumstances which had given rise to it ought to be taken into consideration. The House had come to that resolution in consequence of the governor of Hull having seized upon the mail bag, and opened all the letters it contained, among which were some written to and by members of parliament. Now, it ought to be recollected that this event had occurred shortly after the Revolution, at a time of great public alarm and confusion; and that, though the House had come to such a resolution as the hon. member for Southwark had described, it had not inflicted any punishment upon the offender. Indeed, the House was bound to consider, in reference to the present question of privilege, what were the powers of magistrates and gaolers before the acts of George 2nd and George 3rd. Before that time they had the power of adopting all such regulations as appeared to them
654
Mr. Brougham
begged to make a few observations on what had just fallen from the right hon. gentleman. He confessed he had been anxious to hear what could be said by the right hon. gentleman, well known formerly on his side of the House, and now he trusted to be as well known on the other side of the House, as the strict and vigilant guardian of the privileges of parliament. Since he had heard the right hon. gentleman, however, instead of being weakened, he had been strengthened in his opinion on the subject; as he knew that he had now heard all that could be urged by learning or legal ingenuity. In the first place, he must protest against the doctrine of the right hon. secretary of state, as to that which ought to be considered the test and limitation of the privileges of parliament; namely, that that privilege did not interfere with any act done legally by any established authority; that if, for example, the justices of the session, sanctioned by two of the judges, were empowered by law to make certain regulations for the conduct of gaolers, those regulations were to ride over the privileges of parliament; although there was nothing in the act by which that power was conferred respecting those privileges, except the omission of any clause by which they
655
656
657
658
Mr. Horrocks
referred to several high authorities, to show, that it was lawful for a gaoler to keep every prisoner (who was committed in execution) in close custody. The person whose case was under discussion had been convicted of a very serious offence, and more than ordinary caution was highly necessary. There was a case within his own knowledge which had come before the grand jury of the county, which showed that the power in question was not given to gaolers without abundant reason. A prisoner had sent a letter to one of his acquaintance; the gaoler suspecting that the communication was of an improper nature, opened the letter, and it was found to contain a statement from the prisoner of false facts, affecting to refresh the memory of his friend, who was to be a witness on his trial; and adding, "mind you stick to this, and don't flinch." This circumstance showed the great danger of subornation of perjury; and of which a member might be made the innocent medium. The rules applicable to the case in question, had not been adopted by the magistrates hastily or unadvisedly; and the gaoler himself had been provoked into an adherence of them by threats. As far as he could judge, the present case did not involve a breach of privilege.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the case divided itself under two heads—the one was a question of law, the other of privilege. If there had been any offence committed against the law, no determination which the House might come to could deprive either the hon. member, or the prisoner who had written the letter in question, of a legal remedy. If a legal offence had been committed, redress might be obtained before the proper tribunal, and in the mean time no possible prejudice would be done to the party injured, by the House not interfering. He put the case as if the regulations of the magistrates, and the use of them on the present case were against law; but the hon. and learned gentleman must forgive him, if he said that he thought the law had not been violated. He thought that, upon the face of the case before them, there was enough to raise at least a very strong presumption that the regulations were sanctioned by law—and here he would say, that the law ought to prevail; and that the privileges of members of that House ought not to be allowed to ride over the law. If he were wrong with
659
bonâ fide
660
Mr. Denman
said, that the noble marquis had stated that the question was a question of law, and that the complaint might be brought before the proper tribunal. But the noble marquis had not thought fit to inform his hon. friend of the manner in which be ought to proceed. In opposition to the noble lord, he would contend that the question was not one of law, but of privilege; and all the authorities cited in support of the governor of Lancaster Castle, were cited in disregard of the privileges of parliament—were cited to support the monstrous doctrine that members were to be prevented from receiving the complaints of those who might be suffering under solitary imprisonment. The noble marquis had said, that if the case of a prisoner were a
bonâ fide
bona fide
661
662
Mr. Bathurst
said, that the hon. mover had admitted, that if he had not been a member he could have no right to complain of the regulations which had formed the subject of debate. The question, then came to this, whether the House were bound to come to a decision on a matter of privilege, which decision would be looked upon as precedent for the future; or whether it would not be more prudent to leave the party to his remedy at law? It should be recollected, that the privilege which the bon, gentleman claimed was not one which was recognised by the former practice of the House; and it would not be difficult to show that, if established, it might, in some cases, operate in a manner highly inconvenient, if not dangerous.
Mr. James
shortly replied. His view of the question was not, he said, at all altered; and he believed, on the authority of sir S. Romilly, that the practice complained of was illegal. The right hon. gentleman had argued that poison might
663
The previous question being put, "That the question be now put," the House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 167.
List of the Minority.
Allan, J. H.
Leycester, R.
Althorp, lord
Lloyd, sir E.
Bernal, R.
Lambton, J. G.
Bright, H.
Lushington, Dr.
Birch, J.
Maberly, J.
Brougham H.
Maberly, J. jun.
Barret, S. M.
Macdonald, J.
Kenyon, B.
Marjoribanks, S.
Beaumont, T. W.
Moore, Peter
Calvert, C.
Martin, J.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Normanby, lord
Crompton, S.
Newman, R.
Concannon, Lucius
O'Callaghan, J.
Coffin, sir I.
Parnell, sir H.
Creevey, T.
Palmer, col.
Calcratt, John
Russell, lord J.
Carter, J.
Ricardo, D.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Ramsden, J. C.
Davies, col.
Robinson, sir G.
Denman, T.
Smith, hon. R.
Ebrington, viscount
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Smith, S.
Farrand, Robert
Sefton, earl of
Grattan, J.
Stuart, lord J.
Guise, sir W.
Sykes, D.
Hamilton, lord A.
Wilson, sir R.
Honywood, W. P.
Wood, alderman,
Haldimand, W.
Wyvill, M.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
TELLERS.
Hume, J.
James, W.
Lennard, T. B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
NAVY FIVE PER CENTS.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Navy Five Per Cent Acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the resolution to which he was about to call the attention of the House, was founded, in its principle, on a transaction which had always formed the subject of panegyric with the writers on the state of England, as one of the greatest proofs of the resources of this country, of extent of its credit, and of the, power
664
665
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
666
l.;
l.
l.
s.
l.
667
l.
l.
l.
l.
668
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
669
670
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
671
l.
672
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Ellice
said, that before he proceeded to remark upon what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, be was anxious to put one question to him: upon the answer his (Mr. Ellice's) conduct would entirely depend. He begged to ask if it were probable or possible that the determination of government, so distinctly stated by the chancellor of the exchequer on the subject of the dissent of the proprietors of 5 per cent stock, would undergo re-consideration?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he considered the plan suggested by ministers on the whole the best, and he saw no reason, founded upon the convenience or the advantage of the parties concerned, to alter any part of it.
Mr. Ellice
was much indebted to the
673
674
675
676
l.
l.,
677
678
Mr. Williams
entertained considerable doubt as to the policy of the plan, at least so far as it affected persons who had money in the five per cents to an amount less than 1,000
l.
l.
Mr. Maberly
said, that looking to all the circumstances of the case; first to the difficulties which necessarily attended the
679
Mr. Ricardo
thought the plan very desirable, and the terms proposed by ministers extremely fair. With regard to the time allowed for option, he thought it amply sufficient. But, suppose persons were to purchase stock in the name of others residing abroad, with a fraudulent intention, would they be entitled to the extended term, or would they be obliged to give their answer by the 16th of March?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the case supposed by the hon. member would, he hoped, be precluded by some resolutions which would be subsequently read at the table.
Mr. Ricardo
said, it would very much facilitate the plan, if such holders of five per cents as assented, could know at what time the transfer to the four per cents was to take place. The question of the dividends might at first sight offer some difficulty, but this difficulty was more apparent than real, because the very same dividend which was given to a person holding 100
l.
l.
Mr. Wilson
said, that however expedient this measure might be, with a view to the reduction of taxation, still if there were a class of persons upon whom it pressed with peculiar hardship, it was incumbent upon the House to mitigate its severity as much as possible. The interest of this fund was not only reduced from five to four pet cent; but a rod
680
Mr. Bright
wished to know what regulations were to be adopted with regard to trustees.
Mr. Bankes
could not help thinking that the present project of a sinking fund, was the less meritorious, inasmuch as that plan of liquidating the public debt by the, operation of compound interest was abandoned. He wished to know at what time it would be convenient to the right hon. gentleman to take the debate on this subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he by no means considered the question of abolishing that part of the project of a sinking fund which went to liquidate the debt by compound interest, as decided. It was a question which demanded the most serious attention, and which formed no part of the present measure. It was a question which involved the repeal of many acts of parliament; and he must confess that it appeared to him to be a measure of very questionable policy. As to the question which had been put with regard to trustees, they would be eat powered to act for their principals, and. would be indemnified. The hon. member for Weymouth had expressed some doubt as to the competence of parliament to pay off the five per cents; but it had never before been suggested that the condition imposed by the act of 1784, with regard to the reduction of the five per cents was any other than that parliament should not pay off that fund until 25 millions of the 3 or 4 per cents were paid off or redeemed. But the hon. member seemed to suppose that the national debt was first to be reduced to that amount—a construction which the act of parliament could not bear. As to the hardship with which the transfer was likely to operate upon persons of small property, it should be recollected, that such persons had purchased this stock at a lower rate, and with a larger return of interest, under the express liability of being paid off by government. However much, therefore, they might be objects of commiseration, they had no title to complain; and the inconveniences of their situation would be greatly mitigated by the great reduction which had taken place in all the necessaries of life. Some reasons had been
681
The several resolutions were then put, and agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, February 26.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, AND THE FINANCIAL MEASURES FOR ITS RELIEF.
Earl Stanhope
presented a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Kent, which he had withdrawn on Thursday on account of informality. His lordship apologized to the House for the informality in the petition which had previously prevented its being received; but trusted, that though the signatures to it were now unavoidably but few, that it would be received as conveying the sense of the considerable number who had originally signed it. He trusted also that in the present depressed state of the agricultural interests, the people
682
*
*
683
population,
population
684
685
state of the public revenue.
l.;
686
l.;
l.
foreign commerce;
687
existing distress of the agricultural classes of the community,
consolation
688
Mr. Jacob
is asked, with respect to the situation of the landlords in the North of Europe:
689
690
691
cause
fact
692
excessive taxation.
693
a fourth of the whole taxation of the country has been remitted.
l.
l.;
l.
694
l.
l.,
l.
l.
695
l.
l.
l.
696
l.,
l.
697
l.
l.
l.
l.
698
699
700
d.
d.
701
702
l.;
l.
703
l.
704
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
705
l.
706
even during war.
even during war,
in time of war,
in time of peace.
707
708
709
as even as possible.
only
most numerous interest.
710
great majority
711
l.
l.;
l.
minimum,
securing of a Sinking Fund of
l.,
712
a reduction of the higher rates of interest on the national debt;
l.,
713
l.
l.
l.
714
l.,
715
l.
l.
716
717
the steady maintenance of an efficient sinking fund.
718
The Marquis of Lansdown
began by expressing his satisfaction, that, the noble earl had himself brought forward the statement which he (lord Lansdown) would otherwise have felt it his duty to have called for, but which came better from a minister of the Crown than from himself or any of his friends. On the statement and reasonings of the noble earl, he should feel it necessary to make some comment; and he rose thus early in the debate, because he considered that he had in some manner provoked the discussion on which their lordships had entered. There was one point on which the noble earl was bound to explain his sentiments fully. The noble earl had alluded to the fashionable opinions of some individuals, and to the travels of others, in support of the doctrine, that taxation had little or nothing to do with the prevailing evils under which the country laboured. He knew very well that some political economists, and certain noble lords in that and the other House of parliament, considered the effects of taxation as being extremely light. They stood prepared to hold out this delusion to the public, not merely that taxation produced no unfavourable result, but that its existence was, in fact, one of the favourable circumstances of this country. As this was the case, he felt it to be his duty to state, that, without overlooking any of the arguments which were advanced on the other side—without losing sight of any of the inquiries which had been made by those who supported the doctrine he had alluded to—he had come to as deliberate a conviction as the noble earl had done, that, with the cause of the present distress, and the best mode of relieving it hereafter, the amount of taxation was inseparably connected. It required no great acquaintance with any author who had written on the subject, or with any man who had ever thought on political economy, to perceive that the effect of taxation was; to produce high prices, not to lower them. This was generally found in connexion with heavy taxation. Such a state of things arose from slighting those sound maxims of political economy, by which a nation ought to be governed, and the consequences of departing from which were constantly presenting themselves at every man's door. Many favourable circumstances he believed to exist in the country, which, if properly attended to, would produce unequivocal benefit. He heard, with pleasure, that our manufactures were again in a
719
720
721
722
723
724
l.
725
726
727
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l,
728
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
729
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
730
l.
731
Lord King
commenced, by ridiculing the manner in which the vast promises of ministers had been fulfilled. He also adverted to the notion so industriously promulgated on the other side, that to remove taxes was to hasten ruin. He said, that in the year 1811, the House of Commons had thought fit to put upon record the opinions of a very grave personage (no less a man than the chancellor of the exchequer) on the subject of the currency; for a resolution had been entered on the journals, stating, "that in public estimation, Bank notes are equal in value to gold." In the same way he should suggest, that it would be wise in the House of Lords to register the opinion of the first lord of the Treasury on the subject now under consideration, and it might be done in something like the following terms:—"Resolved, that in public estimation, the amount of taxation has not in any degree contributed to the existing distresses—that taxation is no evil—that though France and Holland have also an excess of produce, their excess has occasioned much happiness, and our excess much misery—that the only fit mode of relieving that misery is by the reduction of the rate of interest, and that the application of a surplus of 5,000,000
l.
732
l.
733
l.
l.
l.
l.
734
l.
Lord Ellenborough
could not attribute the existing distress to an excess of cultivation, as that had rather diminished than increased within the last few years. In his opinion, it was the great excess of produce last year, combined with the effect of the change in the currency, which had created the fall in price, to which the distress was owing. He agreed with the noble marquis, that the great taxation under which the country laboured, contributed to the distress of the farmer as a grower; but he could not agree with him that the diminution of taxes to the amount of 5,000,000
l.
s.
735
The Duke of Buckingham
disclaimed any intention of entering into those depths of political economy, into which his predecessors in the debate had wandered. He must, however, declare his dissent from those who attributed to the operation of taxation the distressed state of the agricultural interests. That they were in a state of distress, it did not need any one at that time of day to tell them.
736
737
*
No. 1.—Estimate of Taxation paid by a Farmer renting 400 Acres—Himself, his Wife, one Woman Servant, and three Men Servants in Family.
Articles.
Quantity consumed.
Total Cost.
Rate of Duty.
Total Tax.
£.
s. d.
New Rate.
£
s. d.
Malt
15 Quarters
30 0 0
2
s.
d.
12 15 0
Hops
60 lb
3 0 0
2
d.
0 10 0
Salt
5 cwt.
8 10 0
30
s.
7 10 0
Leather for Shoes
12lb
2 4 0
3
d.
0 3 0
Leather for harness
30 lb
3
d.
0 7 6
Tea
10lb 7
s
3 10 0
100 per cent.
1 15 0
Sugar
52 lb 6
d
1 6 0
100 per cent.
0 13 0
Soap
72 lb 8
d
2 8 0
3¼
d.
0 19 6
Candles
72 lb 7½
d.
2 5 0
1
d.
0 6 0
Brandy
1 Gallon
1 5 0
12
s.
d.
0 12 7½
Rum
1 Gallon
1 0 0
10
s.
d.
0 10 4½
Gin
4 Gallon
2 4 0
1
s.
d.
0 10 6
Wearing apparel
1 0 0
Riding Horse
1
2 17 6
Groom
1
0 10 0
Windows
9
2 2 0
Father's Taxes
33 2 0
738
used. The price of consumption had not yet reached the price of production; and until that was the case, no material relief could be felt by the agriculturist. But with regard to the existing agricultural distress, he had no hesitation in saying that taxation had no material effect upon it. To illustrate this, he would suppose the case of a farm of 400 acres, at two guineas an acre, as to the amount of produce. He supposed 200 acres to be laid out as grass land, 134 acres as beans, spring corn, fallows, &c., and the remaining 66 acres wheat land. These 66 acres would produce 198 quarters, which, valued at 3
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
*
739
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
l.,
l.
s.,
s.
l.
s.
d.
s.
No. 2.—Estimate of Taxation on the Labourers required to cultivate a Farm of 400 Acres, half Grass, half Arable.
Number of Labourers.
Articles.
Quantity consumed.
Total Cost.
Rate of Duty.
Total Tax.
£.
s. d.
£.
s. d.
3 in the house.
Leather
24 lb 6 pair shoes
3 12 0
3
d.
0 6 0
1 married, with wife and child.
Leather
10 lb 4 pair
1 18 0
3
d.
0 2 6
Candles
20 lb 7½
d.
0 12 6
1
d.
0 1 8
Salt
52 lb 3¾
d.
0 16 3
3¼
d.
0 14 1
Soap
13 lb 8
d.
0 8 8
3¼
d.
0 3 6½
Tea
5½ lb 7
s.
1 18 6
100 per cent.
0 19 3
Sugar
13 lb 6
d.
0 6 6
100 per cent.
0 3 3
Ale
1¾ pint per day home-brewed
½. Per pint.
1 2 9¾
2 Labourers
Leather
16 lb 4 pair shoes
2 8 0
3
d.
0 4 0
Single men
Salt
26 lb at 3¾
d.
0 8 1½
3¼
d.
0 7 0½
Soap
13 lb at 8
d.
0 8 8
3¼
d.
0 3 6¼
Ale
365 quarts
1
d.
1 10 5
2 Boys
Leather
12 lb 4 pair
1 10 0
3
d.
0 3 0
Soap
6½ lb at 8
d.
0 4 4
3½
d.
0 1 9
Salt
6½ lb at 3¾
d.
0 2 0
3¼
d.
0 1 9
Total Tax on Labourers
6 4 7
Add the amount of No. 1
33 2 0
Total Taxes paid by the Farmer
39 6 7
No. 3.—Estimated Produce of Wheat grown on a Farm of 400 Acres, half Grass, half Arable.
Grass
200 Acres.
Beans, Spring Corn, Fallow, &c.
134 Acres.
Wheat
66 Acres.
400 Acres.
Produce of 66 Acres at 3 Quarters per Acre, 198 Quarters.
Value of 66 Acres at 3
l.
l.
740
was to he annihilated? Was that such a necessity as to induce a measure of so much injustice as the abandonment of the good faith of the country towards the public creditor? Could such a charge "run the farmer down," as his noble kinsman supposed? The remedy for the evil which the farmer endured, in his opinion, was for the proprietors of land to follow the example of the manufacturer in his conduct towards his labourers under similar circumstances, and to prevent the farmer from sinking, by making the prices of consumption come down to the prices of produce. Nothing could be done for the farmer unless the landlords met the difficulties of the times, and imitated the example of the manufacturers, when the working manufacturers were similarly distressed. At all events, he hoped that parliament would not adopt any measures inconsistent with the permanent interests of the country; that they would not, after
741
Lord Dacre
thought that the opinions entertained by the noble duke were calculated to produce greater delusion than any of the doctrines which he had reprobated, and to excite a larger measure of discontent than that which at present pervaded the country. The noble duke, like other noble lords who had spoken that night, had stated his opinion, that the distress which at present pressed upon the agricultural interest depended on temporary causes, and that the farmer might expect an increased price for his produce. He could not conceive what had led noble lords to that conclusion. It was ascertained that there was a glut of corn on the continent, and it must be admitted that it was occasioned by the non-importation of agricultural produce into this country. The noble earl opposite had alluded to the increase of the population of the country, and had stated that the increase amounted to 4,000,000 since 1801. He (Lord D.) was of opinion that the increased produce of corn was more than adequate to the increased consumption. It was necessary to consider what caused the present low price of corn. He could see no reason why the price of agricultural produce should be higher now than it was in 1791. Setting aside the variations occasioned by the greater or less quantity of the circulating medium, and increased or decreased supply, corn must always obtain the same average price. The natural price of corn must depend on the existing quantity of the circulating medium by which commodities were represented. He was not aware that there was any material difference between the quantity of the circulating medium afloat now, and that which was afloat in 1791. He found it stated on an authority which the noble earl would not feel inclined to dispute that the circulating medium in 1791 consisted of 30,000,000
l.
742
l.
743
s.
744
s.
d.
The Duke of Buckingham
said, that his calculations were not meant to apply to the general question of taxation, as it
745
The Earl of Harrowby
contended, that the existing distress was mainly owing to excessive production. In the years 1818 and 1819, no less than 2,500,000 quarters of corn were brought into the market. The harvests of the years 1819, 1820 and 1821, were beyond all proportion more productive than those of several years preceding. If their lordships added to these facts the increased importation of corn during the same period from Ireland, they would find that there was abundant reason for the present distress. But, beyond all this, another powerful cause was to be traced to the diminution which had taken place in the circulating medium of the country, owing to our return to cash payments. Enough, he trusted, had been said, and particularly by a noble duke to whom the House was so much indebted for the clear and able demonstrations which he had afforded of his propositions—enough had been said to remove that fatal delusion which had been with so much industry, propagated through the country; namely, that taxes were the cause of low prices. The contrary was the fact; although no man in his senses would attempt, on the other hand, to deny that, to a certain extent, taxation must be an aggravation of any public distress of a nature like that which was now complained of. But it was only to a certain extent, as the noble duke and other noble lords had shown; and it was by no means a sufficient cause to be adduced, in explanation of the general principles of that distress. In answer to an observation which had fallen from a noble lord, relative to the amount of country bank notes in circulation at different periods, he would state, in round numbers what that amount was in different years. In 1815 the circulation of country paper was 15,000,000
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.,
l.
746
l.
Lord Redesdale
said, he had taken the opinion of several intelligent agricultural men of his acquaintance, and the result of their information, added to that laid before parliament, seemed to be decisive of the truth of the position, that every farmer who was now afloat, on borrowed capital, or who had raised money on mortgage, even one half of his capital on the land or otherwise, must, without extraordinary assistance, be inevitably ruined. He agreed with the noble earl, that the distress of the agricultural classes arose from temporary causes, which, in the course of a short time, must cease, and then the agriculturist would find himself restored to his former level in society. He was old enough to recollect what farming was fifty years ago; the principle which was then applied to farming was, that the produce was divided by thirds; a third went to the landlord for rent, a third to the farmer, and a third to pay the expense of expense of cultivation. For the last twenty years, this system had been completely changed, and the produce was now, by skilful surveyors, divided into fifths, of which three-fifths went towards cultivation, and the remaining two-fifths were divided between the landlord and the former. He thought the situation of the farmer at present like that of the gentleman, who, being taken alarmingly ill, sent to collect various physicians to a consultation upon the nature of his disease and its remedy. During the consultation, one advised on thing, another another, and the dissention thus generated amongst themselves, became at length so boisterous, that the patient desired his servant to turn them all out of doors, and leave him to himself. The story ran, that he soon after per-
747
The motion was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, Feb. 27.
HAWKERS, PEDLARS, AND HACKNEY COACHES.
Mr. Hume
believed, that no opposition would be made to the production of the papers for which he was about to move. Although the manner of granting hackney-coach and hawkers and pedlar's licenses might in itself be considered a matter of small importance, yet he was anxious to bring the subject before the House, because it would appear that government had exhibited a great neglect of economy in the collection of that part of the revenue. In 1797, the finance committee had recommended in its report, that the two offices for licensing hackney-coaches, and hawkers and pedlars, should be abolished; and that the duties of those offices should be thenceforth performed by the commissioners of stamps. Government did not, however, as the committee advised, transfer the duties of the office for licensing hackney-coaches, and that for licensing hawkers and pedlars, to the Stamp-office; but adopted the plan of uniting the two offices; in consequence of which, the country had been saddled with an additional expense. The number of inspectors had been augmented from 10 to 29, each of whom received a salary of 100
l.
l.
l.
748
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
Mr. Lushington
said, he had no objec-
749
After a short conversation, the motion was agreed to.
ILCHESTER GAOL—MR. HUNT.
Sir R. Wilson
Presented a petition from 1,500 inhabitants of Greenock in behalf of Mr. Hunt. The petitioners considered the punishment which had been inflicted upon that gentleman as levelled at the man and not at the offence; and when they found that this sentence had been aggravated by the regulations of the magistrates of the county gaol in which he was confined, they could not forbear expressing to the House their opinion on the subject. Sir Charles Bampfylde, the late sheriff of Somersetshire, had considered the regulations in question as so harsh, with respect to Mr. Hunt, that he had suspended them: but on his going out of office they were renewed. It might be a very proper question to ask, why those regulations had been renewed, and why Mr. Hunt had been exposed to unnecessary severity? why he should be condemned to pass two years and a half of his life in a pestilential gaol, and supplied with water tainted with the most loathsome impurity? This severity was exercised too, after he had exposed the atrocities committed in that gaol, and had afforded government an opportunity of correcting them. He really thought that if ministers had either generosity or justice, they would grant Mr. Hunt an unconditional release; or, at least remove him to a prison in which his sufferings would be somewhat mitigated.
750
Mr. Warre
said, he understood that Mr. Hunt had been placed on a level with the felons of the jail. No person was allowed to see him but in the common room; and Mr. Hunt had refused to go there. The only persons allowed admission to him, except in this room, were an attorney, a surgeon, and a physician. A distinction ought to be drawn between criminals and those who were confined for political offences. The gaol of Ilchester, he believed, stood upon the bank of a river; and there was a small aperture in the wall of Mr. Hunt's cell, a little elevated above the surface of the water. It was here that his son, by taking a boat on the river, was enabled to communicate with his father through the aperture; and thus only could he obtain that communication. He (Mr. W.) wished that this were otherwise; for it was always a misfortune to a government, if a person confined for a political offence should come from his prison hailed by the people as a martyr.
Mr. Dickinson
said, he had already stated that, when he saw the rules in question, he thought they pressed too severely upon Mr. Hunt, and had mentioned the circumstance to Mr. Justice Best, who, however, returned the rules without any alteration. He feared, that as they were now signed by the judges, they became a part of the law of the prison, and could not be altered.
Mr. Hume
said, that, in his conscience, he believed the conduct of the Somerset-shire magistrates to have been unequalled. The other evening an hon. baronet had taken upon himself to say, that according to the information he had received, Mr. Hunt was not in solitary confinement. He now held in his hand an affidavit of a surgeon and of Mr. Hunt's son that no one was allowed to see him. A letter had been sent by the sheriff of the county to Mr. Hunt, stating that he believed the court had not intended to inflict solitary imprisonment upon him; and regretting that as the rules of the prison had been signed by the judges, he had not the power to relieve him. It had been said that the magistrates were not to blame. He wished any one who said this, would read the report of the commissioners appointed to examine the state of this gaol. The commissioners stated the dungeon in which Mr. Hunt was confined to be dark, damp, and unventilated, and that the water which he was compelled to drink
751
l.
l.
Sir T. Lethbridge
did not, even now, believe that Mr. Hunt was in solitary confinement. He understood it to be that sort of confinement which rendered it impossible for a prisoner to hold any communication with any person whatever. If that was the meaning of the phrase, the situation of Mr. Hunt was very dif-
752
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that from the view which he took of the case, he did not think the magistrates free from blame. If they had done their duty they would not have waited for any commission to detect and remedy such abuses. They should have attended, as was their duty, to the comforts and convenience of the prisoners, and have seen that they were properly supplied with provisions, and were not exposed to injury from cold and damp air. He had visited several gaols, and far from acquitting the visiting magistrates of this gaol, he concurred in every word that was said by the hon. member for Aberdeen. Seeing a right hon. secretary (Peel) in his place, be trusted that such steps would be taken on this subject as would let the magistrates know that the eye of the government was upon them; and that they could not with impunity be guilty of such negligence.
Mr. Bennet
said, the hon. baronet appeared to think that nothing was solitary confinement but four walls and the receiving of food through a wicket. That, however, was but a degree of solitary confinement: and if a man were told he must submit to insult, or remain within his cell, it was not too much to call that also a degree of solitary confinement. He ventured to say that, except at Ilchester, there was no prison in which a man confined for a political offence was compelled to associate with felons, or submit to solitary confinement. This, however, had been accomplished at Ilchester by the regulations of these magistrates, confirmed by the order of Mr. Justice Best. He wished for the production of these regulations, in order that it might be seen whether he was borne out in his opinion that they were the most arbitrary and
753
Mr. Dickinson
said, that the visiting magistrates had discharged both the surgeon and gaoler before the commission entered on the inquiry; and stated that all the recommendations of the commissioners, save that of building a new gaol, would be attended to.
Mr. Lennard
said, the magistrates had done nothing until the abuses in question had been brought under the notice of parliament. He fully agreed that great suspicion attached to their conduct. He could not vouch for the fact; but it had been published and not contradicted, that one of the magistrates, on occasion of the late inquiry, had been heard to say, "We must defend our gaoler." Yet this gaoler was a wretch discharged from the hulks, a defrauder of the miserable objects placed within his power, and altogether as infamous in character as he was brutal in conduct.
Ordered to lie on the table.
CIVIL OFFICES PENSION BILL.
Mr. Creevey
rose and said:
*
*
754
l.
l.
755
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
756
l.
l.
l.
l.
757
viz.
758
l.
l.
759
l.
l.
760
761
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
762
l.
videlicet,
l.
763
l.
l.
764
l.
765
l.
l.,
766
767
l.
l.
l.
768
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
769
l.
770
l.
771
Mr. Bankes
said, that after the attack which the hon. member had made upon the Finance Committee of 1817—after his having said that the proceedings of that committee were an abominable outrage—the House would perhaps be surprised to hear that that hon. member himself was a party to the principles recommended in the report of that committee; that he and his friend near him (Mr. Bennet) were as much committed by the principle of that measure as either the noble marquis or himself. In order to prove what he said as he went on, he would read a resolution which had been passed in that House on the 31st of May, 1810. A debate had arisen out of a variety of resolutions proposed in a Finance Committee, of which he (Mr. B.) was chairman, in 1808. In that committee one set of resolutions had been proposed by Mr. Henry Martin, another by the late Mr. Perceval, a third by the right hon. member fur Waterford (sir J. Newport), and a fourth by himself (Mr. Bankes). Upon the merits of these resolutions various debates had taken place, after which a resolution was passed by the House (and he believed the hon. member for Shrewsbury was teller on that occasion), declaring that it was expedient to grant to the Crown full and ample means to reward its high and efficient servants, and that in any attempts to abolish or regulate such places, a strict regard should be had to the existing interests in those offices. The hon. member had said, that he was absent from the House when the 57th of the king was passed. This was matter of regret to the country, as no doubt had the hon. member been present, they would, by his able advice and assistance, have been prevented from running into the numerous errors into which it was now said they had fallen. But, in 1810 the case was different; for it happened, that on the very day, when the resolution to which he had just alluded was passed, the hon. member and lord viscount Milton were tellers upon a division which took place early in the evening. Now, if the hon. member was a party to the measure (as he must have been if he were present and did not dissent from it), what, he would ask, had since happened to justify him in altering his opinion? Having said so much, he now came to the bill itself. His
772
l.
773
l.
l.
774
Mr. Bennet
said, the hon. gentleman had taken great pains to advocate the cause of his own child; and to demonstrate its vigour and its promising appearance; but, instead of showing that it was a strong and healthy child, he had only proved to the House, that it was one of the most ricketty bantlings that ever was produced, and should have been strangled at the moment of its birth. The hon. gentleman had said, that he (Mr. Bennet) had given his assent to the resolution of 1810; this statement was rather unfortunate, for he was not then in parliament. It was in 1812 that he came into parliament; and in 1813 the hon. gentleman produced his bill for getting rid, as it was said, of sinecure places. He had been told that he voted for those bills; and no doubt the assertion was correct. He would say further, that if any hon. gentleman were to produce a bill for their abolition, he should be again disposed to give his support to the measure. But the House might recollect, that in 1817, when that bill to which such frequent allusion had been made was passed, he did join in opposing it; because he could not give his assent to one particular part of the bill—namely, that which was now under discussion. He felt then, as he did now, that the bill was a great outrage; and if that was his feeling at the period of its being passed, he was disposed to consider it as a still greater outrage at the present time. Adverting to what had fallen from the hon. member, with regard to the recommendations of certain committees, he begged to express his opinion that if there was one thing more than another upon account of which that House had much to answer for to the country, it was the habit of granting committees for particular purposes; and, after such committees had applied themselves to the examination of the matters referred to them with the greatest assiduity and care, of treating the result of their labours with scorn and contempt—a habit of receiving reports, and of rejecting the
775
l.
l.
l.;
l.
776
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
777
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
778
779
The Marquis of Londonderry
should feel it necessary to detain the House but for a very short time; because, to a motion which had for its object the return of certain resolutions which parliament had agreed to, he could feel no objection. With respect to the speech of the hon. mover, and still more to the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, he must be allowed to say a few words. And he could not help acknowledging on this occasion, the extreme gallantry with which the hon. gentleman who spoke last, had come forward in aid of the hon.
780
781
782
Mr. Creevey
rose to reply, and said, that he could not be persuaded by the noble marquis that his motion was ill-timed. On the contrary, he felt it was a motion which the House ought to entertain. He had been accused of having
783
Sir R. Heron
said, he had, at the time of its being proposed, protested almost alone against this bill, and had declared that under the operation of it, the people would again call for sinecure places, as the least of two evils.
The motion was then agreed to.
NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the order of
784
Mr. Hume
said, he was extremely anxious to obtain the attention of the House for a very short time, as he was placed in rather a novel situation by what had passed on a former day. He had been accustomed to bring forward statements founded on the official documents presented to the House, and, as far as in him lay, to produce only such statements as those documents warranted. He was so unfortunate, when last the House was in a committee of supply, as to have had several of his statements contradicted by the hon. secretary for the Admiralty, and contradicted in a manner as decisive as could possibly be assumed. The hon. secretary had then stated, that he was reading from the estimates that which he (Mr. Hume) would prove he could not have read from the estimates; namely, statements of the amount of various charges. In the first instance, however, he called on gentlemen to mark the situation in which he and other members of that House were placed. He did not boast of being able to make fine speeches like the hon. secretary. It was not his practice to deal in sarcasm and ridicule. He knew his situation too well to pursue any such system. If he acted otherwise, he should receive that reproof from the House which such conduct deserved. He always came forward with such facts and statements as he was enabled to collect from documents laid before the House; and he expected that any person who attempted to answer him would do it in candour and fairness, and not as the hon. secretary had done. He was free to say, that if they did not meet each other on matters of fact, he should be no match for the hon. secretary; who had a power within the House, and a power without the House, which he (Mr. Hume) did not possess. The hon. secretary had an intimate connexion with ministers, and all the details of office were open to him: it was, therefore, unpardonable in him to err. But if he (Mr. Hume) made a mistake in any of the details, it was only what any member placed in his situation was liable to. Now, though he might not be able to distinguish wood from stone, or ships from barracks, he trusted that he had discernment enough to distinguish facts from fallacies [Hear.] That was all he claimed. He could not enter into that high-flown mode of speech in
785
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
786
l.
787
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
*
l.
l.
*
788
l.
l.
Mr. Croker
said, he had no doubt the hon. member was sincere in the statement which he made on a former night, for otherwise, he certainly would not have revived the discussion to-night. He would pledge himself again to prove to the satisfaction of the House, that the hon. gentleman had only got deeper into the mire. In all the statements he had made to-night he was either inaccurate in point of amount, or when accurate in the amount, he had mistaken the meaning which ought to be affixed to them. He would begin by clearing away one or two observations which related to himself. The hon. member seemed to imply that he (Mr. Croker) had taken the statement which he made in reply to him, from some private documents. Now, he could assure the hon. member, that he had no such private documents, and that his triumph, which the hon. member himself admitted, was not owing to any manuscript papers, but to the printed statements on the table of that House. The hon. member had also stated, that in the "Courier," his own speech was copied from "The Morning Chronicle," whereas his (Mr. C's.) speech appeared to be corrected by some mysterious and invisible hand. Who had been so good as to correct his speech, he did not know; but he could inform the hon. gentleman, that he had never corrected the publication of any speech of his own, except that on the inquiry into the conduct of the duke of York, and another on the Catholic question, and that he had never written one word for any newspaper for upwards of two yeah past. The hon. gentleman appeared to have deemed his (Mr. Croker's) speech of sufficient importance to make it
789
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
790
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
791
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
792
l.
l.
l.
793
Mr. Bernal
said, he could not compliment the hon. secretary on pursuing a straight forward path, in the course of his observations on the statements of his hon. friend. He had paid the utmost attention to what had fallen from his hon. friend, and certainly he did not bear him state the 17,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
794
Sir H. Parnell
said, that his hon. friend's statements were not only supported by the recollection of gentlemen who heard him on Friday, but were confirmed by an appeal to the Parliamentary Debates of last June, where the same accounts and the same tables were given. It was there stated that 5,300,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Ricardo
said, he had felt great alarm, at first, when he heard the difference of 671,000
l.
l.
Sir G. Clerk
said, he must contend that the hon. member, in stating the estimate for 1817, had made it 5,300,000
l.
l.
Mr. Brougham
said, that on a subject so important to his hon friend, he wished to make a few observations. In the first place, as to what had passed on Friday last he was not in the House at the time when his hon. friend had made the statement. Having been absent at that period, he could not bear testimony, of his own knowledge to the fact; but it appeared evident to him that his hon. friend's accuracy was completely established. He was led to that opinion partly by the confidence which he felt in the accuracy of his hon. friend. He was further confirmed in the opinion by the testimony of his hon. friends who had just delivered their sentiments, as well as by the candid admission of the hon. secretary himself. What the hon. secretary now contended for was, that his hon. friend had gone wrong to the amount of 11,000,000
l.
795
l.
l.
l.
796
l.
797
propria marte,
798
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the hon. and learned gentleman must have conceived the hon. member for Aberdeen in great danger to have been induced to enter into such a defence. His hon. friend, the secretary of the Admiralty, he was sure would view him with great compassion, when he found that he had so disabled him as to render necessary the aid of the hon. and learned gentleman who had undertaken his cause. The hon. secretary had, indeed, thrown great dismay and alarm into the enemy's camp—he had set all Brooks's in an uproar, and they had found it necessary to send down the hon. and learned gentleman, who had spent much gunpowder in the defence. Terror seemed to reign among them since the hon. secretary had overthrown the calculations of their champion. He did, not precisely see the cause for the alarm which the friends of the hon. gentleman entertained. They seemed to consider that he never could show his face again—that he would no more receive the freedom of boroughs or cities, and that he must surrender all his cider and golden snuffboxes, if he was not proved to be right in his late calculations, and placed on his legs, after the hon. secretary had thrown him on his back. But his friends did not seem to see that if they established his figures, it was at the expense of his argument. His reasoning and calculations were opposed to each other; and his friends must take the option of admitting that he could not conduct a common argument to any intelligible conclusion, or form a common calculation with any tolerable correctness. Let the gentlemen opposite, then, take which of the two characters they choose for their hon. friend—either that of a calculator or a logician; but they could not have both. To show that he was now accurate in his figures, his friends resorted to a speech made two or three years ago. His hon.
799
l.
l.
Mr. W. Smith
recollected that when the hon. member for Aberdeen first began that course of conduct which he had pursued with so much success, every possible attempt, short of absolute insult, was made, to deter him from proceeding. Sarcasm and imputation of every sort were directed against him. He was described to be a person who knew nothing about official matters, and was not to be trusted on a point of calculation. Before the end of the session, however, those very individuals who had treated the hon. member in this manner came to him cap in hand, and proffered him every assistance in furtherance of his designs. What was the cause of this change of sentiment with regard to the hon. member? It was, that the country had decided the question in his favour. In every quarter of the kingdom the services of the hon. member had been acknowledged to be most meritorious. The hon. member was, in his opinion, the encyclopædia of finance—[a laugh.]—Before the conclusion of the present session, the opposition which his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, experienced would die away, and those gentlemen who now endeavoured to throw obstacles in his way would be willing to aid his exertions.
The House then divided: for Mr. Hume's Amendment, 78; Against it, 129.
800
List of the Minority.
Althorp, viscount
Maberly, W. L.
Bernard, visct.
Marjoribanks, S.
Barrett, S. M.
Macdonald, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Martin, J.
Benyon, Benjamin
Normanby, visct.
Bernal, R.
Newman, W.
Birch, Joseph
Nugent, lord
Brougham, Henry
O'Callaghan, J.
Bright, H.
Parnell, sir H.
Bury, visct.
Palmer, C. F.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Pares, T.
Calvert, C.
Powlett, hon. W.
Calcraft, J.
Price, Robert
Cavendish, lord G.
Pym, F.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Ricardo, D.
Colborne, N. R.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Concannon, Lucius
Robarts, A. W.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Robarts, col. G.
Creevey, Thos.
Robinson, sir G.
Davies, T. H.
Rumbold, Ch.
Denison, W. J.
Rice, T. S.
Duncannon, visct.
Stanley, lord
Dundas, hon. T.
Sefton, earl of
Ebrington, visct.
Scott, James
Ellice, Ed.
Sykes, D.
Fergusson, sir R.
Stuart, lord J.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Taylor, M. A.
Guise, sir W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Graham, S.
Tennyson, C.
Honywood, W. P.
Townshend, lord C.
Haldimand, W.
Webb, Ed.
Hill, lord A.
Whitbread, S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilkins, W.
James, W.
Williams, W.
Johnson, col.
Wilson, sir Robert
Jervoise, G. P.
Wyvill, M.
Leycester, R.
Whitmore, W. W.
Lambton, J. G.
TELLERS.
Lennard, T. B.
Hume, Joseph
Lloyd, sir E:
Smith, W.
Maberly, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 28.
SCOTCH BURGHS.
The Lord Advocate
rose for leave to bring in a bill founded on certain reports on the table of the House, as to the state of the Royal Burghs. A difference of opinion, he knew, prevailed as to the remedies most adequate to meet the abuses specified in these reports. A great object would be gained by securing the fullest publicity, and compelling the residence of the magistrates; and, he would therefore move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, for regulating the mode of accounting for the common good, and revenues of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, and to prevent the non-residence of magistrates
801
Lord A. Hamilton
expressed his astonishment, that after the labours of three committees, and the full detail of multiplied abuses which their reports exhibited, a lord advocate should, in bringing such a subject before parliament, limit himself merely to a simple motion for leave to bring in a bill. He had expected, that when the learned lord refused to allow him to originate a remedial measure, it was his intention to take a full view of the-question, and put the House in possession of flint view. What was his surprise to find him, after all that expectation, merely making, a motion of course? Was it to be endured, after so much investigation and labour, that such a bill should be proposed for a remedy to grievances so numerous and complicated? He must be allowed to tell the learned lord, that in proposing a measure so inadequate, he had both neglected his own duty, and prevented other members from discharging theirs. He was extremely sorry that the whole system of abuse that pervaded the burghs of Scotland was so little understood in that House. Sure he was, that if they existed in England, and if English members had themselves such a case as he felt he could make out for Scotland, these intolerable grievances would be at once redressed.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS—ComPLAINT OF AN OUTRAGE ON MR. SHERIFF WAITHMAN.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, he rose to submit a motion to that House, founded on a petition which he had the honour to present on the 8th instant from the corporation of London (see p. 159.) In the observations which he had to make preparatory to his motion, he should confine himself strictly to facts, and the merits of the case, as grounded solely upon them. The petition related to the occurrences which had taken place at Knightsbridge, and the attack on Mr. Sheriff Waithman, on the 26th of last August, and was founded on a report drawn up by a committee of the common council, who had taken evidence on the subject, and given it a patient and impartial investigation. The committee was not one selected from any particular class of persons; but was a committee of general purposes, and consisted of persons of different political opinions, some of whom
802
803
804
805
Sir W. Curtis
rose to second the motion. He also was anxious that the petition should be considered by a committee, but for reasons different from those urged by his hon. colleague. In the first place, he would say, that the sheriff had no authority to act on the occasion in question, and it would have been much better for him to have remained at home. [Hear.] The office of sheriff of Middlesex, was vested in the two gentlemen who were chosen sheriffs of London, and the authority could not be exercised by one alone. Mr. Sheriff Waithman himself, was not therefore, justified in acting by himself. He was anxious that a committee should investigate this question; but it was because he wished to let the world know the real character of this great common council, who were always meddling with matters with which they had nothing to do, and which were far above their wisdom and energy. [Hear.] It was from such
806
Colonel Lygon
said, that he had witnessed the transactions of the 26th of August, and had attended to the complaint made in the petition. He would, therefore, in the few words he had to offer, confine himself entirely to the statements there made. Knowing that such a procession was to pass by the barracks on that day, he had, on dismissing the parade in the morning, given orders that the gates should be closed, and that the men should keep within the barracks, and not
807
808
The House was about to divide, when, after a pause of some seconds,
Mr. Hobhouse
rose. He stated, that after the plain and sensible address which had been just delivered by the gallant colonel, he should be one of the last persons in the world, who would attempt to remove any part of the impression which he had made, if he were not imperatively called upon, by some things which had been said by him and the seconder of the motion; but he was more particularly called upon to make a few remarks, on account of the transaction having taken place in a part of the precincts of the city which he had the honour to represent. He would be unworthy of the place he held, if he were not ready to offer to the House such observations as the merits of the case required, in regard to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, and the gallant Colonel. It did appear to him, that on no occasion did the House shew any reluctance, or feel any difficulty, in entering upon inquiry, when the demand came from his majesty's ministers. In the instance of Manchester, the government, on anonymous evidence, got a select committee appointed, and on that anonymous evidence, enacted laws which abridged the liberties of the subject. On repeated occasions, when the public functionaries demanded inquiry on any evidence whatever, the demand had never been resisted, and surely they-could not, as members
809
810
811
ex-offcio,
posse comitatus,
posse comitatus,
812
813
814
esprit du corps.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that in the vote which he intended to give that night, and it the view which he intended to take of the
815
816
817
to
return
818
819
820
821
822
Mr. Denman
contrasted the conciliatory tone adopted by the right hon. secretary with that of a worthy alderman who had spoken previously in the debate. Astonished, indeed, he was at the conduct of the worthy alderman, who had attacked, in the most unprecedented way, the corporate body to which he himself belonged. Surely if the worthy alderman did not approve of the course which the committee of his corporation were pursuing in this investigation, he ought to have attended and interposed during their proceedings. But that he, a member of their body, should have abstained from interfering when he could have interfered with effect, and afterwards come down to that House to. deride the proceedings of his own corporation, to throw dirt, as it were upon the report of those who sent him here; was a good reason why his constituents should not give him another opportunity to impeach their character, and was to merit something like indignation for such a line of conduct. With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. secretary, he could not help observing, as a singular fact, that although the right hon. gentleman professed to found his observations upon the evidence taken in London, he nevertheless constantly referred to other evidence which appeared to have been taken before lord Bathurst; and alluded to the rushing out of a few soldiers from their barracks, in consequence of a rumour of a supposed outrage upon some of their body outside. Was that fact to be found in the evidence
823
prima facie
824
825
826
827
828
Mr. Peel
explained. The hon. and
829
Mr. Denman
understood that the right hon. gentleman had founded all his opinions upon the evidence.
Mr. Peel.
All my arguments, not my opinions.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that he differed entirely with the hon. and learned gentleman, who had declared that the conduct of Mr. Sheriff Waithman before the coroner had nothing to do with the present case. Now, he thought quite the reverse, and that nothing could be more proper than to look at the sheriff's conduct upon the inquest, which was certainly most improper, if not illegal. Was it proper that the same person, who had just before been acting the part of a public prosecutor of the life guards, should voluntarily tender his interposition to the same life guards, as a mediator to keep the peace between them and their aggressors? He would not go so far as to say with the hon. alderman, that one of the sheriffs of London was only half of the sheriff of Middlesex, but he would say, that Mr. Sheriff Waithman was exactly the half that should not have been at Knightsbridge on this particular occasion. The hon. gentleman then, with reference to Mr. Waithman's conduct at the inquest, quoted Blackstone's observation, that it had been determined by the great charter, that the sheriff should not hold pleas of the Crown, for it was he who summoned the jury, and who had to execute the law. If the law, then, prevented such an officer, on account of his functions, from being a judge,
a fortiori,
830
posse comitatus.
ex parte
Mr. Bennet
rose, he said, principally with a view to defend the conduct of his hon. friend, Mr. Sheriff Waithman, from the aspersions so unjustly cast upon it by the hon. gentleman who had just sat
831
832
833
834
Mr. W. Lamb
said, that he could not support the motion, because, when he saw the limited means of investigation which the House possessed, he was always exceedingly reluctant to go into parliamentary inquiry. The hon. member for Westminster had said, that the House was always ready to go into the inquiries proposed by ministers, but to reject such as were suggested from the other side. Now, it was unfair that such a statement should be made without acknowledging the fact, that the inquiries proposed by the government were generally of an entirely different nature from those which were recommended from other quarters, and more suited to the means of investigation which the House possessed. It had lately been a practice to deprecate any assertion that there were evil-minded persons in the country who aimed to disturb its peace. On the first day of the session, the hon. member who so ably seconded the address, was rebuked for making some observations of that nature. Now, he would ask, what were the motives of the persons who got up the funeral of the men which led to the disturbances at Knightsbridge, and who paid the expenses and took the management of the procession? What possible motive could they have had, but that of adding to the excitation of the people, and taking advantage of the acts which they night thereby induce them to commit. There was one word which he was sorry to hear very often abused in that House. Upon the present occasion the hon. member for Westminster and the learned member for Nottingham had spoken of he persons engaged in these proceedings
835
Mr. Hobhouse
explained. He considered that, through the lord mayor and common councilmen of London the people were the petitioners; and that, in the person of their high sheriff, the people had been insulted.
Mr. Butterworth
thought it was not until they were obliged to protect their own lives, that the soldiers had interfered; and that Mr. Waithman, as sheriff of the county, had acted in a manner highly criminal in not interposing his authority at Cumberland-gate on the day of the queen's funeral. On the occasion of the queen's funeral, Mr. Waithman's brother sheriff wrote to him, to ask whether it was his intention to attend it on the day appointed. Mr. Waithman returned no definitive answer to Mr. Sheriff Williams, until a period so immediately preceding the, funeral, that he knew his letter could not reach the sheriff
836
Mr. Hume
said, that the hon. member for Dover protested against inquiry, and yet commenced his speech by a general attack upon almost every body concerned in this transaction, in the spirit (perhaps the House would be told) of Christian charity. But his appealing in the solemn manner he had just done, was an insult to religion. The sacred cause of religion vas profaned by men, who with that word in their mouths, had any thing but religion in their hearts. He rose to express his abhorrence of such conduct. With regard to the panegyrics which the hon. gentleman had lavished on the soldiers, it was the opinion of those who had witnessed the transactions of the day, that what took place at Knightsbridge was not to be connected with any thing that had occurred at Hammersmith. The time would shortly come, when the occurrences at Cumberland-gate must be made matter of discussion. But it was most unfair to mix up two transactions in the way the hon. gentleman had done; one of them had nothing to do with the other, and it was, on the hon. gentleman's part, only an attempt to throw dirt into the eyes of the House. As to the letter which the hon. gentleman had read, whether it was or was not a true letter, of this he could assure the House, that the worthy alderman did, in fact, attend the queen's funeral, but only as a private man. He appealed to the House whether, if a great corporation came forward to lay their complaints before parliament, it was not just and expedient that inquiry should take place. The appeal which had been made by the hon. member for Dover possessed any thing but justice in its principle.
837
Mr. Alderman Wood
rose to reply. He was not a little surprised to find the hon. baronet make so unqualified an attack upon the corporation of London; nor was he less surprised to find his majesty's ministers treat the corporation with so much disregard. It was not long since those ministers had dined with the corporation; and on one occasion a gallant general had been entertained by them at an expense of not less than 25,000
l.
The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 184.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Leonard, T. B.
Brougham, H.
Martin, J.
Benyon, B.
Maberly, J.
Barrett, S. M.
Ossulston, lord
Bernal, R.
Ord, W.
Beaumont, T. P.
Osborne, lord F.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Phillips, G.
Concannon, L.
Phillips, G. R.
Curtis, sir W
Pares, T.
Chaloner, R.
Price, R.
Carter, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Denman, T.
Ricardo, D.
Davies, T. H.
Smith, J.
Duncannon, visc.
Smith, W.
Dundas, hon. T.
Smith, C.
Ebrington, visc
Sefton, lord
Folkestone, visc.
Scott, J.
Guise, sir W.
Scudamore, R.
Graham, S.
Thompson, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Tennyson, C.
Hume, J.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.
Honeywood, W. P.
Whitbread, W. H.
Howard, hon. W.
Wyvill, M.
James, W.
Williams, W.
Lambton, J. G.
Williams, T. P.
Leycester, R.
Webbe, E.
Lushington, S.
TELLERS.
Lemon, sir W.
Bennet, hon. G.
Lloyd, sir E.
Wood, ald.
SALT TAX.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that after the discussion which had so long
838
s.
839
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
840
l.
l.,
841
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l,
l.
842
d.
d.
843
gabelle
Mr. Davenport
entirely agreed in every proposition which fell from the hon. mover, who had done himself great credit in bringing the question before the House so clearly and explicitly. He had ensured the respect of the country gentlemen, the thanks of the farmer, and the ardent blessings of the poor by his exertions. This tax was of so oppressive a nature, that it ought to be at least abated, if not altogether repealed. At the lowest calculation, it took from the poor man 4
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.
l.
844
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the hon. gentleman who brought this subject before the House had certainly done so with much candor and temper. He was sorry, however, that he could not support his motion. It would give much satisfaction to ministers, if they could, consistently with the real interest of the country, agree to a greater remission of taxes; but, after what parliament had already done on this point, he certainly thought it necessary to withstand any farther reduction. The hon. member had spoken of the sinking fund in very candid terms, and had stated, that the subtraction of 300,000
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
845
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
gabelle
846
Lord Normanby
said, that on the immediate subject under discussion, he would not offer any remarks, as they were rendered superfluous by the able speeches of the hon. mover and seconder. With respect to the allusion that had been made to sir R. Walpole, he would make one observation. As far as his recollection served him, sir Robert moved the renewal of the salt-tax on grounds very different from those which had been stated. He moved for its renewal as a relief to the landed interest of the country, in lieu of a shilling a pound, which was taken from the land-tax duty. The land-tax weighed so heavily on the country gentlemen, that they began to neglect those ancient hospitalities which sir Robert thought it was necessary, for the honour of the national character, to keep up, and therefore he sanctioned this boon. But sir W. Wyndham, Mr. Pulteney, and all those who opposed the bill, argued that its operation would be severely felt by all classes. It was a question mooted when sir Robert was in the plenitude of his power, and he was backed by the whole landed interest of the country; and yet, in a house, consisting of 400 members, he carried his point by a majority of about 30. This proved how the measure was received at, that period. They had heard much, and too truly, of the increasing influence of the Crown in that House. The fact was sufficiently proved by the manner, in which obnoxious measures were carried,
847
nominis umbra
Mr. Leycester
described the tax as a grievous burthen on the country at large. The relief granted to the agricultural interest by the reduction of the malt duty was, he contended, quite disproportionate to the distress under which it laboured. He was no friend to such temporary expedients; and be therefore called on the country gentlemen to demand such effectual measures as would rescue the land-owner, the yeoman, and the farmer, from impending ruin.
Sir I. Coffin
said, it was not just that the poor man in this country should pay 18
s.
s.
Dr. Phillimore
concurred with the hon. mover in his general objections to the tax. The tax was objectionable in principle, because it pressed upon the lower orders of the community, and because it pressed upon the landlord, by reducing his rent, and increasing his general expenditure. In spite of the drawbacks, it also pressed most severely upon the fisheries. For these reasons, in all the discussions which had taken place on this subject, he had felt that nothing short of
848
l.
Mr. Curwen
said, the chancellor of the exchequer had misunderstood his hon. friend, who had said that 20
s.
849
l.
l.
s,
s.
l.
l.
850
Mr. J. Smith
concurred, that the tax on salt would be repealed with much greater benefit to the country than the tax on malt. While he agreed that every practicable reduction of taxation was most desirable, he felt also that the interests of the agriculturist, as well as the general interests of the country, were involved in the maintenance of the public credit. Having stated this opinion, he hoped he should not appear to be guilty of inconsistency, when he declared that be most earnestly desired to see this odious and mischievous tax abolished. The great nourishment of the poor was derived principally from salted provisions. Salt, cheese, and bacon, formed the chief sustenance both of the agricultural and manufacturing classes; and he contended, therefore, that the tax pressed more heavily upon the poor than upon the higher classes. He was aware that the opinions of the majorities in that House were, for the most part, opposed to the opinions of the people, and that ministers appeared to disregard and despise the general opinions and feelings of the people. He could not refrain from observing, however, that no measure could so effectually give popularity to the government, and restore to them the good-will of the people, as the total repeal of this odious tax.
Mr. Handley
opposed the motion. Notwithstanding the wild speculations which had been propagated, he could not think taxation the cause of, nor parliamentary reform the remedy for, the distress which existed. He was thoroughly convinced, that the distress was almost solely and exclusively to be ascribed to excessive production.
General Gascoyne
observed, that at the period when this tax was increased to its present amount, Mr. Pitt had said, that it was not intended to be permanent. It was now contended, that it was more desirable at present to repeal the malt-tax, than to afford any relief upon this. The chancellor of the exchequer took great credit to himself, for the repeal of the annual malt duty, and seemed to consider it as sufficient to satisfy the demands of the country. The tax on salt, however, appeared to him a fitter subject for reduction; and as the bill for the repeal of the malt duty was not yet introduced, be would recommend a substitution of the one for the other. He was much surprised at the speech of the learned civilian on the ministerial bench. On several
851
Sir F. Ommaney
said, he would vote for the repeal of all taxes that peculiarly affected the poor. The ground on which the motion was resisted was, that it would diminish the surplus set apart for a sinking fund to support public credit. He did not see the matter in that light. Reductions might be made in the expenditure, to compensate for the repeal of the salt-tax.
Sir J. Sebright
would not only vote for the repeal of the salt tax, but of other taxes. The repeal of taxes would not necessarily reduce the surplus for a sinking fund until all the means of economy in the public expenditure were exhausted. Retrenchment, admitting of a reduction of taxes, should immediately be adopted; for if ministers did not begin retrenchments now, they must come to them at last. The agriculture of the country was suffering from excessive taxation, and the whole community was interested in seeing that agriculture was not crushed. The public revenue could not be kept up at its present rate, it the landed interest declined. He had inquired much into the present state of the country, and it was his opinion, that the average land of England, under the pressure of existing taxes, would soon not only yield no rent, but not be left in cultivation. In this state of things, when the demand for diminished taxation was so general and well-founded, ministers seemed to think that the repeal of one shilling on the bushel of malt, was sufficient to satisfy it. He considered this trifling reduction as an insult, when mentioned under the title of relief. He had heard much of the distress of agriculture out of parliament,
852
Mr. Littleton
thought the tax grievous and impolitic; but considering the resolution) which the House had lately adopted, to support public credit by a sinking fund of 5,000,000
l.,
Mr. Egerton
thought the tax so unequal in its operations, and so oppressive to the lower orders, that he would vote for the motion.
Mr. Bright
was of opinion, that the only chance of immediate relief consisted in the diminution of the vast pressure of taxation. He agreed, that a sinking fund ought to be kept up, but thought the chancellor of the exchequer had overrated the amount that would be necessary. When he saw a sinking fund to a much smaller amount, sufficient to support the public credit to such a degree, as to enable the chancellor of the exchequer to make an unparalleled change in the five per cents without diminishing the confidence reposed in government, be could not help thinking that the increase was unnecessary. They might, he thought, strike out of the estimates many sinecures, many useless offices, many boards, and lords of the admiralty. He would call upon the gentlemen of England to perform this duty to the public; and, with respect to the repeal of taxes, there was none, that, in his opinion, would be likely to afford more general relief than that which formed the subject of consideration.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
observed, that it was the duty of the House to adhere to a consistent policy, and not lightly to change its resolutions. The proposition now made, called upon them, in the face of one of the greatest financial operations ever attempted, to pass a vote that might defeat or prevent its effect. Many future opportunities would present themselves of effecting retrenchment wherever it was practicable: but they ought not, whilst a great measure of finance was yet in progress, to cut off part of that income
853
Mr. Gipps
said, he was not now actuated by any desire of popularity, but he conceived that the tax ought to be repealed, and that the deficiency might be easily supplied by reductions in the expenditure.
Sir C. Burrell
thought, that, considering all the elements of the question, the repeal of the tax on salt would operate more relief to the agriculturists, and to the country generally, than the reduction of the duty on malt.
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, allowed, that the tax was generally oppressive. Could they not, then, endeavour to save as much out of the expenditure, as would enable them to abolish it at once? Gentlemen, while they admitted the hardships of the tax, had proposed delay in the repeal of it; but they would do well to remember the adage—"While the grass grows the steed starves." This tax pressed heavily upon all classes of the country; and, therefore, the country would be substantially relieved by its repeal, which would not be the case with the trifling reduction of one shilling a bushel upon malt.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he would not disguise, that he felt extreme anxiety for the arrival of that moment, when the state of public credit would permit ministers, or point it out to them as their duty, to remove a considerable part of the existing taxes. The hon. member for Nottingham had reminded them of the popularity they might acquire, by the affirmative of this question. He hoped he was duly sensible of the value of I popularity, but he should be unworthy of the situation which he held in his majesty's
854
855
l.,
l.,
l.
pro tanto
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that his majesty's ministers were not, he feared, sufficiently apprized of the existing distress. For his own part, the speech from the throne had raised a suspicion in his mind, that it was not intended to grant that relief, without which he trembled fur the
856
857
Mr. J. Marlin
said, be should support the motion on the principle of economy, believing that it would not interfere with his firmer vote.
Sir E. Knatchbull
felt persuaded that the country gentlemen would discharge their duty, unawed by any intimidation or threats from one side of the House, and uninfluenced by any seductions of power or authority from the other. If, on a former night, he had given by his vote a distinct pledge to sustain, under all circumstances, a sinking fund to the precise amount of five millions, he most certainly would not vote for the repeal of the tax on salt; but, feeling that he made no such pledge—considering that his vote only went to the extent of viewing a sinking fund as a benefit, he should support the motion. He did not believe that the sinking fund would be endangered, if the House should resolve to repeal the tax upon salt; for ministers could effect further retrenchments to meet their diminished income.
Mr. T. Wilson
thought the principle of the motion good, but that the motion itself was far from wise at that moment.
Mr. Brougham
said, that if any man had heard all the speeches of the members who had that night addressed the House, with the exception of the concluding sentence of some of them and the whole of the speech of the noble marquis, that auditor must have concluded, that there never was a more unanimous and harmonious assembly, or one in which there was less likely to be a difference in
858
seriatim,
859
Mr. Secretary Peel
protested against the doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman. He implored the House to reflect on the situation in which it had so honourably placed itself by the resolution of 1819, and instead of rescinding that vote, he trusted they would re-affirm it by their decision of that night. Did any man doubt the construction that was put by the country on their vote a few nights back? Were not the holders of five per cent stock at that moment engaged in a negociation beneficial to the public interest, on the guarantee which that vote gave to the public creditor? He was, on grounds wholly distinct from any considerations of revenue, opposed to any pledge from parliament, as to any gradual repeal of taxation. Such a pledge always operated prejudicially to the in-
860
Mr. Moberly
rose, to correct the statement of the right hon. secretary, who had said, there was no possibility of retrenchment out of a revenue of 17 millions. Now, the saving was not to take place out of 17 millions, but out of 25 millions. The right hon. gentleman had asked, would they reduce the army? Would they reduce the navy? and so on. He would say, no! But out of the expense of collecting the revenue, there might be a saving, which would more than cover the whole of this tax.
After a short reply from Mr. Calcraft the House divided. For Mr. Calcraft's motion 165. Against it 169. Majority against the motion 4
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Beaumont, T. W.
Allen, J. H.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Althorp, visc.
Baring, sir T.
Acland, sir T. D.
Barnard, visc.
Astley, sir J. D.
Barrett, S. M.
861
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hume, Joseph
Benyon, B.
Hurst, R.
Bernal, R.
Heber, R.
Birch, J.
James, W.
Brougham, H.
Johnson, col.
Bright, H.
Jervoise, G. P.
Bury, visc.
Jones, John
Baillie, John
Knatchbull, sir E.
Boughey, sir J. F.
King, sir J. D.
Bentinck, lord W.
Keck, G. A. L.
Bastard, E.
Lambton, J. G.
Bastard, J. P.
Lemon, sir W.
Butterworth, J.
Lennard, T. B.
Burrell, sir C.
Lloyd, sir E.
Burrell, W.
Leycester, R.
Boughton, sir C. R.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Buxton, J. J.
Luttrell, H. F.
Benett, John
Luttrell, J. F.
Chaloner, R.
Lawley, F.
Carter, J.
Maberly, John
Cavendish, lord G.
Maberly, W. L.
Cavendish, H.
Macdonald, J.
Cavendish, C.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Martin, J.
Clifton, visc.
Maxwell, J.
Coffin, sir I.
Musgrove, sir P.
Colborne, R.
Marjoribanks, S.
Concannon, L.
Normanby, visct.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Neville, hon. R.
Crompton, S.
Newman, R.
Curwen, J. C.
Nugent, lord
Creevey, T.
O'Callaghan, J.
Chetwynd, G.
Ord, W.
Curteis, J. E.
Osborne, lord F.
Cole, sir C.
Ossulston, lord
Chandos, marq.
Owen, sir John
Corbett, P.
Ommanney, sir F. M.
Calvert, N.
Palmer, C. F.
Calvert, C.
Palmer, col.
Davies, T. H.
Pares, Thos.
Denison, W. J.
Phillips, G. R.
Denman, T.
Powlett, hon. W.
Dundas, hon. T.
Price, Robt.
Davenport, D.
Proby, hon. G. L.
Dickinson, W.
Pym, F.
Deerhurst, lord
Plummer, John
Ebrington, visct.
Ramsden, J. C.
Ellice, E.
Ricardo, D.
Egerton, W.
Rickford, W.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Robarts, A.
Folkestone, visc.
Roberts, Geo.
Frankland, R.
Robinson, sir G.
Fane, John
Rumbold, C.
Fleming, John
Russell, lord John
Graham, S.
Rice, T. S.
Guise, sir W.
Rogers, Edw.
Gipps, G.
Smith, hon. R.
Gascoyne, gen.
Smith, J.
Haldimand, W.
Smith, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Smith, G.
heron, sir R.
Smith, Robt.
Hill, lord A.
Scarlett, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Scudamore, R.
Honywood, W. P.
Sefton, earl of
Howard, hon. W.
Scott, John
Hughes, W. L.
Sebright, sir J.
862
Stewart, W.
Wilkins, W.
Scourfield, W. H.
Williams, T. P.
Stuart, lord J.
Williams, W.
Shelley, sir John
Wilson, sir R.
Sykes, D.
Winnington, sir T.
Taylor, M. A.
Wood, M.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Wyvill, M.
Tulk, C. A.
Wells, John
Thompson, W.
Whitmore, W. W.
Tennyson, C.
TELLERS.
Townshend, lord C.
Calcraft, John
Warre, J. A.
Duncannon, visc.
Webbe, Edw.
PAIRED OFF.
Whitbread, W. H.
Anson, G.
Whitbread, S. C.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, March 1.
ILCHESTER GAOL—TREATMENT OF MR. HUNT.—
Mr. Hobhouse
said he held in his hand a petition, signed by upwards of 5,000 persons living in the town of Blackburn, in Lancashire, complaining of the hard treatment to which Mr. Hunt was subjected in Ilchester gaol, and praying that the House would address the king to commute the sentence of Mr. Hunt, or at least to rescind the resolution adopted at the last quarter sessions for the county of Somerset, in consequence of which Mr. Hunt was now so severely treated. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to express his disapprobation of the manner in which Mr. Hunt had been treated during his confinement, and particularly censured the resolution which had been adopted at the last quarter sessions for Somersetshire for the regulation of Ilchester gaol. He eulogized the conduct of the commissioners, and dwelt at length upon a variety of details, which have already appeared before the public. He called upon the House to look at the total absence of control in the prison. The gaoler was not checked by the surgeon, the surgeon by the coroner, nor the coroner by the magistrates. Let them remember the abuses and cruelties proved: Hillyer loaded with irons, and beheld, so loaded, without interference by the magistrates; and Mary Cuer, with her new-born child, exposed to cold and hunger. Let members advert to the badness of the bread, and to the impurity of the water—to the absence of air and sunshine, and to the presence of instruments of torture unparalleled but by those brought over in the Spanish armada. Mr. Hunt's imprisonment was an evil as regarded himself, but it had been the source of incalculable advantage to the commu-
863
Mr. Dickinson
assured the House that there was every disposition on the part of the magistrates of Somersetshire to carry amelioration as to gaol discipline into effect.
Mr. Bernal
said, that by the 31st Geo. 3rd, the county magistrates had power, in cases of necessity, to revise and alter rules laid down by judges of session. Such power might be beneficially exercised in the present case.
Mr. W. Smith
knew nothing at all of Mr. Hunt; but believed that, as far as Ilchester gaol was concerned, he had been the means of producing very considerable good. The House had been told that prisoners aggrieved had the power of complaining to visiting magistrates; but the report of the commissioners proved such power to be insufficient; for it declared, that the regulations of the visiting magistrates themselves had been of a contradictory and irritating tendency.
Sir R. Wilson
thought the visiting magistrates deserved blame for not having exercised a more strict vigilance over the conduct of the gaoler. The manner in which they allowed one of the prisoners to remain with iron handcuffs round his wrists, which weighed ten pounds and a half, could not be too much reprobated. Such was the terror which the oppression of his keepers inspired, that when this unfortunate prisoner was brought before the commissioners, he never ventured to complain.
Mr. P. Moore
did not know Mr. Hunt; but he knew that he was a British subject, that he had been barbarously treated, and was entitled to the protection of that House. He hoped every man would feel that Mr. Hunt's case might one day be his own, and take it up accordingly. If ministers did not interfere in behalf of those who were thus oppressed, they would not do their duty.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SINKING FUND.
Mr. Bankes
moved for accounts of the capital stock redeemed, of the public debt, with a calculation of the effect that would be produced on the principal of the debt in the course of
864
l.
Mr. Grenfell
wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether it was his intention that the present amount of five millions only should be applied to the liquidation of the debt, or whether that sum was to be allowed to accumulate at compound interest for the same object.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that it was his intention, as soon as the financial arrangements for the present year were concluded, and the budget opened, to move for the appointment of a committee of enquiry into the means of adopting a plan for the simplification of the public accounts. He should then propose that the sinking fund should be made a particular object of attention. It would be for the House then to consider whether the accumulation by compound interest should be applied to the extinction of the debt, or whether it should be left to the disposal of parliament. The question was one which would require great attention, because, if they decided upon the latter course, it would be necessary to repeal several acts which now regulated the application of the fund.
Mr. Tierney
expressed his conviction, that the noble marquis hail, in stating his general plan to the House, held it out, as the intention of ministers, to reduce a million of taxes next year, and to proceed with reductions in the years following. But now they found that all the relief to be afforded was, the reduction of one shilling a quarter upon malt.
The Marquis of Londonderry
denied that he had, in point of filet, said that there would be any farther repeals of taxes. What he stated was, that the House having pledged itself in 1819, to establish a sinking fund of five millions, and that resolution being now accomplished, it would be left open to parliament in what manner it should make use of any accruing surplus therefrom. He distinctly stated the future reduction of taxes to be dependent on the will of parliament, when it should have these farther sums at its disposal. He left it open to parliament in this manner; and at the same time he observed, that the distress of the country appeared to him to call for the relief. But if the agricultural interest should revive before the period arrived, the House was not pledged to any parti-
865
Mr. Tierney
contended, that the interest of the sinking fund could not be at the disposal of parliament, as the noble marquis seemed to consider it. Without the repeal of several acts, parliament could not touch the compound interest, growing; out of the five millions. When the noble lord said that such accumulations were at the disposition of parliament, he announced that the sinking fund, upon the principle of accumulating by compound interest, was at an end.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that what he spoke of was, any surplus that might accrue beyond the five millions to be applied to the liquidation of the debt.
Mr. Tierney
expressed his astonishment at hearing the noble lord speak of a surplus of five millions, when in fact there was no such thing. He could understand the present manœuvre of the noble lord very well; it was to destroy the old machinery of the sinking fund, for the purpose of getting it into his own hands. He contended, that the produce of the sinking fund must be laid out at compound interest as the law now stood.
Mr. Ellice
thought the subject should be discussed in all its branches, and hoped that an ample debate would take place upon it at some future opportunity.
Mr. Maberly
said, he had understood from the noble marquis, that an annual reduction of taxes was to ensue. It would be much better for the noble lord not to come down to the House to make statements which were to be contradicted upon another occasion. The finance accounts which he had presented to the House, were also fallacious; or else the annual accounts were fallacious. They were, in fact, both fallacious; some in one thing and some in another. He had been to the Treasury to enquire into some of the contradictions, and to endeavour to get them explained. He saw there a very intelligent gentleman, Mr. Hill; but he was quite unable to reconcile the accounts. As it was his intention to submit a motion to the House upon this subject, at some future period, he should say no more at present.
The Marquis of Londonderry
repeated,
866
Lord Althorp
said, he had understood distinctly that these prospective reductions were announced.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
remarked upon what had fallen from an hon. member relative to his applying at the Treasury for information respecting the public accounts. The hon. gentleman had said, that he learnt there that those accounts were erroneous. He would venture to say that, the hon. gentleman had mistaken what he had heard. If the gentleman to whom he had applied, Mr. Hill (than whom a more intelligent and valuable servant of the public did not exist), were at the bar of that House, he would reconcile all the public accounts of which the hon. member complained.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the simplification of accounts ought to be extended to all the public departments.
Mr. Hume
condemned the incorrectness of the public accounts. There were scarcely two Treasury accounts laid on that table which agreed with each other; and this he pledged himself to prove when they went into the committee upon the subject. He thought ministers ought to effect the simplification of the accounts themselves, without calling upon the House to do it.
The motion was agreed to.
NAVY ESTIMATES—LORDS OF THE ADMIRALTY.
The House resolved itself into a committee on the Navy Estimates. After several resolutions had been agreed to,
Sir John Osborn
said, that as the estimates for wear and tear had been disposed of, it now became his duty to submit the votes for the ordinary and extraordinary service of the navy for the year 1822. He was glad that this duty devolved upon him. It a period when the recurrence of peace gabled him to submit to parliament reduced estimates for the naval service of the country, and to evince the disposition of government to reduce, in a considerable degree, the public expenditure. The
867
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
s.
d.
Sir M. W. Ridley
rose, on the question being put, and said, that he felt it his duty to renew his motion in that committee for the reduction of the grant for defraying the salaries of the junior lords of the admiralty. One of the objections formerly urged against his motion was, that the existing number of the lords of the admiralty board was the same ever since its original formation; and that, in fact,
868
869
l.
l.
870
871
872
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
Sir J. Sebright
rose to give his support to the motion, and would take that opportunity of declaring his opinion, that the proposed reductions were far from corresponding with the exigencies of the crisis, and so he should continue to think, whilst there remained one useless office in existence. At the same time, he was most anxious for the preservation of public credit, and should be sorry to find the regular sinking fund so nicely balanced and adjusted as not to produce any surplus over the 5,000,000
l.
873
Sir G. Cockburn
observed, that every year's experience at the admiralty served only to convince him of the proper and due formation of that board. He should state the reasons that led him to think six members essential to its constitution. Some hon. gentlemen overlooked this propriety, from not being aware that it was a military board—that it was sometimes obliged to divide, and to act at a distance. Three of these commissioners might, under special circumstances, be detached to institute proceedings on board the fleet, or in one of the out ports. He said three for two would clearly not answer the purpose, inasmuch as a difference of opinion might arise, and there would be no immediate power of arbitration. As to the uselessness of the lay lords, as they were called, of the admiralty, he could assure the committee, that he had recently visited our dock-yards, and had received the most valuable assistance from one of them. Naval officers were not generally competent to the examination of those detailed accounts that came before the board; and it should not be forgotten, that the board were invested with a very extensive jurisdiction. If the junior lords were introduced merely for the purposes of political education, be should feel ashamed to offer a word in their defence: but the duties he had referred to evidently required to be fulfilled with diligence and authority. He should consider himself negligent of his public duty, if he did not express his firm persuasion, that the officers in question were essential to the due performance of the public service. Overlooking the occasional necessity of detaching part of the board to a distance, there was in London alone, ample employment for six commissioners. If they were to have but one lay lord, whose business it would be to be always on the spot, they would find no qualified individual who would undertake it. He ought to be, if not a civil lawyer, at least a person of general education and liberal attainments. From the time of the Revolution there never had been a
874
Mr. Bernal
contended, that the number of lay lords was greater than the public service required. If it should so happen that, on some rare and particular occasions, assistance might be wanted, could not that assistance be received from some other public quarter; for instance, from the lords of the Treasury? When the hon. baronet had dwelt so much on the necessity of having civilians at the board, he ought to have recollected that the board had their law agent; that cases were regularly laid before counsel, on every question of perplexity or of interest. He would give his hearty support to the amendment, because he thought that after the navy had been reduced to 119 vessels (not one-tenth of the naval force kept up during the war), it was altogether monstrous to keep up the same number of lords of the admiralty. He saw in the list of reduction a sum of 2,000
l.,
Admiral Satheron
was convinced, by the arguments of his gallant friend, that six lords of the admiralty were necessary.
Mr. Marryat
did nut think that six lords could be necessary in peace. To convince the public that it was the disposition of the House to make a reasonable abatement of the public burthens, it would be of' the greatest service to make the reduction now proposed.
875
Lord Althorp
contended, that two lords would be as efficient in cases of inspection as three. In the few instances in which a difference of opinion might occur, the cases, particularly in a time of peace, were not at a Illikely to be of so important a nature as to require an immediate decision.
Sir I. Coffin
declared himself of opinion that the lay lords were necessary to the public service. It had been suggested that a lord of the Treasury might be sent for to their assistance; but did the hon. gentleman recollect that the admiralty had a jurisdiction over life and death, and might send a warrant by the post, signifying, "shoot that officer." Suppose a case of mutiny. He was himself once attacked by 600 mutineers at Sheerness, and he resisted them all. Lord Hood and the late lord Gardner, when lords of the admiralty, had very heavy duties to discharge; but if it were found that there was not sufficient employment for the lay lords, for God's sake let them be turned out.
Mr. Ellison
thought it the duty of every member to redeem the pledge he had given of reducing the expenditure by the abolition of offices comparatively useless.
Sir C. Cole
felt the strongest attachment to the service to which he had belonged from his youth; but the duty he owed to his constituents compelled him to control any feeling of partiality, and to vote cordially for the motion [Hear.] He could not see any sufficient reason for keeping up the present number of lords of the admiralty.
Mr. Littleton
supported the amendment, because he wished to support the plan of the noble marquis—a plan of economy and retrenchment. If the votes of members did not coincide with that plan, it would be wholly nugatory. On former occasions, he had voted for the continuance of the lay lords of the Admiralty, but the altered situation of the country warranted an alteration of his vote. A strong impression prevailed in the public mind, that in the higher civil departments there was still ample room for retrenchment.
Sir G. Warrender,
in justice to himself and to his colleagues, felt called upon to make a few remarks, upon the importance of the duties of the junior lords of the Admiralty. One of the latest duties he had performed at the Admiralty board was the administration of 300,000
l.
876
Mr. Grenfell
said, he should give his brief but hearty support to this as well as to every other practicable reduction.
Mr. Gooch
said, that as he had joined the small majority which last night supported the salt-tax, it became necessary for him to defend himself from inconsistency in now voting in favour of this motion. He was one of those who thought that reduction of taxation should not precede reduction of expenditure; but if at the end of the session, by the efforts of the House, the estimates were reduced, he should be the foremost to vote to reduce taxes also. He had listened to all the arguments in favour of the two lords of the Admiralty, and he was perfectly persuaded there was no necessity for them.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that as he felt that the circumstances of the time called for rigid economy, and as several gentlemen whom he highly respected, had spoken in favour of the motion, he owed it to them to state why he was unable to agree to the proposition. The hon. baronet had, with the same intelligence as on a former occasion, pressed the proposition in the House on two grounds; first, on that of economy; and, secondly, on the necessity of reducing the influence of the Crown in that House. Now, as to the first point, that of economy, he did not dispute that the circumstance of the reduction proposed being small in its amount did not make it as a matter of principle of less importance. In fact, they had to balance the 2000
l.
877
l.
878
879
880
Sir J. Sebright
said, there was nothing further from his intention than to impute a sordid feeling to the noble lord, who was the last man in the country to whom he should attribute such a motive. He had imputed nothing to the present administration as distinguished from any other; but he had observed, that every administration had a desire to keep patronage in its hands. If a question were brought directly before the House, whether the present ministry should be removed or no, there was no man who would more decidedly vote for their continuance than himself.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had understood the hon. baronet to speak of the holders of office as giving their votes under influence.
Sir J. Sebright
said, the holders of inferior and sinecure places were naturally under influence, though he did not mean to apply his remarks to any individual.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he could not accept any compliment at the expense of those with whom he acted [hear!].
Mr. Stuart Wortley
contended, that the influence of the Crown never was lower than at present; and if he was called upon to vote on the motion before the House, on that principle, he should vote against it. But if his vote was to be a declaration of his opinion, whether the business of the Admiralty could be done with a less
881
Sir M. W. Ridley
observed, that he had no personal objection to the gentlemen who now filled the situations which it was the object of his motion to abolish. He was actuated solely by a sense of public duty. As a proof that the business of the Admiralty could be carried on with fewer members, during the war two Lords of the Admiralty were at sea, and distinguished themselves greatly. He was much gratified at the support which the motion had received from the gallant member for Glamorganshire. After fighting the battles of his country, and covering himself with the glories of his profession, it was most pleasing to find him in that House combating for the best interests of the country.
The Committee divided: for sir M. W. Ridley's Amendment, 182; Against it, 128. Majority for the Reduction, 54. The division was announced, amidst loud cheering.
List of the Majority.
Abereromby, hon. J.
Bury, visct.
Acland, sir T. D.
Butterworth, J.
Allan, J. H.
Calcraft, John
Althorp, visct.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Astell, W.
Calvert, N.
Astley, sir J. D.
Carter, J.
Baillie, John
Caulfield, hon. H.
Bankes, Henry
Cavendish, lord G.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Cavendish, Henry
Baring, sir T.
Chetwynd, G.
Barnard, visct.
Cherry, G. H.
Barrett, S. M.
Clifton, viscount
Bastard, John
Colburne, N. R.
Bastard, E. P.
Cole, sir C.
Beaumont, T. P.
Cooper, E. S.
Benett, J.
Concannon, Lucius
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Corbett, P.
Benyon, B.
Creevey, T.
Birch, J.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Blair, J.
Crompton, S.
Bougliey, sir J. F.
Curteis, E. J.
Boughton, sir C. R.
Curwen, J. C.
Bright, H.
Davies, T. H.
Browne, D.
Dawson, M.
Bruce, Rt.
Denison, W. J.
Burrell, sir C.
Denman, Thos.
Burrell, W.
Dickinson, W
882
Doveton, Gabriel
Maule, hon. W.
Duncannon, visct.
Maxwell, J.
Eastnor, lord
Mitchell, J.
Ebrington, viscount
Moore, Peter
Egerton, W.
Musgrave, sir P.
Ellice, Ed.
Normanby, visct.
Ellison, Cuthbert
Neville, hon. R.
Evans, W.
Newport, sir J.
Fane, John
Newman, R. W.
Farrand, Robert
Nugent, lord
Fergusson, sir R.C.
O'Callaghan, J.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
O'Grady, S.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Ord, W.
Fleming, John
Palmer, col.
Fleming, John
Palmer, C. F.
Folkestone, visct.
Pares, T.
Forbes, C.
Parnell, sir H.
Frankland, Robert
Peirse, Henry
Gipps, G.
Penruddock, J. H.
Gooch, J. S.
Philips, G. R.
Graham, S.
Powlett, hon. W.
Grenfell, P.
Price, R.
Guise, sir W.
Proby, hon. G. L.
Gurney, H.
Pym, F.
Hamilton, lord A.
Ricardo, D.
Handley, H.
Rickford, W.
Harvey, sir E.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Heathcote, G. J.
Robarts, G.
Heber, Richard
Robarts, A.
Heron, sir R.
Robinson, sir G.
Heygate, ald.
Rice, J. S.
Hill, lord A.
Rumbold, Ch.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Russell, lord J.
Honywood, W. P.
Scott, J.
Hotham, lord
Scudamore, R.
Hughes, W. L.
Sebright, sir J.
Hume, J.
Sefton, earl
Hurst, R.
Shelley, sir J.
James, W.
Smith, hon. R.
Jervoise, G. P.
Smith, R.
Johnson, col.
Smith, W.
Keck, G. A. L.
Smith, Abel
Kennedy, T. F.
Smith, Sam.
King, sir S. D.
Stewart, (Tyrone) W.
Knatchbull, sir Ed.
Stuart, lord J.
Lambton, J. G.
Sykes, D.
Lascelles, hon. D.
Taylor, M. A.
Lawley, Frank
Tennyson, C.
Leake, W.
Thompson, Wm.
Lemon sir W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Townshend, lord C.
Leycester, R.
Tulk, C. A.
Littleton, Ed.
Warre, J. A.
Lloyd, sir E.
Webb, Ed.
Lushington, Dr.
Williams, W.
Luttrell, H. F.
Williams, T. P.
Luttrell, J. F.
Wilson, sir R.
Lygon, hon. H. P.
Wood, Matthew
Maberly, J.
Wyvill, M.
Macdonald, J.
Western, hon. H.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Wortley, J. S.
Mansfield, John
Whitmore, W. W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Wilson, Tho.
Marryat, J.
TELLER.
Martin, J.
Bernal, Ralph
On the Resolution, "That 31,904
l.
883
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said, it was quite clear, from the documents which he held in his hand, that the reductions which were produced by ministers, were no reductions whatsoever, with reference to the principle which was contended for in the last session. The House would, perhaps, observe, in the first part of the estimates, a reduction of 7,620
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
884
l.
l.
l.
885
l.
l.,
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Robinson
was surprised at the course of the hon. member's argument, not having forgotten what took place last year, when this vote was proposed to the committee. On that occasion, the vote required was, in amount, 7,000
l.
l.
l.,
886
887
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
888
l.
quietus,
Mr. Ellice
rose, for the purpose of remarking on the difficulty of the situation in which the right hon. gentleman and others were placed in the present state of the law. He did not think, by any means, that the salary of the right hon. gentleman was too high. For his own part, he would not accept it with the responsibility attached to it. His only object in rising was, to draw the attention of the House to that particular subject. He thought such an alteration should be made in this oppressive law, as would remove from gentlemen in office some of the difficulties they were now burthened with.
Mr. Bennet
was ready to admit that his right hon. friend must feel it a painful duty to suit the salaries of those whom the public employed to the circumstances of the times. But, in doing this duty, his right hon. friend would, no doubt, re-
889
s.
s.
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
defended the plan of the chancellor of the exchequer for reducing salaries. When it was before the House, it would be found that no office had been spared, but that all had been revised, and most put on a new scale. It did not proceed on the principle of taking 25 per cent, 10 per cent, or any other per centage on salaries; but, after a laborious investigation of each particular office, it fixed its emoluments at a proper scale.
Lord Althorp
suggested that, as the
890
Mr. Hume
concurred in the motion for adjournment. The retrenchment proposed by ministers could, he said, neither relieve the pressing distress, nor satisfy the just demands of the country. The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the wounds inflicted on his feelings, in communicating to the gentlemen in his office the unwelcome intelligence that their services would no longer be required, or that their emoluments were to be reduced: but, had he no feeling for the people who paid those salaries, and suffered more severe privations? He did not yield to the right hon. gentleman in his sympathy for reduced public servants with diminished incomes; but his sympathy was not exclusively confined to the government offices. He felt for the ruined farmer, the distressed manufacturer, the people burthened with taxes, the landlord without rent, and the labourer without wages. With such a picture of the public misery before them, ministers were guilty of a dereliction of their public duty if they did not increase the means of relief by all the retrenchments in their power. They ought to come down to the House with a proposition to reduce the civil list 25 per cent. He had heard with regret in another place, a recommendation to country gentlemen to reduce their rents as the only remedy to the existing evil. But, when they reduced their rents, were placemen to retain their salaries at their full amount, and was the exorbitant civil list to be kept up? The honour of the Crown did not require the costly extravagance with which it was supported; and from all that he had heard of the heart of his majesty, he was convinced that he would be the first to propose retrenchment—that he would be the first to order a reduction in the trappings of the royal establishments—that he would be the first to propose a curtailment of useless splendor, if truth were allowed to reach his ear, and if he could see or learn the extent of his people's sufferings. He, therefore, hoped that the noble marquis would come down on Tuesday with a proposition to reduce the civil list, at least 25 per cent, and all government offices in proportion.
891
The committee divided on lord Althorp's motion of adjournment. Ayes 37, Noes 107. A second division took place on Mr. Flume's amendment; Ayes 28, Noes 99. A third division took place on a motion of adjournment; Ayes 23, Noes 91. On the motion for agreeing to the original resolution, the committee again divided; Ayes 94, Noes 21.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord
Hume, J.
Bury, lord
James, W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lushington, Dr.
Bernal, R.
Moore, P.
Barrett, S. M.
Maberly, J.
Concannon, Lucius
Palmer, F.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Ricardo, D.
Davies, col.
Robarts, A. W.
Ellice, E.
Wood, alderman
Hobhouse, J. C.
Williams, W.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, March 4.
ILCHESTER GAOL—PETITION OF MR. HUNT.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, he had a petition to present from Mr. H. Hunt, confined in Ilchester gaol. It was not his intention to advert to any of the facts stated in the report of the commissioners respecting the cruelties practised upon this individual. He would confine himself to some recent cruelties which Mr. Hunt said had been inflicted upon him. These were contained in a letter which he had received that morning from him. The hon. alderman here read some extracts from Mr. Hunt's letter, from which it appeared that a fresh instance of persecution had occurred by order of the rev. Dr. Colston and another of the visiting magistrates. They discovered that there was a small door, through which Mr. Hunt had access to a small yard, to which allusion was made in the report. This door Mr. Hardy, the gaoler, had suffered to remain open; but as soon as the magistrates discovered it, they ordered it to be shut up. Mr. Hunt farther stated, that in consequence of being shut up every night, and using candlelight from 5 to 12 o'clock, he had got a great weakness in his sight, and was nearly blind of one eye. A short time back, his own surgeon and the surgeon of the prison had to perform an operation on his eye. He wished to have this concealed from his family; but it somehow reached their ears, and his son, and a young lady, his ward, applied, in a state
892
Mr. Dickinson
said, that Mr. Hunt would now be placed in the same situation in which he was before the regulations complained of.
Mr. Bennet
deprecated the cruelty of not allowing Mr. Hunt to be attended by his son or ward. What the motive was for such conduct he could not tell; one of the visiting magistrates was a preacher of the gospel; he was certain, however, that his conduct was not, in this instance, conformable with its precepts. The prisoner could not say, in the emphatic language of scripture, "I was sick, and in prison, and you visited me not," but he might say, "I was sick, and in prison, and you persecuted me."
Mr. Hobhouse
expressed a hope that the attention of government would be turned to the case of Mr. Hunt, with a view to his removal from that gaol altogether, if they should not go farther. When Mr. Hunt was sentenced, it was stated, that Ilchester gaol was chosen as a matter of favour to Mr. Hunt. It now
893
Mr. Scarlett
said, that at the time of Mr. Hunt's sentence, Ilchester gaol was considered as one of the best regulated in the kingdom. It had since turned out, certainly, that this was not the fact.
Mr. Wynn
denied that there was any prerogative in the Crown to transfer a prisoner under sentence from one gaol to another. It would be a most dangerous precedent; for if it were done in mitigation, it might also be done in aggravation.
Mr. Denman
observed, that although there was no prerogative to transfer prisoners under sentence, yet it had been done by consent in many cases.
Mr. Lockhart
thought, that a very injudicious mode had been adopted in this case. He would admit, that neither the sheriffs nor the magistrates, had any authority to aggravate the sentence of a prisoner; but no inquiry on this subject had been gone into by the House. If the petition had been intrusted to his care, he would have moved that it be referred to a committee; and he was satisfied that if any cause of complaint was proved to exist, the House would not suffer it to continue.
Dr. Lushington
conceived, that a great deal of the inconvenience which Mr. Hunt had suffered, arose out of a misconception on the part of the magistrates. From the report of the commissioners, it was evident, that in the course of nine months they had made nine distinct orders, regarding the manner in which visiters were to be admitted to Mr. Hunt. That circumstance was of itself sufficient to prove that they had been in doubt as to the conduct which they ought to pursue towards him; and being so in doubt, they unfortunately resorted to a mode of remedying their doubts, which absolutely aggravated the disorders they were called upon to check. By availing themselves of a sanction contained in an act of parliament, they had bound up their hands, and left themselves no discretion whatsoever. He adverted to that circumstance to remind such magistrates as had seats in that House, that they ought not to submit to the judges a series of definite regulations for the internal management of
894
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, he had read the report of the commissioners with the deepest regret, and thought that a case had been made out by evidence, to induce the House to look at that prison with peculiar jealousy. He was no advocate for Mr. Hunt; but he was entitled, like every Englishman, to justice, and not to be visited with a severer punishment than the law and the judges intended. He was confident it could not be the wish, either of the government or the magistrates, to countenance proceedings like those to which he had alluded; and he trusted means would be taken without delay to prevent the possibility of their recurrence.
Ordered to lie on the table.
NAVY FIVE PER CENTS BILL.
Mr. Grenfell
wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer a question, regarding the remuneration which the Bank of England were to receive for managing this transaction. Had the right, hon. gentleman made any compact with the Bank, regarding that remuneration? If the Bank were to have the same remuneration as it had for managing loans, it would be entitled to 800
l.
l.,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that no agreement had yet been made as to the rate of remuneration the Bank should receive for its services, in the accomplishment of the proposed plan. The degree of trouble it would have, must, of course, depend upon the number of dissents: the question of remuneration must, therefore, be left open to future consideration. He certainly thought it but just and equitable, that a clause
895
Mr. Grenfell
agreed in the last proposition of the right hon. gent., but it was fit to take a little into view the great profits the Bank derived from the public. For the management of the national debt, as it was called, which meant only the payment of the half-yearly dividends, the Bank received 270,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that during the whole war, the Bank had taken a great deal too much out of the public purse, and, in the present state of the country, it ought to lend its aid gratuitously. The Bank of Ireland charged nothing for what it did, while the Bank of England obtained not less than 340,000
l.
l.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the bill,
Mr. Grenfell
moved, the omission for the present, of the clause empowering the lords of the Treasury to remunerate the Bank. Some terms ought first to be made with the directors, and on a future day the chancellor of the exchequer might be prepared to state them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the circumstance of the degree of labour being as yet unascertainable, was, in his opinion, a reason for adopting the clause, subject to the future approbation of parliament.
The committee divided: For retaining the clause, 76. Against it 39.
ARMY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the estimates which he had now to bring forward would show, that in the army very considerable reductions had taken place, and very considerable savings had been made. The reductions amounted in men to 12,304, and the saving, that is to say, the total decrease of charge in 1822, amounted to
896
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
897
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.;
Colonel Davies
said, he was prepared to show, that the proposed reductions were not conducted with a view to economy, and that if instead of two troops or two companies from each regiment, a certain number of entire battalions were reduced, the saving to the country beyond what was now proposed, would be 111,000
l.;
898
899
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
900
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
901
Lord Palmerston
stated, that the increase of the colonial force, even now, was only 1,678 men, of which number 588 came under the head of New South Wales; and no one who was aware of the great change which had taken place in that colony since 1792 could suppose that an increased force of 588 men was disproportioned to the new state of things. In the same way, it must at once be perceived that an increase of force was necessary in the American colonies. But, notwithstanding the change of circumstances, the number of men in the colonies was, on the whole, less than in 1792. In that year, the force abroad was 17,793 men; at present it was estimated at 14,965; being a reduction of nearly 3,000 men. The total amount was less considerable than in 1792, and where the number appeared greater, the circumstances sufficiently accounted for the increase. Now, the proposition of the hon. colonel was, to deduct from the force in the colonies 3,600 men. The hon. colonel had forgotten what had been already done, and what he and his friends had endeavoured to effect last year. Last session they proposed to reduce our military establishment 10,000 men. Government had in the interval not merely made reductions to the amount of 10,000, but of 12,300 men. The hon. gentlemen opposite had thus obtained a reduction of 2,300 men more than they demanded last year, and still they were dissatisfied. Then came the hon. colonel and proposed a reduction of 3,000 more. The appetite of the hon. gentleman, it must be confessed, was not easily gratified; for he not only was dissatisfied with the reductions, but the mode in which they were effected. If, however, his plan had been followed, of reducing by regiments rather than by companies, the saving would have been at least 50,000
l.
902
nucleus,
l.,
l.,
903
l.;
l.,
l.
Sir H. Vivian
was of opinion, that reductions in the army had been carried as far as they possibly could. With regard to the waggon train he thought it desirable to keep it up as a skeleton; for it was well known to be very inefficient at its first establishment, and it was some time before it was brought into a state of discipline. As to the riding establishment, he considered it of vital importance that a uniform system of riding should be adopted throughout the army. He could not conclude without expressing his gratitude to ministers for having adopted a suggestion which he had made in the last session, for placing majors-general of the army on full regimental allowance instead of half-pay.
Mr. Hume
began by pointing out the curious predicament in which the gallant officer and his friends stood, who last year had supported ministers in condemning reduction, and this year declared their satisfaction that such reduction had taken place. What was the reason on which
904
l.
l.
905
l.
906
l.
l.
907
l.,
l.
908
l.
l.
l.
Colonel Wood
understood the hon. gentleman to have said, that a considerable portion of the sums voted for the staff was laid out on bands of music, instead of being expended in drilling the recruits. All he could say to this was, that strict
909
Sir J. Newport
said, he would not have risen upon this question, but for remarks which had been made respecting the state of Ireland, in which he could not concur. His earliest wish had been to get an examination instituted into the state of Ireland, and a remedy applied to the evils which distracted that country. But there was a limit to investigation as to other things, and Ireland was in that state when investigation could not be instituted, and when, not riot, but insurrection, required the strong arm of the law. It was impossible for him to regard as a not what was open insurrection, and a defiance of all law and authority. The government of Ireland had been most scandalously deceived by men who ought to have had correct information. He alluded to the information given respecting Belfast and Mountrath. Most dreadful outrages and horrid assassinations had been committed. A Roman catholic clergyman had been attacked, because he had from the altar recommended peace and good order. Could he doubt that this was a state requiring additional military force? He trusted that these dreadful disorders would pass away, but it would be by the vigorous execution of the law in putting down violence. It would be imperious
910
General Gascoyne
said, he would certainly vote against the proposed reduction. Honourable members talked of the state in which our army had stood previous to the late war; but, let it be remembered, that very heavy objections had been taken upon the breaking out of that war, to the condition now so lauded. The very small force which England brought into the field had been a source of astonishment and of displeasure to her allies. He (gen. G.) being on service in one of the brigades sent out upon that occasion, the brigade was so weak, that an Austrian general actually took it for a battalion, and asked whether all the British battalions were of equal force. The gallant member contended for the necessity of maintaining such a force as should have an eye to the northern as well as to the southern parts of that country; and concluded by declaring, that the seeds of war existed in every part of Europe, and that appearances were such as to justify measures of precaution. The hon. member for Aberdeen went on, taken up wholly by his figures and marking out reduction here and there in the army, without being possessed of the smallest military know, ledge himself, but denying that an officer could know any thing at all of the matter. He would tell that hon. gentleman, whatever his profession might be, whether it was in the way of slaughtering or of healing, that in this instance his calculations were far from being correct.
Mr. Wilmot
said, he felt himself bound, in the outset of his speech, to protest against the expediency of any farther military reduction. Before, however, he stated the reasons of his dissent from such a measure, he would make a few observations upon what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen. With regard to the reduction already effected in the colo-
911
912
Si vis prcem Para bellum;
Mr. Bennet
thought, that before the House resolved to keep up so large a military establishment as that which was proposed, they should consider whether the country was able to pay its creditors. If the public interests were more imperious than the payment of the debt, then that ought to give way; but he did not see how, under existing circumstances, an army of so large an amount was a matter of imperious necessity. He fully concurred in all that had been said, as to the present state of Ireland; but he could not forget that the wretched condition of that country was the effect of the mal-administration of the gentlemen who sat opposite to him. Ireland had enjoyed the full benefit of coercion; she had had insurrection acts, martial law, and fresh troops in abundance; but nothing to improve, to relieve, or to tranquillize her. The state of Ireland brought to his mind every thing connected with abuse and bad government. The hon. member insisted that a reduction of 10,000 men was safe and easy. The cavalry and the guards could afford to lose 2,000. Of 17,000 men in India, 3,000 might be reduced: 5,000 might be taken at once from the force of England. He admit-
913
Captain O'Grady
disapproved of the mode in which economy had been carried into execution, with regard to the army in Ireland, and instanced the case of two regiments which were disbanded in Limerick, at the very time when rebellion was exhibited in the most unequivocal form. He regretted to observe also, that a military system was now acted on by the insurgents. The insurrection in Ireland could not be put down without force: and, therefore, though there many grievances in that country which ought to be redressed as soon as possible, the military force ought not to be too hastily reduced. He agreed that considerable reductions might be made in the civil departments, and the retired allowances.
Mr. Warre
thought, that under all the circumstances, the reduction of 10,000 men which took place last year was sufficient; but in differing in opinion with his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, he felt nothing like "disdain," and thought that expression might have been spared on the other side of the House.
Lord Althorp
agreed with the hon. member for Shrewsbury that 10,000 men might be reduced, with perfect safety to the country.
Mr. Caleraft
said, that the reduction of the army being brought to the point for which he had contended during the last six years, he could see nothing in the situation of the country, either at home or abroad, to require any farther reduction. If he did not think so, there was no man more willing than he should be, from constitutional and economical reasons, to support the cause of reduction. So far from conceiving the strength of the army too great at present, he did not know from what part of this country a disposable force could be sent to Ireland if occasion required it. His hon. friend had talked of the inability of the country to pay its troops. But surely no man, whatever his love of retrenchment might be, could look fairly at the situation of England, and say that she could not pay the troops that were necessary to her security. Such an opinion was a desponding opinion; an opinion which exaggerated the distress of the country, and in which he could not concur. The country not pay its troops!
914
l.
Sir H. Hardinge
contended for the necessity of keeping up in time of peace, a force necessary to recruit our army in time of war, and insisted particularly on the expediency of making such a provision with respect to the waggon-train—the greatest military authority in the country having given a decided opinion to the same effect.
Sir R. Fergusson
expressed his conviction, that the atrocities committed in Ireland ought to be put down by a military force, and he would prefer the employment of the regular troops to that of the resident yeomanry and volunteers, as being less under the influence of local prejudices. He would, however, support the amendment on the ground of the necessity of limiting our expenses. With respect to our foreign possessions, all he should say was this, that we ought to look at home first, and if we found that we could not keep our colonies but at an expense which the country could not bear, we ought to give them up altogether.
The committee divided, first, on Mr. Hume's amendment: Ayes, 51. Noes, 196. A second division took place on colonel Davies' amendment: Ayes, 58. Noes, 184. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord
Davies, Colonel
Bernal, R.
Denison, W. J.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Denman, T.
Benyon, B.
Fergusson, sir R.
Birch, J.
Fitzgerald, lord
Bright, H.
Foley, J. H.
Blake, sir F.
Graham, S.
Bury, lord
Guise, sir W.
Byng, G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Coffin, sir I.
Honywood, W. P.
Coneannon, L.
Hughes, Colonel
915
Hume, J.
Russell, lord J.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
Rice, T. S.
James, W.
Scott, J.
Johnston, colonel
Smith, A.
Kennedy, T. F.
Stanley, lord
Lambton, J. G.
Smith, W.
Lushington, Dr.
Sefton, earl
Maberly, J. jun.
Stuart, lord J.
Martin, J.
Wharton, J.
Maxwell, J.
Webb, colonel
Maule, hon. W.
Whitbread, S.
Monck, J. B.
Whitbread, W. H.
Moore, P.
Wilson, sir R.
Newman, R. W.
Wyvil, M.
Nugent, lord
Wilkins, W.
Philips, G. R.
Williams, W.
Price, R.
Wood, Alderman
Ricardo, D.
TELLER.
Rubinson, sir G.
Bennet, H. G.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, March 5.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Lord Erskine
said, he had fifteen petitions to present, complaining of Agricultural distress, and he could not help thinking that the petitioners were peculiarly entitled to their lordships' attention, inasmuch as they had failed in their endeavours to obtain any remedy from the other House. His lordship quoted the first paragraph of the report of the agricultural committee of the House of Commons of last session, acknowledging the reality of the distress of the agricultural interests, and that the receipts of an arable farm would not pay the expences of cultivation, which must be defrayed out of the capital of the farmer, and then referred to page 16 of the report stating, that it would be for the legislature to consider at a future period of establishing protecting duties, instead of the present system. Thus the evil was immediate, and yet the committee agreed in postponing the remedy. Now, what would be said of a physician who, after telling his patient that he was in great danger, and could not in all probability live a week, should afterwards tell him, that he would at a future period take his case into consideration? The petitioners did not complain of taxation, though they felt its pressure as well as others; but the fact was, that all that retrenchment could do would not be enough to relieve them; they wanted to be protected like our commerce and manufactures, and no more. He had heard, that it had been proposed in the revived agricultural committee to reduce the protecting duty from 80
s.
s.;
916
s.
s.
s.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 5.
SEDITIOUS MEETINGS AMENDMENT BILL.]
Mr. Denison
rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 57th of George III., for effectually preventing seditious meetings. The object of his bill was, to lessen the expenses attendant upon actions instituted to recover damages done by riotous mobs. To show how necessary it was that the present system should be amended, he would state the expenses that had been incurred upon some actions which were tried at the two last assizes for Surry. Eleven actions were brought to recover damages to the amount of 69
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
s.
l.
s.
d.
917
Mr. B. Wilbraham
said, he had intended to introduce a measure having the same object as that now proposed. He fully concurred in the propriety of the bill. The evil complained of arose out of the necessity of bringing the action before the higher courts, which, as the law now stood, could not be avoided.
Mr. Scarlett
thought, there might be some mode of investigating the actual damage, so as to prevent imposition, without the verdict of a jury, which would save the unnecessary expense, and upon which the magistrates might assess a rate upon the county.
Mr. Lockhart
said, it was a great misfortune that in a well-regulated country the costs of an action of this sort should be twenty-two fold the amount of the damage done. He trusted that this measure would be a precedent for other bills, which might save the people from being law-ridden as they now were—their best blood being sucked up by this vampyre. It was the duty of parliament to devise means by which the people should have justice brought to their doors without this enormous expense.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SCOTCH JURIES IN CRIMINAL CAUSES.]
Mr. Kennedy
rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to alter the mode of chusing Juries to serve on Criminal Causes in Scotland. It was well known, that the justiciary, or criminal court, sat in Edinburgh at all times of the year, except while it was going the circuits, which occurred twice a year. To this court all matters of a criminal nature might be referred. Besides this, there was another, under the jurisdiction of the sheriff, who was not art officer chosen as in this country, but a magistrate appointed by the Crown, with the power to administer justice in certain civil and criminal cases. In all cases, except those of high treason, the lord advocate proceeded by a process similar to our
ex officio
918
The Lord Advocate
did not rise to offer any objection to the introduction of the measure, but begged of the House not to allow itself to be prejudiced by the statement which the hon. member had made, for he should be able to show, on the second reading, that a more uncalled for and unwise measure could not be devised.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Mr. Scarlett
presented a petition from Petermrough, complaining of the distressed state of Agriculture. He fully concurred al one statement of the petitioners; namely, that a great portion of the distress arose from the return to cash payments. He did not now mean to dispute the propriety of a measure of which he had been a worm advocate, but he stated the fact as
919
l.
Mr. Ricardo
said, it was true, that, if the produce of the land was divided into certain proportions, every party would be benefitted by an abundant crop; but his learned friend having come to that conclusion, left his argument there, instead of extending it a little farther. Now, he would ask his learned friend whether, if the quantity of commodity were excessively abundant, that was to say, the double, treble, or quadruple of an ordinary crop, it would not be a cause of poverty to the agriculturist? He maintained that it would be so; for the farmer, after having satisfied the consumption of himself and family, would find, upon going to exchange the surplus of his commodity for other commodity, such a competition in the market as would compel him to dispose of it upon very low terms; and thus abundance of produce would be to him a cause of distress. It was true that, from the alteration of the currency, the evil had been aggravated; for it was clear that it rendered it necessary to sell a greater quantity of corn to answer the demands of the government and the landlord. But he now contended, as he had at all former times contended, that, up to a certain point, for instance, 10 per cent, great loss had been derived from
920
Ordered to lie on the table.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
Mr. Brogden brought up the resolutions of the committee of supply. On the resolution, "That a number of land forces, not exceeding 68,802 men, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom, from 25th Dec. 1821 to 24th Dec. 1822."
Mr. Hume
said, that having last night endeavoured, but in vain, to persuade the committee to reduce the number of men for the service of the year, he now wished to put upon record the opinion which he entertained regarding the large amount of the present standing army. He was not anxious to prevent troops from being sent to Ireland to put an end to the disturbances which existed there: quite the contrary; he wished those disturbances to be put down with all speed, whatever might be the of original causes of them. The only difference which existed between himself and the members of his majesty's government was, that he thought that there were already in Ireland troops enough to effect that object. The way he made that assertion out was this. By the estimates that had been presented to the House, it appeared that in Ireland there were 18,397 men, and that in England, including reliefs, there were 22,462 men, making a total of 40,859 men. There were also three veteran battalions, which increased that total to 43,550 men. Now he contended, that such a number of men, exclusive of the assistance to be derived from the artillery, who amounted to 7,000 men, from the marines, who amounted to 8,000 men, anti from the troops in the colonies, exclusive of the East Indies, who amounted to 27,943 men more, was more than sufficient to quell the disturbances now raging in Ireland. The noble lord in his statement had omitted to take any notice of the artillery, marines, and veteran battalions, and had stated the amount of the forces at home and in the colonies at 68,802 men. Now he maintained, upon the declaration of the noble marquis opposite, that as the marines were performing the duty of regular soldiers in the Mediterranean, and the veteran battalions the same at home, they ought to be included, in future, with the artillery in the account of the regular army; and, in that case, the military
921
l.,
922
Mr. Wilmot
thought, that the hon. member for Aberdeen would have done better if he had made the speech with which he had that evening favoured the House, on a former evening in the committee, and when the hon. member for Liverpool was present to repel the attack which had been made upon him. He begged leave most distinctly to assert, that he had never made use of the expressions "petty, paltry savings," whatever might appear to the contrary in those historical fragments of the day of which they had recently heard so much. Neither had he said that the proposition of the hon. member ought to be rejected with disdain. He would show the House, by a repetition of what he did say, that he could not have used any such language. The hon. member for Aberdeen had said,
923
Mr. Hume
explained how the mistake, which he allowed he had made respecting the amount of the reductions in the forces of the colonies, had arisen. It was from having found the forces differently stated in two different papers: in the one, they were only stated rank and file; in the other, their officers were also included. He assured the 0House that he never made any statement without deliberation.
The amendment was negatived, and the original resolution agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 6, 1822.
MOTION RESPECTING HER LATE MAJESTY'S FUNERAL.]
Mr. Bennet
commenced by saying, that, pursuant to notice, he rose for the purpose of bringing under the consideration of the House the circumstances attending the Funeral of her late majesty the Queen. In doing so, he did not think it necessary to make any apology. True it was, that when an individual so little qualified, either by his situation or abilities, undertook such a task, some apology might appear necessary; but, the importance of the subject, the deep interest which the people of this country took in it, and, above all, the honour and character of England which it involved, forced it upon him as a duty; and whatever various motives might be ascribed to him; he under this consciousness, fearlessly undertook it. Towards the latter end of the month of July last her majesty was seized with that illness, which, after some days of suffering, terminated her existence on the 7th of August. To him, it was matter of surprise, indeed, that she so long held out, under the accumulated wrongs and injuries which were heaped upon her; under the sort of persecution to which she had been exposed; but, above all, under that hope deferred which maketh the heart sick. Recollecting these circumstances,
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
animus
931
932
933
934
935
936
Mr. John Calvert
said, he was present at the embarkation of the body of her late majesty at Harwich. He saw the coffin lowered into the boat in the most solemn manner. The naval officers and men who attended behaved with the utmost decorum; and every thing had been provided by the admiralty, that could insure a respectful attention to the remains of her late majesty. The guns had been fired both at Harwich and at Stade. On the arrival of the body at Zell, it was carried to the church, which was fitted up with black for the occasion. Throughout the whole of the journey the utmost respect and solemnity were observed. The Hanoverian government must have made great exertions to provide for the progress of so large a procession, in which there were sixty horses to be changed at every stage.
Sir G. Cockburn
wished to say a few words on what had fallen from the hon. mover, with respect to the conduct of the navy at Harwich, which that hon. member had characterized as deficient in respect.
Mr. Bennet
observed, that so far from accusing the navy of disrespectful conduct, his meaning was directly the reverse. He wished to state distinctly, that the navy had conducted themselves on that occasion with the greatest feeling and propriety. What he complained of was, that no boats were ready at the jetty to convey her majesty's attendants on board at the time that the body was embarked.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, he was happy to hear the explanation given by the hon. gentleman, although he could not admit the accuracy even of that explanation. He was not present himself, but he had it from a very excellent officer, captain White, who was there, that he ordered all the persons to be taken on board whom the executors pointed out to him for that purpose. He called on an hon. and gallant friend of his opposite to state how the navy had behaved on that occasion. A learned gentleman opposite had told him that nothing had ever been better done. He would appeal to that learned gentleman, whether the Admiralty did not express their disposition to give him a vessel of any description of force he chose, for the purpose of conveying the body of her late majesty to Cuxhaven? They had re-
937
Colonel Gossel
understood, that the hon. member for Shrewsbury found fault with the way in which the coffin was lowered into the boat. If any one was to blame on that occasion, it was himself. He had I consulted with captain Doyle as to the best and safest method of conveying the body on board. At the beach the water was shallow, and the coffin could not be carried to the boat. Both captain Doyle and himself agreed that the best way was to lower the coffin into the boat by the crane at the ordnance jetty. The next question was by whom it should be lowered? Several officers were appointed for that purpose, but they were so unaccustomed to the use of the crane, that it was thought expedient to employ four men who were so used to the work. Captain White tendered his assistance to carry all these dispositions into effect. There was abundance of room in the boat into which the coffin was lowered; and he confessed that he felt surprised that none of her late majesty's attendants accompanied the body. When the procession approached Harwich he went out to meet it, and riding up to the carriage in which was sir G. Nayler, advised him to take the body at once to the jetty, for that the tide would not serve above three or four hours longer, and, therefore, if the body was not embarked then, it must be embarked at night, or wait four and twenty hours. Sir G. Nayler and his attendants wanted rest. He (col. G.) had offered his dining room for the reception of the body. The church was not in a state to receive it. The mayor offered the Town Hall, but on examining the stairs, there appeared to be a sudden turn which would render it difficult to carry the coffin up. The question, therefore, was, if it became necessary for the body to remain all night ashore; whether it should remain at the Three Cups-inn, or at his house? He could assure the House upon his honour, that he had the windows taken out of his
938
Mr. Hume
said, he had witnessed the whole of the ceremony, and must do the navy the justice to say, that he never witnessed more creditable and honourable conduct than that of captain White and the sailors. Both officers and men, while the body was lowering into the boat, showed every mark of respect and feeling. When the coffin was lowered into the boat, the crown and cushion were immediately handed into the boat, accompanied by sir G. Nayler, who placed himself at the head of the coffin. But that of which his hon. friend complained, was, the disgraceful neglect in not providing the means of embarking the attendants on her majesty's funeral. Lord Hood, as chief mourner, had asked what conveyance there was for carrying him on board? There were no boats. Lord Hood then asked, how he could return, if he went to Cuxhaven? Captain White replied, that he had no instructions, but that he would take it upon himself to say, that his frigate, the Tyne, should attend for the purpose of conveying any part of her majesty's household back from the opposite shore. The gentlemen of her majesty's household, were, however, left on the quay; and it was for some time doubtful whether any conveyance on board was to be afforded them. He appealed to an hon. member opposite, whether considerable indecision had not been manifested, until a letter arrived from the Admiralty which, that hon. member said, contained the necessary orders? He was surprised that the gallant officer should have said there appeared any unwillingness on the part of the mourners attending the funeral, to go into the boat in which the body was placed. The fact was, that the persons who attended were ready and anxious to attend the coffin, but no attempt had been made to provide boats to take them off; indeed, so little was known upon the subject, that it was for some time a question with the mourners whether they were to proceed in the king's ship or take the packet. But this was a small part of the complaint made by the hon. member for Shrewsbury. Before, however, he quitted this part of the question, he felt it necessary to do justice to the conduct of the gallant officer (colonel Gossett). While the funeral remained at Harwich, that gallant member had used his utmost endeavours to pay the remains of her ma-
939
940
941
942
943
General Gascoyne
said, he had attended most watchfully to all which had been said with respect to her majesty's funeral, in order to ascertain whether the charges were made out. The hon. member for Aberdeen had attended at Brandenhurgh-house, no doubt with all that solemnity and sorrow which the great loss he had sustained was likely to call forth; and yet the hon. member could not check his habitual thirst for economy and retrenchment, for he had scarcely entered the house of mourning, when be complained of the extravagant expenditure incurred by putting up so much superfine black cloth. The hon. member had next complained of the conduct of the military, and he had condemned their want of discipline for having acted without orders, and in the next sentence he contradicted himself and justified the military; "for," said he, "I admit that the soldiers were in a situation of difficulty; I admit that it was a hard case." Really! The hon. member did then think it a little hard that men with arms in their hands should be pelted and knocked from their horses without making any effort to defend themselves. Did the hon. member mean to contend, that because a man put on a red coat he was to be deprived of all right of defending himself? Did he mean to contend, that when the military were called out to preserve the peace, they were only to form a part of the shew and pageantry? Perhaps, the hon. member would rather that no military escort should have been sent to attend the funeral of the Queen. But had ministers acted in that way, then the cry would have been, that they had
944
Mr. Denman
rose to order. He was sure the House had heard with satisfaction the gallant general express his regret for a phrase he had used on a former night; but he was now referring to what had taken place on a former night, which was disorderly.
The Speaker
said, the House would feel the difficulties he should have to encounter if he were called upon when any deviation from strict order took place, to interpose. It was most certainly irregular to refer to a former debate; but as he had not interfered in the allusion of one hon. member, which was irregular when it was made, he was at a loss to see how he could now interfere to prevent another hon. member, who conceived himself alluded to in his absence, from giving that explanation respecting himself, which he deemed relevant.
General Gascoyne
said, that he had freely confessed his regret for the personal allusion into which he had been betrayed, on a former night, in the heat of debate. The hon. member had last night assumed something respecting the manner in which he (general G.) had acquired his present military rank. To that allusion he should only reply, that he had obtained his present rank by forty years of service, extending when and where it was required, or wherever he had the honour of a command, sometimes by loss of blood, and often with fatigue and danger.
945
Mr. Peel
said, he must premise, that he had no personal knowledge of any of the circumstances involved in this debate; but, after the most careful attention he was capable a bestowing upon the documents to which he had referred in his office, his conscientious conclusion was, that throughout the arrangements for her late majesty's funeral, the responsible persons connected with government were entirely actuated by a desire to pay all proper respect to the high rank of the deceased. He wished to take this opportunity of recording his entire acquiescence in every proceeding upon that occasion, and his complete conviction, that no other course could have been pursued with equal propriety. He approached the discussion with the intention of doing that which seemed to be in conformity with the wishes of the House, namely, to avoid every topic that could create irritation, He would, therefore, leave unnoticed some things that had fallen from hon. gentlemen on, the other side. Upon those points he had already had an opportunity of expressing his opinion, and he did not wish to revive the topics, and to bring them again into discussion. The real question was embodied in the resolution of the hon. mover, and it was this:—whether it was fit for the House to mark its censure of government, by declaring that there was a want of due respect in the proceedings that took place after the demise of her late majesty. For himself, he was willing to rest the decision upon the speeches of the hon. members for Shrewsbury and Aberdeen, comparing the impression which those speeches' had made with the effect produced by the addresses of the lord of the admiralty, of the hon. officer who conducted the military arrangements, and of the hon. gentleman connected with the department of the lord chamberlain. He appealed confidently to the House, whether those three honourable gentlemen had not afforded conclusive proofs as to the
animus
946
947
948
949
Dr. Lushington
assured the house, that he felt the deepest regret at being compelled to rise to address it upon the present occasion. Could his own inclinations have been consulted, this subject would not have been brought under its consideration. It became, however, his bounden duty, as the question had been introduced, to make some remarks upon what had fallen from one side and from the other, and he would endeavour to follow the example of the right hon. gentleman in abstaining from touching upon topics likely to excite irritation. It had
950
951
952
953
onus?
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
carte blanche
carte blanche.
963
The Marquis of Londonderry
thought it due to the learned gentleman to state, that he had met the point at issue, in a very fair and candid manner. After the able explanation of his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel), and the clear statement of his hon. friend (Mr. Calvert), the duty he had to perform was narrowed to one or two points, contained in the speech of the learned gentleman. By what had fallen from the learned gentleman, it was evident that the earl of Liverpool had done every thing in his power to facilitate the duties of those who were connected with the funeral. No blame could fairly be attached to the presence of the military; for he found the learned gentleman declaring, as executor, that it would have been a manifestation of disrespect if they had not attended. In short, he had very little necessity to step forward and defend the conduct of ministers, since it would be quite sufficient to quote the learned member's speech, in the course of which he had swept clean away every accusation that could be brought against them, as this was the case, he would leave the conduct of ministers out of the question, and apply his observations to certain points which required explanation. He would first look to the true position of the parties at the time—a point which the learned gentleman had not stated. The learned gentleman conceived it to be necessary that he should, by some act on his part, have divested himself of the character of executor, before the ordering of the funeral was taken cut of his hands: and, as he had done no such act, he inferred that it was in consequence of some special order issued by the earl of Liverpool that the funeral of her majesty passed from his hands, as executor, and was intrusted to those of the government. He had argued that if every thing had been conducted in a regular and suitable manner, he would have remained to the last, as the acting person. Now, he (the marquis) would contend, that though this might have been the case with respect to an executor under ordinary circumstances, yet the rule did not apply where a member of the royal family was concerned. The learned gentleman was informed, on the first interview he had with the earl of Liverpool, that the expenses of the funeral would be borne on the part of the Crown and of the public. This the learned gentleman admitted; and he also admitted that the earl of Liverpool was most anxious to hear and weigh every
964
programme
965
966
967
968
969
970
Mr. Hobhouse
said, it was not his intention to have trespassed upon the House, had it not been for some expressions which had fallen from the noble lord, and the right hon. secretary. He had hoped, that they were not, at that time of day to be told that those who advocated the cause of the Queen were a faction and a cabal. He had hoped, that the people of this country would no longer have been termed a faction, because they had come forward with honest and manly sincerity in behalf of one whom they conceived to be suffering under the strong grasp of power, and to have been made the victim of the most unjust persecution to which any individual, in any age or country, had ever been exposed. If by the word faction was meant a vast majority of the people of England, in fact, the whole of the nation, except those whose interest it was to join in the persecution, then he could understand how its might be applied to those who advocated the cause of her majesty. But the term faction could not apply to the nation at large; it was applicable only to a few designing, base, intriguing, interested individuals, who had meanly endeavoured to raise themselves upon the ruin of a woman—and that woman a Queen, whom it was their duty to protect, the wife of their sovereign, to whom, instead of fostering his prepossessions, it was their duty to give sound and manly advice. These individuals where indeed, a factious cabal. It was not a portion of the English nation, but the whole of the people who had taken the part of the Queen. The generous sentiments which they had expressed in her behalf, would be confirmed by posterity;
971
972
Res dura et regni novitas.
973
974
Colonel Cavendish
said, the soldiers were pelted as soon as they appeared.
975
Sir I. Coffin
felt satisfied, that no good could possibly arise from again bringing the case of the late Queen before parliament and the country. He was tempted to exclaim—"Infandum, regina, jubes renovare dolorem," when he reflected on the conduct of those who were injudicious enough to recall the attention of the House to this subject.
Mr. W. Lamb
denied he had ever said that the mob were the only supporters of her late majesty. When be spoke about a mob, he had made no allusion to the people of England, nor could he consider the people of England as responsible for those acts which were done by a tumultuous rabble, of whose conduct they must disapprove. With respect to the question before the House, he would say, that he could not approve of the conduct of government, in ordering the route which they did for the Queen's funeral. He thought it should have been allowed to pass through the city. He thought so, because he had the greatest confidence in the quiet dispositions of the people. In seasons of excitement, he had seen them
976
Mr. Denman
said, that if there was boldness in his learned friend's ascribing, as he had done, the untimely death of her majesty to her coming to this country, it was equally bold to aver, that in coming here she had acted on the advice of others, and not on the decision of her own uninfluenced judgment. When the House considered the treatment which she had received abroad—when they considered the conduct of government towards her—when they considered the threats and bribes with which it was attempted to keep her from our shores, they would see that she had no alternative but to come to England, no course left but to face her accusers. When she left Italy, and before she had taken counsel of any advise' but her own magnanimous spirit, her resolution was fixed to come to this country. When she arrived at St. Omer's she was to all intents and purposes in England, and must have acted as she had done, unless she had chosen to sacrifice her rights and to abandon her character. She had faced her accusers and she came to triumph. Nevertheless, calumnies continued to be heaped upon her, which banished her friends, and prevented her from enjoying that universal respect which the establishment of her character would otherwise have procured. His hon. friend had ascribed those sufferings which broke her majesty's heart to her imprudence in coming to England. But, were none of them to be ascribed to the atrocious libels with which, after her trial, she was
977
978
The motion was negatived without a division.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
On the orders, of the day for going into a committee of supply to consider further of the Army Estimates, Mr. Hume and Mr. Bernal objected to going into a committee at that late hour. The House divided. Ayes 116. Noes 28. On the motion, that. the Speaker do now leave the chair, the House divided. Ayes 118. Noes 21. The House having resolved itself into the said committee, lord Palmerston moved, "That 70,756
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said, he had no wish to throw any impediments in the way of the public business, but it did appear to him, that, after the House had been occupied seven hours upon a most interesting debate, it could not bestow that attention to the proposed vote which it demanded. The first item was 37,000
l.
l.
979
l.
980
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
981
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
entered into a defence of the several items to which objections had been made. With respect to the clothing, he conceived nothing like a case had been made out. As to
982
l.
l.,
Sir H. Hardinge
defended the keeping up of the table for the guards, and contended that the junior officers of that corps were worse paid than the officers of the line, who had many allowances which
983
The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, March 7.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. Gooch
rose to present a petition from the county of Suffolk, which had been placed in his hands under peculir circumstances. There was no man who was less disposed to allow his own political impressions to sway him, in attending, so far as was consistent with a sense of independence, to the wishes of every portion of his constituents. The petition was perfectly correct, and couched in proper language. It was agreed to at a county meeting convened by the sheriff, at the requisition of the Whig aristocracy of that county principally. There were not more than six signatures of any other party. The requisition was carried round so quietly, that he did not believe its existence at the time was known through that great space of the county from Ipswich to Norfolk. That was the more surprising, because there was not an individual of his acquaintance that would not have signed the requisition. But the great object was, to have a unanimous meeting to take the distress of the agricultural body into consideration. For that beneficial purpose it was arranged that all political discussion should be avoided. The subject of parliamentary reform had, however, been introduced. The sheriff refused to put that question, as it was not stated in the requisition; and he did not wish to take the county by surprise. After that meeting was adjourned, he, with a few friends within a morning's ride of Stow-market, where the meeting was held, went home. The sheriff received a second requisition, comprehending the question of parliamentary reform, and was persuaded to convene the meeting on the same day. The question of reform was completely carried, and the petition entrusted to his hon. colleague, whose absence from indisposition he most sincerely regretted. That petition, though handed about for six weeks, was not very numerously signed. To a reform of abuses, to the punishment of offences against the law,
984
Mr. Coke
observed, that constituted as that House was, he was well convinced that neither the petition before them, nor indeed, petitions from every county in the kingdom, would be attended with any beneficial result. The hon. member had said something which tended to depreciate the character of that meeting; and yet he had admitted that it was most respectable. There could be no surprise on the county, as the meeting had been long advertised. The petitioners looked for parliamentary reform as the only effectual remedy. They were right. It was in vain to look for redress in any other measure. How was it possible, after witnessing the decision of the House the other night upon the subject of the salt-tax, when about 60 or 70 placemen voted at the command of the noble marquis, for any one to suppose that that House would attend to the prayers of the people? The hon. member for Suffolk had himself declared to his constituents at the meeting, that he would support that part of the petition which called for the repeal of the taxes on leather, malt, salt, and other necessary articles of consumption. [Mr. Gooch dissented.] The hon. member shook his head in denial, and he therefore supposed the information was incorrect. But, he was the more ready to believe so, because the hon. member had voted against the proposed repeal of the salt-tax. As to the plan which the ministers had promulgated for relieving the distresses of the country, it had operated most injuriously upon the agricultural interest. The promulgation of that plan had already caused the price of barley to decline from 11
s.
s.
d.
985
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that after what had recently passed, immediately affecting the domestic happiness of the hon. member for Norfolk, he had hoped to have found him in a better temper [a laugh.] If the hon. member's mind had not been engaged on a more interesting subject, and he had been left at liberty to attend to the arguments of ministers on the subject of the agricultural distress, he believed the hon. member would have spared some of the observations which he had made. The hon. member had advised him to go to Mark-lane, to see the effect which his plan had produced. Now, he believed the gentlemen at Mark-lane were much more sagacious than the hon. member imagined, and that the granting or denial of reform would be the last circumstance that could affect the price of corn. He was also of opinion, that the gentlemen at Mark-lane would be the first to complain of a reduction of taxation to an extent that would injure public credit. With respect to the question before the House, he was always inclined to manifest great deference to the proceedings of any public meeting, but he could not admit that because the meeting which voted the petition was called a county meeting, it therefore represented the collective sentiments of the wisdom, property, and education of the county.
Mr. Lennard
said, that his constituents felt a very strong interest in the present petition. The meeting had been convened in consequence of a requisition signed by all parties. That meeting came to an unanimous adoption of the petition. The result of such a meeting would, he had no doubt, be a lesson to the hon. member for the county (Mr. Gooch), and to those other members of that House who did not represent venal places.
Mr. J. Macdonald
observed, that the ill-timed pleasantry in which the noble marquis had indulged, would, he did not doubt, be a source of satisfaction to his own mind, but it would be viewed with different feelings by the people out of doors, who were anxiously watching the proceedings of that House. The noble marquis had thought fit to taunt his hon. friend, the member for Norfolk, and to
986
987
988
989
magnum vectigal parsimonia.
The Marquis of Londonderry,
in explanation, observed, that nothing could have been further from his intention than to make any remark that was calculated to wound the feelings of the hon. member for Norfolk.
Mr. Gooch
said, that the hon. member had stated, that he had pledged himself to the repeal of certain taxes. Now he begged to say, that he had done no such thing. All he had said was, that he would vote for the repeal of taxes, wherever they could be taken away with safety to the public credit; and that as fast as our expenditure could be reduced, he would support the reduction of taxation. He thought it of the utmost importance, that faith should be kept with the national creditor; and that though we might be a poor, we ought to be an honest nation. The hon. member had stated that the pre-
990
Ordered to lie on the table.
GENERAL POST OFFICE.
Mr. Hume
said, that as no objection would be made to his motion, he would not detain the House by more than one or two remarks. It appeared that the charge of management of the Post-office amounted to 617,962
l.;
991
d.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.,
l.
l.
992
l.
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 8.
ROASTED WHEAT—BREAKFAST POWDER.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he wished to call the attention of the House, to what he considered a very important constitutional question, involving materially the rights of the subject. He alluded to the prosecutions instituted by the commissioners of Excise, and the penalties levied, for selling roasted wheat and other substances, under the name of breakfast powder. The alleged ground upon which these prosecutions had been instituted was, that those substances were made in imitation of coffee and that their sale tended to defraud the revenue. It was of great importance, that the law upon this subject, should be correctly ascertained; because, if the commissioners of Excise had the power of preventing the sale of any article of food, upon the plea that it would tend to prevent the sale of other articles upon which a duty was charged, they possessed a power equivalent to that of both Houses of the legislature; a power, the exercise of which ought at all times to be watched with peculiar jealousy, but more especially at the present moment, when if roasted wheat could be rendered to any extent an article of food, it must evidently be highly beneficial to a numerous class of persons who were suffering great distress from the depression of the market for that commodity. He certainly did not object to all legitimate means being resorted to by the commissioners of Ecxcise for the protection of the revenue; but it was of the utmost importance, that their power should not be stretched beyond its legitimate bounds. He would move, for an account of the prosecutions instituted by order of the board of Excise, for the selling of roasted wheat, or other substances, of roasted wheat, or other substances, under the name of breakfast powder.—Order.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 8.
BANKS OF ENGLAND, AND OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Maberly
said, that the papers for which he was about to move, were necessary to show the high rate, of
993
l.,
l.
l.
Mr. Grenfell
said, he had always understood, that the Bank of Ireland, so far from receiving 2,000
l.
Sir J. Newport
reminded the House, that when the charter of the Bank of Ireland was renewed in 1808, one of the conditions was, that it should lend to the public 1,000,000
l.
Mr. Pearse
said, that no comparison could fairly be made between the conduct of the Bank of England and that of Ireland. The practice of contrasting the charges made by the one with those made by the other, was extremely invidious. While the Bank of England had a specific engagement for managing the national debt, and whilst it lent its money to the government at 3 per cent., the Bank of Ireland was enabled to lend its money to the same quarter at 5 per cent. If that difference of interest were taken into consideration, the balance would be found to be much in favour of the Bank of England. it mattered very little, whether it was in the shape of management, or of a higher rate of interest that the respective Banks received their emoluments. If the Bank of England were to receive the same interest, on the motley which it had advanced to government, as the Bank of Ireland did, its emoluments would be more than 2,000
l.
l.
994
Mr. Ricardo
said, that whenever the conduct of the Bank was brought before the notice of the House, he should think it his duty to speak of it as he thought and felt. With regard to the directors, he was willing, at all times, to give them full credit for honesty of intention; but he could not help thinking, that they had at different times involved the country in. considerable difficulties. He persisted in saying, that the Bank restriction act which was passed in 1797, might have been unattended with detriment to the country, had the directors known how to manage their own concerns. But, not knowing how to manage them upon true principles, they had issued a quantity of paper so large as to depreciate its own value; and to recover from that depreciation, the country had found it necessary to undergo a painful process, which had been the cause of a great part of the present distress. Even since the year 1819, the Bank had committed a great error in
995
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Gurney
said, it was perfectly well known to all who heard him, that while the Bank of England conducted their own affairs they went on very prosperously; and that it was only when they were interfered with by theorists and speculators that they experienced any thing like distress.
Mr. Monck
agreed, as to the mischief which the Bank had occasioned to the public, but could not concur in thinking that they did not know how to manage their own affairs. Did the House recollect the advantage which the Bank had taken of the Restriction act? That act, when it was passed, was by no means intended to be permanent. Its duration was limited to three months. But it was found so convenient to gentlemen in business, to the merchants and manufacturers, and to the Bank of England, that great reluctance was expressed to repeal it. It was continued, therefore, during the war; and although its duration was limited to six months after the return of peace, so unwilling were the Bank to return to cash payments, that nothing short of the positive declaration of that House could have induced them to do it. At the time of the restriction, the whole amount of the Bank paper in circulation was eight millions. But during the war, they raised that amount to thirty-three millions. By this conduct, the paper was depreciated 25 per cent as respected gold, and 50 per cent. as respected other commodities. Now, what did the directors do during the suspension of cash payments? They lent their money right and left to government
996
Mr. T. Wilson
reminded the hon. gentleman, that what he called a superfluity of paper-money had raised the price of corn and of rents. It was difficult to say, if the restriction on cash payments in 1797, had not taken place, how affairs would have gone on. Certain it was, that the war could not have been maintained with the energy which brought it to so successful a close; and some of the gentlemen opposite would assuredly not have enjoyed the high rents which they had been receiving. The Bank had invariably conducted themselves throughout the contest in conformity to the wishes of government [hear, hear!]; and with a view to the best interests of the country.
Mr. Manning
declared, that when the Bank restriction of cash payments had been enacted, it had been enacted for only a limited period. Parliament had, however, thought fit to continue it, notwithstanding a resolution of the court of directors, expressing their wish and power to resume payments in specie. He should abstain from any invidious comparison between the Banks of England and of Ireland; but this he would say, that though nothing was charged for the management of the Irish debt, yet the difference between the interest at 5 and at 3 per cent was an advantage of 32,000
l.
l.
Mr. Grenfell
assured the hon. rector (Mr. Pearse) that he had not
997
l.
The motion was then agreed to.
NAVY FIVE PER CENTS BILL.]
Mr. Lushington
moved the order of the day,
998
Mr. Tierney
observed, that there were so many important considerations arising out of the present question, that it was extremely desirable that the discussion should be conducted in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was at once best acquainted with, and most responsible for, the arrangements upon this subject. He need not say, therefore, that he much regretted his absence, as well as the cause of it. As to the power of parliament to pay off the 5 per cents, they being declared, by an act of the 37th of the late king, irredeemable until 25,000,000
l.
l.
sub silentio.
999
l.
l.
1000
1001
1002
s.
l.
l.
s.
l.
1003
l.
l.
Mr. Lushington
said, that on the question of legal competency, the answer was immediate and satisfactory. By the 53rd of the late king, it was declared, that the 238,000,000
l.
1004
l.
l.
Mr. Ellice
said, the declarations of the House in the year 1813 were now represented as conclusive with respect to the act of the 37th of the late king; but at that period government was desirous of altering the amount of the sinking fund, although they were now told, in 1822, that an immense amount of the 3 per cents had been paid off since 1797. If the act meant a
bona fide
l.,
1005
l.
l.
Mr. Grenfell
said, that so far from thinking the plan unwise either in its principle or machinery, he was convinced, from the best consideration he could give the subject, that it was a fir and just one. The first question propounded by his right hon. friend was, "Are we, in point of law and good faith, competent to reduce the rate of interest, until we have actually extinguished 25,000,000
l.
1006
Mr. Tierney
said, he had made no objection to the principle of the measure; but had merely objected to the mode of carrying it into effect.
Mr. Huskisson
thought, there could be little doubt, indeed, that the plan was consistent with the principles of public faith, and of law. With respect to the right of paying off the five per cents, the right hon. gentleman opposite had alluded to a clause in the 37th of the king, which stated that the five per cents were not to be paid off until 25 millions of the national debt should be redeemed. The words of that act, he was willing to say, would admit of various constructions; but one construction, he thought, could not, with any appearance of reason, be put upon them. It could not be contended that the condition would not be fulfilled until the debt, as it stood in the year 1797, should be reduced by 25 millions. It might perhaps be argued, that, if the government borrowed with one hand to pay off debt with another, though debt might be nominally reduced, the condition would not be fulfilled, because in fact the country, whilst it was paying off debt in one way, would be increasing debt in another. But the country had
bonâ fide
bona fide
1007
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Williams
said, he had his doubts as to the question of law, and thought that the mode of executing the plan was one which would violate good faith. The five per cents were established under the 24th of the late king; arid the clause of that act expressly stated, that the five per cents should not be redeemed until 25 millions of the public debt should be first paid off. He thought the Words of
1008
l.
l.
1009
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1010
The Attorney General
observed, that his opinion as to the situation in which the House stood in consequence of the 34th of the late king, was very different from that of the hon. gentleman, for according to the opinion of the hon. gentleman, the House would be placed in this situation, that they could never reduce the five per cents until the debt was reduced below what it was in 1784. The question for the House to consider really was, "Had the country paid off 25 millions of debt in the sense contemplated in that clause? It was said by some, that the raising money by loans to pay off debt was a mere juggle that would not satisfy the words of the act. But, it was not by loans merely, but by the redemption of the land tax, that a large sum had been reduced. Besides this, the act which passed in 1813, for cancelling a part of the stock in the hands of the commissioners for the reduction of the debt, recited, that, whereas the 238 millions purchased by the commissioners exceeded the total of the capital of the debt existing in 1786, that amount of public debt should be deemed to be satisfied and discharged, and that so much stock might be cancelled. After this express declaration by act of parliament, that so much of the debt should be deemed to be satisfied and paid off, on that alone he thought they might safely rest, independently of that measure, the redemption of the land tax, which put an end to all doubts on the subject.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the idea that raising of loans to buy up stock was a
bona fide
Mr. Monck
observed, that the provision that the five per cent holders should be paid off in the order of their dissent, was unjust, as it tended to create a different
1011
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visc.
Monck, J. B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Maule, hon. W.
Bernal, R.
Maberly, John
Birch, H.
Macdonald, J.
Boughey, sir J.
Newman, R.
Barrett, S. M.
Newport, sir J.
Beaumont, T.
O'Callaghan, col.
Bright, H.
Palmer, C. F.
Calcraft, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Coffin, sir I.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Concannon, L.
Robarts, col.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Robarts, A. W.
Campbell, hon. N.
Robertson, A.
Davies, col.
Stanley, lord
Denison, J.
Smith, hon. R.
Ellice, E.
Smith, Robt.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Scarlett, J.
Grenfell, P.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
Tynte, C. K.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, ald.
Hume, Joseph
Williams, W.
James, W.
Wilson, sir R.
Lambton, J. G.
Wyvill, M.
Lushington, Dr.
TELLER.
Martin, J.
Denman, T.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 11.
NAVY FIVE PER CENTS BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of this bill,
1012
Mr. Tierney
said, it had been observed the other evening, that, by the 53rd of the late king, respecting the redemption of the land tax, the difficulties in the way of this subject had been in a great measure removed. Now, he was by no means satisfied that such was the case, and wished to hear the opinions of the learned gentleman opposite. The point complained of was, that government proposed to pay off the five per cents without the notice to which the holders of that stock were by law entitled. By the 37th of the late king, the holders of five per cents were rendered liable to reduction either into three or four per cents, according to their own option; but it was with the express condition that they should not be liable to any such reduction, until 25,000,000
l.
bona fide
The Solicitor General
said, it was perfectly obvious that the clause in the 25th George 2nd, by which it was enacted, that the holders of three per cents should have twelvemonths notice, had been virtually annulled by the voluntary sale or redemption of a much larger amount than 25,000,000
l.
1013
Mr. Tierney
was by no means satisfied with the explanation of the learned gentleman. The holders of five per cents had been expressly secured by act of parliament from being paid off, until 25,000,000
l.
Mr. Huskisson,
although he admitted that, by the 16th clause of the 37th of Geo. 3rd, the holders of five per cents were entitled not to be paid off until a twelvemonths' notice had been given to the holders of three per cents of the intention to pay off 25 millions of that stock; contended, that the much larger reduction that had taken place in the three per cents by the spontaneous consent of the holders of that stock rendered any such notice, before the re-payment of the five per cents unnecessary. He did not deny, that the reference in the 37th of Geo. 3rd, was to the provision in the 25th of Geo. 2nd that the holders of the three per cents should not be paid off without 12 months notice; but his argument was, that their having consented to be paid off; beyond the amount specified in the 37th Geo. 3rd, was equivalent to the condition of notice; and therefore that the holders of five per cents, in the present case, were virtually placed in the condition which the 37th of Geo. 3rd contemplated.
Mr. Ellice
said, that the House ought not to proceed without being quite clear on the point of law. He could not understand the meaning of the act, unless it was explained as requiring a
bona fide
After a short conversation, the bill was read a third time.
Mr. Hume
then proposed a clause for the purpose of declaring, that the Bank should not derive any profit from the ma-
1014
l.
l:
l.
l.;
Mr. Manning
said, that the Bank never hinted at any additional charge for managing these transfers. During the last 30 years, that corporation had never been in the habit of receiving any thing where stock was only transferred from one fund to another. But to say, that the Bank were not to derive their stipulated per centage upon the management of any additional capital, was to press for a total breach of the existing contract between the Bank and the public, the terms of which wore secured by a former act of parliament. If the proposed clause were adopted, the terms of that act would be violated, and a total change would be made in the constitution of the existing arrangement for managing the public business. The Bank received no remuneration for forgeries upon stock; and when they made the last arrangement with the public, the charge of interest agreed upon, comprehended the risk incurred by the Bank in the forgeries which he alluded to. This clause, if adopted, would release them from the compact; and on that ground he should oppose it.
Mr. Grenfell
said, that the question was simply this—whether the Bank ought to receive a per centage for executing a gill which entailed upon them no additional trouble? The hon. director had talked of the risk of forgeries; but the Aims annually to be paid by the Bank would be less under this bill than before, and the risk would be therefore less. He could see no reason, on any principle of equity, why this additional charge of 2,000
l.
l.
1015
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he could not see how such a clause could be proposed without previous communication with the Bank. Why the Bank were not to have as fair a claim to equitable consideration in managing the affairs of the public as any other body, he was at a loss to consider.
Mr. Ricardo
supported the clause, because the Bank would have no additional trouble by the management of the public business under this bill.
The clause was negatived, and the bill passed.
SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Superannuation Act,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it would perhaps be the wish of the House that he should, at this stage of the proceedings, state what arrangement had been made by government, pursuant to the addresses presented to the Crown upon the subject of superannuation allowances to officers retiring from situations under government. Previously to the 50th of the late king, great difficulties arose in providing for persons who, from age or debility, retired from public offices. It had been always understood, that the legal right of making provision for such officers lay in the king in council, and in the Treasury in certain cases. He must however, confess, that until the 50th of the late king, the instances in which this power was exercised by the Crown were very rare. It had been usual to provide for the worn-out servants of the Crown, by appointing them to sinecure offices (of which there then existed several, which had since been cut off), or to places the duties of which were very trifling. Another mode provision was, by obliging the successor to pay the person who retired a portion of the salary of the office.
1016
l.
l.;
l.
s.
s.
d.
1017
l.;
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
1018
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1019
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1020
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1021
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.;
l.
l.,
1022
1023
1024
s.
s.
d.
l.,
l.
1025
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1026
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
l.
.;
1027
l.,
l.,
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Bankes
expressed his sense of the liberal donation from the Crown. With respect to some of the details which had been stated, he could not altogether concur with the right hon. gentleman. He was not quite satisfied with the reduction of salaries in aid of the superannuation fund. In cases where, from the depreciation of money, salaries had been increased, he saw no reason why they should not be reduced to their former level. He could not understand why a young man, going into a government office, was to be exempted from those chances to which men in other professions were subject? The arrangement proposed, certainly went too far; since it gave to a man superannuated, under some circumstances, the whole amount of his salary. In his opinion a plan of so much importance, ought not to be decided on in haste. The right hon. gentleman had, it appeared, placed all the salaries of individuals in classes. Now, he should like to know what increase had taken place since the year 1810. Generally speaking, he con-
1028
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that nothing was further from his wish than the hurrying this measure forward. In his opinion, the best way would be to give leave to bring in a bill; after which, the various objections might be stated, in the course of its different stages.
Mr. Marryat
condemned the system which was now acted on, in the various departments of the state, of regularly increasing the salaries of all the clerks, at certain fixed periods. This rule, which made them independent of their superiors, to whom they ought to be made to look up for advancement, destroyed all incentive to emulation, and exertion. It made no distinction, between merit and no merit—between activity and no activity. The existing system of superannuation was most important. The intended improvements did not remove his objections to that system. The question came to this—whether the plan of superannuation was not so radically bad, as to call for its abolition? To judge of this question correctly, they ought to be in possession of an account of all salaries granted to the civil servants of the Crown, and the superannuations voted to those servants, since the passing of the 50th of the late king. The right hon. gentleman had given a statement of the amount of superannuations in some departments, and had argued that those superannuations were only in the proportion of 9½ or 10½ per cent on the sums paid for actual service. But the account to which the right hon. gentleman had referred, by no means gave a fair view of the whole expense. A paper was laid on the table on the 13th of last month, giving an account of the superannuation, pensions, and salaries of the
1029
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1030
1031
Mr. Hume
agreed, that the House ought not to decide on a proposition of so important a nature, until they were in full possession of all the particulars connected with it. What the hon. member had stated with respect to the Custom-house, was extremely important. At the time the 50th of the late king passed, the superannuations in that department were very moderate; but from that period they had increased in a ratio of about 10,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1032
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he felt highly grateful for the communication made to the House, with respect to the gracious intention of his majesty. He would not however, pledge himself to support the whole plan. It. would be quite impossible for the House to pronounce an opinion until such time as the details were before them. There was a great deal, he thought in what had fallen from the hon. member for Sandwich, with respect to the principle of superannuation.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it had been asserted, that the superannuation act had been studiously abused. Now, he did not say that it was not open to abuse; and that, in the great many cases which were connected with it, some abuses might not be traced. But his right hon. friend had stated a case which was
prima facie
1033
1034
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1035
Mr. Bennet
contended, that the resolution distinctly pledged the House to support the principle of superannuation, which was in itself extremely objectionable. He could see no hardship in official men being obliged to maintain, them selves when they retired, out of their
1036
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
* See Parl. History, vol. 21, p. 258.
1037
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, that ministers were only taking off the lighter portion of the burthens of the country, whilst they allowed the heavier weight to press upon them.
Mr. Warre
inquired, whether the same reductions were to take place in Ireland as in England, and whether the allowances to foreign ambassadors were to be reduced? He thought it would be better, if the salaries afforded to public men during their service, were to be considered as their whole remuneration; and that they should regulate their expenditure accordingly.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the civil list of Ireland would be subject to the same regulation as that of England; and that the reduction of 10 per cent was also to extend to the salaries of foreign missions.
Mr. Wynn
maintained, that the principle of superannuation was most important, and argued, that it was necessary to vest the heads of departments with the power of superannuating such servants of the public as had exhausted their best faculties in its service. Honourable gentlemen had spoken as if superannuation was an object of desire to those to whom it was granted. Now, the contrary was the case the faculties of individuals in general giving way long before they themselves discovered it. As a proof of this assertion, he quoted the case of the great lord Mansfield, who had held his situation five years longer than his talents fitted him for it. To show that there was no fair reason for presuming that the principle of superannuation would be abused, he stated, that thirty was the average number of years served by the persons now superannuated, and that sixty-five was the average of their respective ages. As to the plan of-making such clerks as had not laid up a provision for old age petitioners for the bounty of parliament, he condemned it in unqualified terms. Whilst the country continued a monarchy, its servants were hound to look to the Crown for remuneration: if they once looked to
1038
Mr. P. Moore
said, that as the committee was called upon to vote without evidence, and as he wished to have the papers printed before the House agreed to the resolutions, he should move that the chairman do report progress.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he would concur in the resolution, as he understood it did not pledge him to support the details of the bill which might be founded upon it. He admitted that superannuation ought not to be on a scale which might induce gentlemen in office to retire, but at the same time it was proper, when an individual had spent the greater part of his life in the public service, that the public should not desert him When he was incapable of further service.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he was a friend to the principle of superannuation, but he would object to the proposed reductions, if they went to affect those who held situations as low as 50
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. P. Moore
consented to withdraw
1039
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 12, 1822.
NAVY FIVE PER CENTS BILL.
On the order of this day, for the second reading of the bill,
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he would state the reasons on which he recommended the measure to their lordships' adoption. Whether they were entitled, consistently with good faith, to reduce the interest of the five per cent stock to four or three per cent, was the question for their consideration. Their lordships were aware, that in funding the navy debt at the close of the American war, it was thought necessary to create a five per cent stock, called the navy five per cents. The act by which this stock was created contained a clause, according to which it was not to be paid or reduced until 25,000,000
l.
l.
bonâ fide
l.
l.
l.
1040
bona fide
l.
l.
l.
1041
l.
l.
l.
1042
The Lord Chancellor
said, he firmly believed that no man ever entertained any doubt of the 5 per cents being redeemable. If this opinion had not prevailed, there would have been a great difference in the market price between the 5 per cents and other stock but when the 3 per cents were at 78, the 5.per cents had never been more than 108, though, if they had been irredeemable the price would have been 120. If courts of equity had been in the habit of considering the 5 per cents irredeemable, they would not, as had been their practice, have ordered stock, in cases of trusts, to be transferred into the 3 per cents, without regard to the state in which the testator had left the property. But it was stipulated, that 25,000,000
l.
l.,
1043
Earl Grey
said, it was his duty, as a member of that House, if doubts of the justice of this measure remained on his mind, to state those doubts; not for the purpose of inducing their lordships to reject the measure, but in order that they should, if the doubts appeared to them of sufficient importance, give them a fair consideration. The first difficulty was, the question of the right to reduce the 5 per cents. The noble earl had given a history of the manner in which this stock had been created. It was admitted to be redeemable; but not until after 25,000,000
l.
bona fide
bona fide
bona fide
1044
l
bona fide
l.
1045
The Earl of Harrowby
contended, that the 24th of the late king did not stand in the way of the present measure. The provisions of that act referred only to compulsory payments at par. It was impossible to conceive that it could be meant that 25,000,000
l.
l.
1046
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that as at present advised, and with the information now before the House, he would not scruple to say, that, unconnected as the act of the 24th of the late king was with the act of the 25th of Geo. 2nd, the stocks at 5 per cent interest were not redeemable until a certain portion of the debt was discharged in some other quarter. But, there ought to be a much stronger reference than any he could find in the recent acts, to that passed in the 24th of Geo. 2nd, to connect them so as to interweave them in that close degree, that would bind all the provisions of the one to the body of the other. It was true that the claims set up by dissentients on this occasion resolved themselves into two; the primary objection to this proceeding was, that 25,000,000
l.
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that he was one of those who, as regarded the principle of this measure, could feet nothing but a disposition to acquiesce, but who, nevertheless, could not help entertaining doubts with respect to the form and mode of carrying it into execution. His principal objection was certainly of a practical nature, and was founded on that provision by which the dissent and not the assent of subscribers was demanded to the purposes to which it was framed. He apprehended that this was a departure from all understood principles of civil justice. It was the obvious effect of the proposed arrangement to confer an advantage on the parties applying n the first instance, and to impose a penalty on those who should be tardy. He had heard no good reason whatever against delay; and if; from any unavowed cause, dispatch in carrying this measure
1047
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 12, 1822.
VAGRANT LAWS.
Mr. Chetwynd
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend all the acts on the subject of Vagrancy. In framing the bill, if be were permitted to introduce it, he would take for a ground-work his bill of last session. When he informed the House that during the last 300 years, 49 acts on the subject of vagrancy had been passed, of which 27 were now in partial operation, he thought he stated a sufficient ground for his motion. More than two centuries ago, Edward 6th had expressed a wish that the superfluous acts on the subject of vagrancy should be abolished, and that those which contained useful regulations should be combined in one statute. If such a measure was necessary at that period, how much more necessary was it now, when the Statutebook had increased more than twenty-fold? The hon. gentleman then proceeded to state the subordinate objects of his bill, in addition to the principle one; namely, the consolidation of all the various acts on the subject of vagrancy. He divided vagrants into three classes: 1st, the idle and disorderly; 2nd, the vagrant; and 3rd, the incorrigible rogue. Another object of the bill would be to specify the various punishments, and to adapt them to the present state of society. One of the best magistrates of the present day, Mr. Colquhoun, had observed, that in legislating on an offence in a free country, it was necessary to consult the feelings of the people; because, if a magistrate thought the punishment provided for an offence too severe, it was impossible for him to inflict it. He would, therefore, in the measure which he intended to propose, take care that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the offence. The regulation and amendment of the present system of passing vagrants would form another object of the bill. He had been told by some magistrates, that the system of passing vagrants might be al-
1048
l.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that the public, whatever might be the result, were highly indebted to the hon. member for the attention which he had bestowed on this subject.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE.
Colonel Davies
rose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to a question which, whether it was considered in a constitutional or in a financial point of view, was well-deserving of that attention. In the first place, he could assure the House, that although on the orders his notice stood for a motion on "the Collection of the Revenue," he had not sufficient presumption to think of entering at present upon the whole of that extensive subject. His object was rather to open the way to a future discussion upon it; by impressing upon the House the necessity of assuming, on so important a branch of the public expenditure, the same salutary control which they exercised with respect to others. This would appear the more indispensible, when it was considered that the charges of collecting the public revenue amounted to no less a sum than 4,000,000
l.
1049
in transitu.
CUSTOMS.
Gross Produce.
Rate per Cent.
Increase since 1812.
1812
£.10,023,870
£.7
17
7
£.
s.
d.
1820
12,266,214
8
19
0
1
1
5
EXCISE.
1812
19,476,849
3
17
4
1820
29,342,898
3
18
1
0
0
9
STAMPS.
1812
5,428,811
2
16
7
1820
6,564,461
2
13
7
0
0
0
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES.
1812
7,444,782
3
19
2
1820
7,849,768
4
2
7
0
3
5
POST-OFFICE.
1812
1,820;761
22
10
11
1820
1,894,631
25
3
2
2
12
3
1050
ONE SHILLING ON THE POUND PENSIONS AND SALARIES.
1812
19,313
1
12
8
1820
18,346
2
12
4
0
19
8
SIXPENCE ON THE POUND PENSIONS AND SALARIES.
1812
17,081
1
15
4
1820
8,684
2
16
4
1
1
0
HACKNEY COACHES.
1812
27,869
12
1
11
1820
26,374
15
12
7
3
10
8
HAWKERS AND PEDLARS.
1812
23,141
12
18
4
1820
29,360
17
15
7
4
17
3
1051
1052
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
1053
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1054
l
l.
l.
1055
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1056
s.
s.
s.
s.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.,
l.
s.
Mr. Lushington
said, that the gallant officer had made numerous mistakes in his view of the public accounts, not only in the items, but in the mode and manner of their application. He had made a mistake of 3,262,000
l.
l.
1057
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
little
"greatly
l.
1058
Mr. Hume
thought, that the grounds of objection stated by the hon. secretary, to the motion of his gallant friend would apply with equal force to every motion where returns might be called for. Nothing was more necessary than to have returns made to that House. If returns were regularly made, the enormous increase under the various heads of public expenditure would not have taken place. To illustrate that assertion, he would state that in 1805 the amount of collecting the revenue for Scotland was 17,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
1059
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1060
l.
l.
Sir I. Coffin
begged to say a few words in consequence of the allusion made by name to a relative of his, Mr. Lyne. On the return of his relative to this country, he (sir I. C.) had taken him up to the Treasury. He was then quite blind, and offered to surrender the 2,500
l.
Sir C. Long
said, the hon. member had complained, that ministers had not reduced the number of the commissioners of customs. It was very true they had not done so, and for this reason—because they were all perfectly convinced that, if the commissioners were actively employed there was not one too many. He was sorry that the hon. member had complained of some of the commissioners, as unfit for the situation in which they were placed. He had alluded particularly to one of them who had formerly been in the military line. Now, he thought, there was not connected with any department of the public service, a more able or efficient man than the individual thus noticed by the hon. member. With respect to another of the commissioners (Mr. Stewart,) no gentleman could possibly be better recommended than he was. It had been said, that he received very considerable
1061
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1062
data
Colonel Davies
briefly replied, and contended, that the rate of collection which he had spoken of in 1812 was correct. However, without dwelling on these details, the main question was, why the four millions expended on the collection of the revenue should not be brought under the view of the House by estimates, as well as the other branches of the public service.
The previous question, "That the question be now put," was then moved on the first four resolutions, and negatived. On the last resolution, the House divided Ayes 25. Noes 93.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, R.
Haldimand, W.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Hamilton, lord A.
Burdett, sir F.
Hume. J.
Benyon, B.
James, W.
Blake, sir F.
Lennard, T. B.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Maule, hon. W.
Callaghan, col.
Moore, P.
Griffiths, J. W.
Robarts, col.
Graham, S.
Robarts, A. W.
Guise, sir W.
Bickford, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Russell, lord J.
1063
Rice, S.
Wilson, sir R.
Sykes, D.
TELLERS.
Smith, W.
Davies, col.
Whitbread, S.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Wood, ald.
MUTINY BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Mutiny bill,
Mr. Bennet
observed, that his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had given notice of a motion for an instruction to the committee respecting the power of the king to dismiss officers. He hoped he would not press the motion at present, as it did not, as a general question, excite that interest which it deserved. It was the complaint, that in the House as well as out, it was the disposition to treat lightly constitutional questions in comparison with money matters. But in those times, when the members of that House were not so numerous, 152 had voted for the motion of 1734, while in the other House no less than 62 peers voted on the same side. But there was not at that time such a general indifference to constitutional questions, as unhappily prevailed at present. The gentlemen on his side of the House were on this occasion reduced to a sort of select society [a laugh]. The gentlemen on the other side might laugh and jeer, but he expressed most unfeignedly his surprise and regret, that the distinguished members with whom he had usually the honour to act, should have been absent on an occasion so deserving of their support. But in consequence of this absence, and in the hope of the presence of his hon. friends upon a future occasion, he earnestly recommended his hon. friend to postpone his intended motion.
Mr. Bright
said, that whatever might be the reasons which induced others to be absent or present, he looked at this question as one which had received serious attention in better periods of our history, and he strongly wished that the House would return to its former character, and examine the foundation of our institutions in the spirit of those institutions. He had been taught to entertain great suspicion of a standing army. However he might differ from gentlemen who were now absent or present, in a most sacred regard for the constitution be yielded to none. The right of dismissing officers, without cause assigned, had been, on a former occasion, treated as one of the prero-
1064
Mr. Hume
said, that although he had known a question of as great importance as the present met by as empty benches, he would not persist against the advice of his friends, but would bring the subject forward on the bringing up of the report.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Mr. Hume
said, that the 29th clause of the bill respected courts martial, and to that clause he should move an amendment, which would confine courts-martial to the forms there prescribed, and declare "that no punishment whatever should be inflicted but such as was agreeable to the sentence of a court-martial, and to the forms of the act."
Lord Palmerston
said, that no punishment could be inflicted but such as was legal, under the act; therefore the amendment was unnecessary.
Mr. Wetherell
said, that if the amendment meant nothing beyond the carrying into effect the clause to which it was attached, it was clearly superfluous. But, if it indirectly aimed at the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss officers, let the question be fairly met, as the hon. member for Bristol had proposed.
Sir I. Coffin
would recommend a little modesty to the mover of the amendment, if he meant that the final approbation of the sentence should not be left to the commander-in-chief.
Colonel Wood
thought the proposed addition was a round-about way of bringing on the question which the hon. mover had said he should decline bringing on that night. He should be happy to meet the question upon constitutional grounds;
1065
Mr. W. Courtenay
contended, that some ground ought to have been shown for the necessity of the amendment. What grievances were there which the amendment remedied? If it meant to prevent the dismissal of officers, it was the proposition which had been postponed, in another form; if it did not, it was unnecessary.
Mr. W. Williams
felt, that the dependance of the officers of the army upon the will of the Crown, or that of the minister was so obvious, from the recent dismissal of a gallant officer, without any cause made out, or trial instituted, that he should conceive it his duty, if no more competent person undertook the task, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the exclusion of all military officers from seats in that House, and also from the right of voting for any person becoming a candidate for a seat in that House; for he thought that many persons were excluded from those privileges who might fairly be deemed more independent than the officers of the army were now become, in consequence of the conduct of the Crown, or its ministers.
Colonel Wood
said, he was as jealous of a standing army as his hon. friend, and regarded the prerogative as a check upon the army. The only true dangers which had occurred in our history, was when the army was severed from the Crown, and power was placed in the hands of the army. He saw no reason for such a quantum of suspicion of officers in that House. They sat on both sides. To receive the thanks of parliament in their place there, was the best reward which they could receive for a service in which, God knew, they got little wealth, though they might gather some laurels. There was no reason for excluding them any more than gentlemen of the navy or the law.
Mr. W. Williams
asked, whether his majesty had the power of depriving a barrister of his rank, at his sole will and pleasure? There was no analogy in the cases. If the army had the power to destroy or uphold the constitution, it ought not to be under the control of any individual however high. They might turn against the people as well as against the Crown.
The Solicitor General
said, it was clear
1066
Colonel Davies
said, there were many instances in which officers who had been acquitted by courts martial had been afterwards dismissed. He instanced the case of the officers of the 85th, who having brought forward charges against their commanding officer, and failed to prove them, were dismissed; and the commanding officer was himself dismissed afterwards, although the court-martial had acquitted him.
Lord Palmerston
said, the dismissal of the officers who had prosecuted groundless charges was no argument on the present question.
Colonel Davies
said, his argument was, that the commanding officer had himself been dismissed, after having been acquitted by the court martial.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was then evident that the amendment raised the question of the prerogative.
Mr. Hume
said, he was not convinced by the argument of the solicitor-general, but he had no wish at present to agitate any point which would involve the question of the prerogative. The gallant colonel would remember that if an army, not under the control of the king, had interfered with the members of that House, and with the privileges of the people, the same might be done by one under absolute control. Its officers were perfectly dependant on the Crown, and, if he might use the phrase, were even the slaves of the Crown, in consequence of this power of dismissal.
Sir M. Nightingall
said, he was himself no slave, and did not believe that the officers of the army were slaves. He thought they had the interest of the constitution at heart as much as any set of men in the country.
Sir I. Coffin
said, that when the hon. member for Weymouth brought in his bill to exclude officers of the army from the House, he hoped it would include officers of the navy, that they might all go out together.
1067
Colonel Trench
flung back the insinuations of the hon. member for Aberdeen, to the foul source from whence they sprung. He was surprised that any member should dare to throw out such an aspersion against a body of men, who surely were not unfitted to sit in that House, because they had devoted years pf their lives to the service of their country.
Sir F. Burdett
begged to protest against this mode of making a sort of personal appeal, which was both contrary to the Orders of the House, and inconsistent with the freedom of debate. The hon. officer had expressed great indignation, because the hon. member for Aberdeen had called the officers of the army slaves. Now, he (Sir. F. B.) had not the slightest hesitation in declaring his perfect conviction of the propriety of this language. It was language which our forefathers had held—it was an argument which had been frequently used by constitutional lawyers against the expediency of a standing army. The great objection to a standing army was, that it had a direct tendency to make the officers of the army slaves. The hon. officer might assume as high a tone as he pleased as to the purity of the motives which influenced the conduct of officers of the army—he might contend, that they were free from all undue prepossessions, and inaccessible to those motives of interest which operated on the rest of mankind; but he (sir F. B.) concurred in the sentiments, and would therefore vindicate the language of the hon. member for Aberdeen. He agreed with his hon. friend, that a standing army, and every thing connected with a standing army, was fraught with danger to the constitution and to the liberties of the people, and he would a thousand times rather die in his seat than submit to its unconstitutional control. Standing up as he did for the constitution, he had no hesitation in declaring, that a standing army was a gross infringement of every principle of that constitution. That it was such an infringement, and that it would sooner or later lead to the destruction of the constitution, was the Opinion of a person, who must be admitted to be a man of some genius even by the side of the learned solicitor-general—he alluded to Montesquieu, in his book on the Spirit of Laws—it was an opinion held by the soundest lawyers, and the ablest constitutional writers this country had produced. It was to be found in
1068
1069
euthanasia,
1070
1071
Lord Palmerston
thought it no part of the rules of debate to permit gentlemen on one side the House to use such expressions as to them seemed convenient, and to forbid those on the other side from using strong language in their defence. The hon. baronet was in the habit of giving the House the result of his private studies; but he had omitted to state, in his quotations from Blackstone, the paragraph which identified the standing army with the British constitution. However dangerous might be the existence of a standing army, it would be infinitely more dangerous to have no army at all; and the amount of existing danger, whatever it might be, would be increased by the measure suggested by the hon. member for Aberdeen. If the army was not to be elected into a fourth estate, it must be placed under some species of control. The hon. baronet objected to that control being vested in the Crown. Was parliament, then, to have the control of the army? Wherever popular assemblies had attempted to command a military force, the thing had usually ended by that force commanding them. The observation of the hon. baronet respecting "artificial Mamelukes," referred, he supposed to the children of the Military Asylum; but the children of that establishment were allowed to choose their own professions, and the majority of them had actually chosen civil pursuits. With regard to the military rules of other governments, he apprehended that the king of Prussia had often exercised the power in question.
Mr. Bennet
said, his hon. friend had not applied the term "slaves," to the army tauntingly or sneeringly. Certainly the language of the gallant officer was entirely new.
Mr. Creevey
said, he had beard the hon. and gallant officer make use of the
1072
Mr. Bennet
said, his objection was not to the word "dared," but to the words "foul source," which had been used by the gallant member and which he trusted he would take an opportunity of explaining.
Colonel Trench
said, that the expression used by the hon. member for Aberdeen had certainly appeared to him to be coarse and foul-mouthed. He had answered it in a moment of indignation, and as he was not often in the habit of addressing the House, he feared he had inadvertently gone beyond the rules of debate. He apologized to the House for having done so, but he should not carry his apology any further.
The amendment was then withdrawn. The House being resumed,
Mr. Bennet
informed the Speaker, that when the House had been in a Committee, a dispute had arisen betwixt two hon. members, of which, as he was not in the chair, he could not probably be supposed to be aware. One of those hon. members was his hon. friend, the member for Montrose, the other the member for Cambridge; and he regretted to say that in consequence of expressions used by his hon. friend, the other hon. member had made a retort, couched in a manner which as he was not then present, he could not designate. A subsequent explanation had been made by his hon. friend, which had been accepted by the House. A similar explanation had been made by the other hon. member, of the expression he had used; as far as the house was concerned, he might say he had made an apology; but not one word had he said with regard to the person towards whom those expressions were directed. As it was not the custom in that House, or elswhere, for such language to pass without a retractation, or ulterior consequences, he hoped some means would be taken by the House to stop any further proceedings.
The Speaker
commended the course which the hon. member had taken, with such an apprehension on his mind as he had described. With respect to the circumstance to which he had called his attention, he begged to state, that he was present in the House as a member during the time it occurred. He was sorry the impression left on the mind of the hon. member was such as he described; but
1073
Mr. Hume
stated, that according to his apprehension, the explanation of the hon. officer, notwithstanding the reservation it contained, was not meant to be applicable to him in a hostile sense. For his own part, he felt perfectly satisfied, and would have prevented his hon. friend from troubling the House, had he been aware of his intention.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 13.1822
DISTRESS IN CANADA.
Mr. Marryat
presented a petition from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, which contained a simple, but melancholy recital of plain facts and official documents. The petitioners state, that within the last year the wages of labour, the prices of the produce of the soil, and the value of landed property in that province, have diminished one half; that the amount of the exports has decreased from near 800,000
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.
1074
s.
1075
Mr. Ellice
said, that no person unacquainted with the Canadas could form a just idea of the contrast which their present situation presented to their former prosperity, or of the consequences that must inevitably result from the continued restrictions on their trade. Last year the alteration in the timber duties bore heavily on that branch of their commerce; and for the first time the operation of the corn laws prevented the introduction into this market of the other staple article of their produce. They were also, if report spoke true, threatened with the loss of their West India trade. If they were not permitted to send their produce to this market, while it was excluded from many others by the operation of the navigation laws, it was impossible they could long pay for the manufactures and supplies we compelled them to receive solely from this country; and he did hope some relaxation of the present restriction, and, above all, the admission of their corn, might be conceded, without risk of injury to the agricultural interests.
Mr. Bennet,
of Wilts, opposed the prayer of the petition, on the ground that it was as necessary to protect the English agriculturist, as it could be to relieve the Canadian corn grower. When corn might be imported into this country, large quantities of American grain had been sent to Canada, and thence smuggled into England; so that the restraint now complained of the petitioners had brought upon themselves. He wished to give the colonies all equit-
1076
Mr. Wilmot
was fully convinced of the reality of the distress complained of, but he must remark, that there was nothing in the measures lately adopted that could produce that distress. He thought it desirable that this petition should be referred to the special notice of the agricultural committee.
Mr. Ricardo
thought the House bound to attend to the complaints of the petitioners. The Canadians suffered serious hardships which ought to be removed; they complained, 1st. That we did not take timber from them on the same terms as we did before. 2nd, that we refused to admit their corn. And 3dly, that they were subjected to the inconvenience of purchasing all articles in our markets. As to the first, we had a right to go to any market we pleased for our timber; but, on that very principle, the second cause of grievance ought to be done away, and their corn ought to have access to our markets. With respect to the forcing the colonies to purchase in our markets, when they might be more conveniently supplied elsewhere, it was an inconvenience to which they ought not to be exposed. He would always oppose that principle, not only as applied to Canada, but to every other colony.
Sir I. Coffin
thought it would have been a good thing for this country, if Canada had been sunk to the bottom of the sea. It cost this country 500,000
l.
l.
au Diable,
Mr. W. Smith
allowed that Canada cost us a great deal of money: but that made it the more necessary to take such steps as did not interfere with its improvement. He was convinced that if the province was made easy and comfortable with respect to its commercial relations, we need
1077
Ordered to lie on the table.
ILCHESTER GOAL—TREATMENT OF MR. HUNT.
Sir R. Wilson
presented a petition from a person of the name of Joseph Healy. The object of it was, to implore the House to address his majesty, in order to obtain a remission of the remaining part of Mr. Hunt's sentence. The petitioner had been arrested at the same time with Mr. Hunt, and was sentenced, for what he did not conceive to be an offence, to an imprisonment of one year in Lincoln Castle. The manner in which the petitioner spoke of his treatment whilst under confinement formed an agreeable contrast with the descriptions which the house had lately so repeatedly heard with respect to the usage of Mr. Hunt in Ilchester gaol.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, he had been prevented, by unavoidable absence, from making a few observations, which he would now take the liberty of addressing to the House. In the first place, he was of opinion that the charges which had been made against the government of Ilchester gaol, both by Mr. Hunt, and the hon. alderman (Wood), had been fully and clearly established, and that a case of great hardship and oppression had been made out. He found from the evidence taken before the commissioners, that the gaoler had resorted to the extraordinary and cruel proceeding of applying a blister to the head of a prisoner named Thomas Gardiner, by way of punishment. The treatment to which another prisoner named Hillyer, was subjected, was also most unjustifiable. It appeared that this unfortunate man was loaded with double irons on his arms and legs, and the chain by which they were connected was so short that it was almost impossible for him to stand upright. A still more striking instance of improper treatment was exhibited in the case of a female, named Mary Cuer. This prisoner was confined in irons with her child, in a cold and damp cell during a period of frost and snow. In consequence of the treatment she had received, and the situation in which she was placed, the unfortunate woman was unable to afford any nourishment to her child, other than that which could be derived from bread and water, with the latter of which articles she was supplied in a bucket. This was a most
1078
1079
Sir T. Lethbridge
quite agreed, that if Mr. Hunt's punishment had been aggravated by the treatment he had received,
1080
Mr. Dickinson
observed, that the magistrates had certainly been much deceived with respect to the character and conduct of the gaoler, but that they shared the delusion with the hon. member for Weymouth, who had stated in his account of the gaol, that it was impossible to observe his conduct without admiration. It must be considered as highly creditable to the magistrates, that on the first accusation by Mr. Hunt, they gave him every means of establishing the truth of his allegations. He was convinced the magistrates of Somerset were as incapable of inhumanity and tyranny, as any of those whom he had the honour to address.
Mr. Peel
said, he had read the report with that regret which any man must feel, at discovering the particular instances of misconduct alluded to. No man could read without indignation the treatment inflicted upon three of the prisoners, on the head of one of whom a blister had been put, not for the purpose of administering relief or consolation, but to augment the punishment of an individual for refractory conduct. Such an instance of cruelty could not be read without indignation, not only against the person applying for the blister, but the medical man who had administered it. He did not ask the House to withhold their unqualified censure, from those who had so justly incurred it; but he only called upon them to suspend their judgment upon the whole case, until the evidence was presented. With respect to Mr. Hunt, the circumstances must, indeed, be very special and strong, which, in the present instance, would induce him to discuss it; particularly as the subject would in a few days come before them in the shape of a specific motion; but he had no objection to state the result of the inquiries he had made into Mr. Hunt's present condition in the prison. Mr. Hunt occupied two rooms in the gaol which had a northern aspect; the adjoining ward was appropriated for the recep-
1081
1082
Mr. Bennet
said, he felt no disposition to retract the expressions he had applied to the visiting magistrates. The censure be had cast upon them was justified by the report, and he should feel it to be his duty, if the subject were not taken up by others, to move an address to the Crown for their removal. Why had they not inquired into the case of the man who was thrown in irons into a solitary cell? Why had they not taken the trouble to look over the prison books, and inquire into the cause of their being so interlined, mutilated, and defaced? God forbid that he should pass a sweeping censure upon the whole magistracy of the county. It was the visiting magistrates of whom he complained.
Mr. Hume
said, he had on a former occasion said, that several of the magistrates of Somersetshire had shown themselves destitute of the feelings of humanity, after having carefully read over the report of the commissioners, he felt himself unable to alter that opinion.
The Solicitor General
was anxious to state, in explanation of the repeated allusion which had been made to the part taken by two of the judges respecting the regulations for Ilchester gaol, that he had seen both the original and the altered rules. In the original, there were certainly three or four very harsh regulations, which the judges deemed improper, and had disallowed; but, neither in point of law, nor in point of feeling, could he see any thing objectionable in the rules now adopted.
Ordered to lie on the table.
OFFICE OF JOINT POST MASTER GENERAL.
Lord Normanby
rose, to bring forward his motion for reducing the number of persons filling the Office of Joint Postmaster-General. Difficult as he at all times felt it to address that House, he should feel himself still more embarrassed if he thought it was for a moment supposed, that he was actuated by any invidious or personal motive on the present occasion. But he felt cheered by the reflection, that his only motive was a sense of duty to his country. He trusted that he should shew to the House, that this was as clear a question of reduction as any which could be brought under the consideration of parliament. It was matter of much satisfaction to him to know, that tile reduction which he was about to propose, did not involve any of those dis-
1083
1084
1085
1086
l.
1087
1088
Mr. Robinson
said, he could not take so narrow a view of the present question as had been taken by his noble friend; and must confess that the speech of his noble friend had produced no other impression on his mind than to confirm his previous impressions. His noble friend had said, that he did not propose, in bringing forward his present motion, to interfere with other offices; but, an acquiescence on the part of the House in the present motion—a motion which Lad been brought forward in consequence of the success of a motion made by an hon. baronet the other night—would, he had no doubt, lead, in various other instances, to a similar proposition founded on similar grounds. And, that brought distinctly before them this principle—whether the influence of the Crown ought or ought not to be diminished? He knew it was easy to turn into ridicule any particular opposition to any
1089
1090
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he was not disposed too much to retrench the influence of the Crown; but, concurring, as he did, in many of the observations which had fallen from hon. gentlemen on that subject, he must still admit the necessity of the present motion. As far as he could understand the speech of the right hon. gentleman, he did not even attempt to say that the office of the second post-master-general was at all necessary. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the influence of the Crown, and of the necessity of pre-
1091
l.
Alderman C. Smith
trusted, that, on the present occasion, every loyal man would rally round the throne, to protect its just and constitutional privileges. If the House yielded to the present application, he should expect, that, one by one, each of the ministerial offices of the Crown would be abolished: and, under this impression, he should vote against the motion.
Sir John Sebright
said, that the noble marquis (Salisbury), who was the second post-master-general, had been for a number of years lord lieutenant of his county, and had discharged the duties of that office with honour to himself, and most beneficially for the county. Having as a magistrate acted under the noble marquis, he felt towards him the utmost respect; but he was placed there to discharge a great public duty. Private feelings, in that House, were not to give way to public principle. At a time like the present, when distress prevailed to an extent unexampled, he felt it to be his bounden duty to vote for every reduction of the public expenditure, that was consistent with the safety of the state. It had not been contended that two post-masters-general were necessary. He doubted whether even one was necessary. His own opinion was, that that able and intelligent officer, Mr. Freeling, who had discharged his public duty in a manner so beneficial to the country, would be able to do the business of the post-masters-general, without any other assistance.
Mr. Sumner
said, that at a late county meeting he had been met with a general cry of "retrenchment—unsparing retrenchment"! He was told that this was the popular cry throughout the country. But as to popular clamour, there was
1092
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that having in his place voted that two junior lords of the Admiralty were unnecessary, he could not consistently oppose the present motion. He considered the second post-master-general entirely useless; and with respect to the influence of the Crown, he did not think that the influence or the dignity of the Crown, in a loyal and well-disposed country like this required to be bolstered up by half a dozen useless placemen. If these two officers of the public would be content to take the duty watch and watch, or take it by alternate three months, and receive only one post-master-general's salary, he could have no objection to accommodate them. If not, he must vote for his noble friend's motion.
Mr. Denison
said, he would never use, out of that House, any words which he was ashamed to utter in it. He begged leave to repeat, in his place, and before his hon. colleague that he ever would be an advocate for "retrenchment—unsparing retrenchment." A right hon. gentleman had said, that the influence of the Crown had not increased. In his (Mr. D's.) opinion, it had increased, and would continue to increase; seeing that the dis-
1093
Mr. Fremantle
said, he could not, consistently with his views of the safety and honour of the country, assent to the proposition. He could not consent to pull down the ancient institutions of the country—those institutions under which the country had so long prospered. No man could say, that, if the motion were acceded to, the abolition of the office would contribute one iota to the removal of the distress complained of. And yet; if conceded, it would have the effect of breaking down and destroying the system of government piecemeal. It would naturally be said, "cut down the salaries of all the offices of government, and let them no longer be filled by noblemen or gentlemen of influence or rank, but by clerks, who would be accountable to that House." The question had, he regretted to say, been taken up on narrow grounds, and the arguments therefore were the more fallacious. It was incumbent on the noble mover, to spew in what manner the present system of the postmastership was dangerous or injurious. There certainly existed a necessity for control in this department, and that control was as effectually vested in the postmasters, as in any other public boards. He concluded by observing, that the measure was improvident, and would prove highly dangerous as a precedent.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he was anxious to state the reasons for his vote on the present question. The question had been treated by the noble mover with reference simply to the particular office which he had called on the House to abolish, on account of its inefficiency and needlessness. He (Mr. W.) could not confine himself to this view of the ques-
1094
1095
Mr. Bankes
said, he had that night heard principles advanced which, during all the time that he had had a seat in that House, he had never heard propounded with an equal degree of daring. The doctrine he had formerly collected from what he had conceived to be, at the time, he best and most weighty authorities in the House was, that the Crown was intitled to a large and legitimate influence in all those offices that were more immediately connected with, what he might call, the monarchical part of our constitution. This influence was exercised by the Crown's appointment to a large body of such offices as were necessary to the discharge of the various duties that devolved upon that department of the state which he spoke of; and he always considered, that these should be placed, even more than they had been, within the immediate disposal and pleasure of the Crown. He thought that the House ought not to interfere with them, except in cases which involved some constitutional question. They were the legitimate appointments of the Crown, and they ought to be retained as long as they were necessary; but beyond this, the principle ought not to be carried. His hon. friend who had just spoken had said, that the noble mover, must show, not only that the office proposed to be reduced was useless, but that it was an office of influence. But it was sufficient for him to show that it was useless; and, indeed, the
onus
1096
1097
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that his noble friend who had commenced the present discussion, had treated the question with reference solely to the duties of the particular office. He had been followed by his right hon. friend, who had met the question on the general ground of principle, and had declared that the proposition was
ab initio
1098
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
1099
l.,
1100
l.,
1101
1102
1103
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that if the House had been occupied with the only question which the noble mover had introduced to their notice—and on that question alone had they to decide—he certainly should have consulted his own convenience and the state of his health by giving a hearty and conscientious, but a silent vote, in favour of the noble lord's proposition. Other questions, however, and of far greater magnitude, had been introduced by the right hon. gentleman who spoke second in the debate —questions, he would say, of as great magnitude and importance, as were ever brought before the House of Commons. Novelties, as he conceived them, in constitutional doctrine, had been boldly advanced—never, before, indeed, had they been avowed so distinctly and unequivocally in a public assembly — novelties which struck nearly at the root of the British constitution—novelties, which, if the House acted on them, would be more injurious to their estimation in the minds of the people of this kingdom, than any measure they had been ever induced to adopt. He agreed with the hon. member for Corfe Castle, that on all former occasions, when reformation was attempted in that House, particucularly that of 1782, by Mr. Burke, the principle of keeping up useless offices in order to support the influence of the Crown never once reared its head. At that time the whole question was decided on a very narrow ground—"Are these offices useless, or are they beneficial to the public?" There was one exception—the great sinecures of the state. And why? Because they constituted the only provision for the retired servants of the Crown. The right hon. gentleman placed the whole defence of sinecures on that ground. But, could be argue, with any degree of consistency, that sinecures should be continued, when pensions were granted in their stead? He did, however, so argue the question. He would not only have pensions but sinecures for retired officers. The right hon. gentleman who had last spoken had showed a great deal of skill and dexterity in the arrangement of his topics. He had given great space and latitude to the unimportant part of his argument, and had passed rapidly over that which most demanded attention; because he was
1104
1105
1106
l.
1107
1108
Mr. Wynn
said, he had supported the bills of 1812 and 1813 for diminishing the influence of the Crown, because a power to reward public services was substituted. Much obloquy had been previously thrown upon sinecures, and it was considered advisable to provide for public services in another mode. He admitted the merits of the secretary of the Post-office; but he could not agree to entrust so extensive a public department to his sole management; especially as a political connexion was necessary between ministers and the higher public officers. He believed it was by no means the wish of the people to strip the Crown of its legitimate influence, which was the best safeguard of the constitution.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he agreed with his right hon. friend who spoke second in the debate, that this ques-
1109
1110
l.
Sir John Newport
said, the noble lord had avowed that it was not his intention to maintain that useless offices should be kept up for the support of the influence of the Crown, and yet his whole speech had been a contradiction to that avowal. This office was admitted to be quite
1111
Sir I. Coffin
observed, that the postmasters-general did not do any duty, and, therefore, he thought they should be both abolished.
Lord Normanby
shortly replied. After his majesty's ministers had brought down the King's gracious message, announcing his majesty's intention of making a great sacrifice out of his personal income, it was rather extraordinary that they should take so early an opportunity of making the Crown the means of defending a piece of mere ministerial patronage.
The House divided: Ayes 159. Noes, 184. Majority against the motion 25.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Alexander, J.
Chandos, marq.
A'Court, E. H.
Courtenay, T. P.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Courtenay, W.
Apsley, lord
Cholmondeley, lord H.
Ancram, lord
Calvert, John
Antrobus, G. C.
Cust, hon. col.
Browne, Peter
Cheere, E. M.
Balfour, John
Croker, J. W.
Bourne, rt. hon. W. S.
Cumming, G.
Bruce, Rt.
Canning, rt. hon. G.
Buchanan, J.
Cockerell, sir C.
Binning, lord
Cripps, J.
Bathurst, hon. S.
Cranbourne, visct.
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Clive, Rt.
Broadhead, T. H.
Clive, lord
Brudenell, lord
Cockburne, sir G.
Barne, M.
Collett, E. J.
Barry, col.
Copley, sir J. S.
Blake, Rt.
Dalrymple, A.
Bradshaw, T. H.
Divett, Thos.
Burgh, sir U.
Dawson, G.
Beresford, lord G.
Dodson, John
Blair, J.
Dunlop, J.
Blackburne, John
Drummond, H. Home
Brogden, J
Downie, Rt.
Cole, sir L.
Drake, T. T.
Cecil, lord T.
Dawkins, J.
Campbell, Arch.
Dawkins, H.
1112
Douglas, W. R. K.
Pole, sir Peter
Dundas, rt. hon. W.
Pollington, visct.
Estcourt, T. G.
Pitt, Jos.
Egerton, W.
Palmerston, visc.
Evelyn, L.
Prendergast, M. G.
Ellis, C. R.
Pennant, G. H. D.
Ellis, T.
Plumber, John
Fleming, John
Paxton, W. G.
Forbes, lord
Paget, hon. B.
Fremantle, Wm.
Peel, right hon. R.
Fleming, John
Phillimore, Dr.
Forrester, F.
Plunkett, rt. hon.
Gossett, col.
Peel, W. G.
Gower, lord F. L.
Phipps, hon. Ed.
Grant, A. C.
Pringle, sir W.
Gordon, hon. W.
Rae, sir W.
Graves, lord
Rice, hon. G.
Gladstone, John
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Gilbert, D.
Rowley, sir J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Russell, J. W.
Grant, G. W.
Ryder, rt. hon. Rd.
Gifford, sir R.
Sandon, visc.
Holford, G.
Scott, hon. John
Holmes, W.
Shiffner, sir G.
Hill, sir G.
Smith, Ch.
Hardingc, sir H.
Sumner, G. H.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Somerset, lord G.
Hodson, S. A.
Somerset, lord E.
Hope, sir W,
Strutt, T. W.
Irving, John
Shaw, sir rt.
Jolliffe, G. H.
Stewart, A.
Jenkinson, hon. C. C.
Seymour, Horace
Knox, hon. Thos.
Strathaven, lord
Kerr, David
Sheldon, Ralph
Lindsay, lord
Taylor, sir H.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Taylor, G. W.
Lloyd, S. J.
Trench, col.
Luttrell, H. F.
Twiss, Horace
Luttrell, J. F.
Townshend, H.
Lowther, visc.
Uxbridge, earl of
Lowther, John
Ure, M.
Lascelles, hon. W.
Villiers, rt. hon. J.
Londonderry, marq. of
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Lewis, T. F.
Wilbraham, E. B.
Lockhart, W. E.
Williams, Rt.
Long, right hon. C.
Wilson, sir H.
Lenox, lord G.
Wilson, W. W. C.
Macqueen, T. P.
Wilson, Tho.
Macnaghten, E. A.
Wetherell, C.
Mundy, G.
Wellesley, R.
Magennis, R.
Warren, C.
Martin, sir T. B.
Wortley, J. S.
Manning, Wm.
Warrender, rt. hon. sir G
Musgrave, sir P.
Wood, col.
Manners, lord C.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Manners, lord R.
Wynn, sir W. W.
Mills, C.
Wynn, C. W.
Neale, sir H. B.
Wilmot, Rt.
Nightingale, sir M.
Willoughby, H.
Nugent, sir G.
Windham, W.
Needham, hon. F. J.
Yarmouth, earl of
Onslow, Arthur
TELLERS.
Osborne, sir John
Clerk, sir G.
Ommanney, sir F.
Lushington, S. R.
MINORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Althorp, visct.
1113
Astley, sir J. D.
Hamilton, lord A.
Beaumont, T. W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Barham, J. F.
Howard, hon. W.
Baring, sir T.
Hume, J.
Barrett, S. M.
Hurst, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Benyon, B.
Hulse, sir C.
Bernal, R.
Harvey, sir E.
Birch, Jos.
Kennedy, T. F.
Bright, H.
Legh Keck, G. A.
Burdett, sir F.
Lamb, hon. G.
Bury, visc.
Lambton, J. G.
Byng, G.
Lemon, sir W.
Benett, John
Lennard, T. B.
Bankes, H.
Lushington, St.
Baillie, John
Langston, J. H.
Belgrave, visct.
Leake, W.
Bentinck, lord W.
Littleton, Ed.
Blake, sir F.
Leycester, R.
Buxton, T. F.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Maberly, J.
Brandling, C.
Maberly, W. L.
Butterworth, J.
Macdonald, J.
Calvert, C.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Calcraft, John
Martin, J.
Campbell, hon. G.
Manic, hon. W.
Cavendish, lord G.
Moore, Peter
Cavendish, H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Cavendish, C.
Marryat, J.
Coffin, sir I.
Miles, P.
Coke, T. W.
Neville, hon. R.
Colburne, N. R.
Newman, R. W.
Concannon, Lucius
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Crespigny, sir W. De
O'Callaghan, J.
Crompton, S.
Ord, W.
Creevey, T.
Ossulston, lord
Chetwynd, G.
Palmer, C. F.
Coote, sir C.
Pares, T.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Phillips, G.
Corbett, P.
Philips, G. R.
Cole, sir C.
Peirse, Henry
Cherry, G. H.
Price, R.
Davies, T. H.
Pollen, sir John
Denison, W. J.
Pym, F.
Dugdale, D.
Portman, Ed.
Doveton, G.
Rick ford, W.
Davenport, D.
Ricardo, D.
Dickinson, W.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Ebrington, viscount
Robarts, A.
Ellice, E.
Robinson, sir G.
Eastnor, lord
Russell, lord J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Russel, R. G.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Rice, T. S.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Robertson, A.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Rumbold, Ch.
Foley, J. H.
Scudamore, R.
Farrand, Robert
Scott, J.
Fane, John
Sykes, D.
Ford, M.
Sebright, sir J.
Fellowes, W. H.
Shelley, sir J.
Graham, S.
Smith, hon. R.
Grenfell, P.
Smith, W.
Griffith, J. W.
Smith, John
Guise, sir W.
Smith, G.
Gooch, T. S.
Smith, Sam.
Gipps, G.
Smith, Abel
Haldimand, W.
Smith, Robert
1114
Taylor, M. A.
Williams, T. P.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Wilson, sir R.
Tynte, C. R.
Winnington, sir T.
Tulk, C. A.
Wood, Matthew
Tennison, C.
Wells, John
Townshend, lord C.
Wodehouse, Ed.
Walpole, lord
Westenra, hon. H.
Warre, J. A.
Yorke, sir J.
Webb, Ed.
TELLERS.
Wharton, John
Duncannon, visct,
Whitbread, S.
Normanby, visct.
Williams, O.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 14.
MOTION RESPECTING THE SIMPLIFYING AND BETTER ARRANGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Mr. Maberly
rose, to make his promised motion for the simplifying and better arrangement of the Public Accounts. He began by observing, with reference to the public accounts on the table, that they were when compared one with the other, full of errors; and he had to claim the indulgence of the House, while he pointed out the dissimilar nature of returns, which, strictly speaking, ought to have been the same, as they related to the same heads of account. One set of accounts, had been laid on the table by the noble marquis opposite. There was, the House would recollect, and account ordered to be annually laid on the table, on or before the 25th of March, but it was not, by the act which rendered that account necessary, ordered that a summary of balance-sheet of the income and expenditure should accompany it. There was, however, in the last year's act, a clause which required such a balance-sheet with the January accounts, and an abstract of it was delivered in up to the 5th Jan. 1822. There was also an abstract of the nett receipt and expenditure of the country up to the 5th of Jan. 1821. He should prove that these accounts were not correct, as compared with each other; for instance the balance-sheet account of the noble marquis, presented on the 15th of Feb. last, differed from the regular annual finance accounts of the year 1821, and the chancellor of the exchequer's account differed from both, in many essential particulars. In the finance accounts of the United Kingdom for the years ending the 5th of Jan. 1821, the first page purported to be an account of the ordinary revenues and extraordinary resources constituting the public income of the United Kingdom of
1115
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
s.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
1116
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
s.
d.:
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
1117
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.;
l.
l.,
l.;
l.,
l.;
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
s.
d.
1118
Mr. Lushington
said, that the comparison on which the hon. gentleman had proceeded was entirely founded on a mistake. The account presented by the noble marquis on the 15th Feb., was not the same as the other account; and ought not to have been compared with it. The annual finance account purported to be the payments into the exchequer, while the other was the account of the nett income available for the public service. The hon. gentleman then went through the different items of the two accounts, in order to show, that they did not, and never were intended, to represent the same results. He did not mean to contend, that a committee might not be most usefully employed in looking into the manner of rendering the public accounts, and, indeed the chancellor of the exchequer had already given notice of his intention to move for such a committee. Perhaps a better plan might be devised; but the balance-sheet form was adopted at the suggestion of an hon. member (Mr. Ricardo), and was deemed to be the most compendious way of stating the accounts. He was anxious that a committee should be appointed to consider in what respects the items of the public expenditure or charge, as exhibited in the annual accounts for the year 1821, differed from the financial statement which had been made to the House on the 15th of February by his noble friend. He felt great satisfaction in saying, that that statement had been ascertained to be most correct in all its important bearings. He should propose, therefore, as an amendment to the motion of the hon. gentleman, "That a select committee be appointed to consider from what causes the payments into the exchequer, as exhibited in the accounts of the public income, ending 5th January, 1821, appears not to agree with the account of the nett public income of the United Kingdom, in the year ending 5th January, 1821, as
1119
Sir J. Newport
thought it very absurd that the public accounts could not be made out in some more satisfactory way than they were at present, so as to show at once how the accounts stood, without needing the speech of a secretary for a whole hour, to explain how these differences were to be accounted for. He should vote for the committee of general inquiry, rather than that proposed by the amendment.
Captain Moberly
said, that the motion of his hon. relative was for a committee, for the purpose of simplifying and better arranging the public accounts; while the amendment only went to the investigation of past errors.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that the public accounts ought to be so stated, that every member, upon referring to them, might be able to make a balance-sheet from them, and see at once what was the actual revenue, and what the expenditure of the Country.
Mr. Hume
hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion, and that the chancellor of the exchequer would move for the appointment of his committee. That committee was of a much more general description than the one proposed by his hon. friend; and he thought it would be a pity to appoint another committee with a view to matters of comparatively little consequence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as it had been conceded, that the differences in the accounts were reconcilable, he had no objection to the whole question being postponed, to afford an opportunity for the suggestion of a better plan. He would himself name the 18th of April for bringing the subject before the House.
Mr. Calcraft
considered that his hon. friend had clearly established the case upon which he set out. He, therefore, thought it scarcely worth while to go into a committee for the mere purpose of elucidating mistakes.
Mr. Maberly
said, that his object in bringing forward the motion was solely to devise a plan by which the public accounts might be rendered more simple, intelligent, and satisfactory. He would, however, after what had fallen, withdraw his motion.
The motion and also the amendment were then withdrawn.
1120
BOARD OF CONTROL.—
Mr. Creevey
addressed the House to the following effect:—I rise, Sir, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the present state of a great public office—I mean the Board of Control, for managing the affairs of India. Every body who is at all acquainted with the history of this country for the last forty years, must be aware of the great difference of opinion which always subsisted between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, as to the management of the affairs or India. It is well known, that finally Mr. Pitt's system prevailed, and that it is to him we owe the present board of control. But I beg to call the attention of the House to the principles upon which that board was founded by Mr. Pitt. In the year 1784, a sort of agreement first took place between the India company and the country as to the government of India. It was then thought proper to introduce the existing system; and Mr. Pitt, in bringing the subject under the notice of parliament, said, that it was a great pleasure to him to be enabled to state that this establishment would be attended with no expense to the country; that several honourable gentlemen would gratuitously discharge the duty of commissioners; that there was to be no charge—no salaries—no patronage; and that though his own time was much occupied in the business of his office, he would gladly lend his assistance to the commissioners. Mr. Pitt, in every respect, fulfilled his promise; and this commission lasted, unaltered, nine years—that is to say, from 1784, when it was first formed, until 1793. As Mr. Pitt had pointed out, the constitution of this board, during nine years, was unaccompanied by salaries, either to himself, or to the other gentlemen who had taken upon themselves the functions of its commissioners. In 1793, when a new constitution of the board took place, a different compact or agreement was entered into between the East India company and the public. The bill which had been originally introduced by Mr. Pitt, fell into the hands of the late lord Melville, and it was on that occasion, Sir, that the first departure took place from this unpaid, romantic, gratuitous system. Lord Melville procured a clause to be inserted in this bill, by which the East India company were to pay annually 16,000
l.
l.
1121
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
*
l.
*
1122
l.,
l.
l.;
1123
1124
1125
1126
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1127
l.
1128
*
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
*
1129
l.,
1130
Mr. Thomas Courtenay
said, that he was not induced to offer himself thus early in the, debate, in consequence of the personal reference that had been made to him by the hon. gentleman. He would leave it to those who were the authors of the acts with regard to himself, which were so odious to that hon. gentleman, to answer him on that subject. His immediate object in rising was, to satisfy the House, that a direct negative ought to be given to the motion of the hon. gentleman. As to himself, he would only declare upon his honour, that from what he knew of the duties of the office he held, and from the manner in which he discharged them (and he regarded it as a moral offence to take a salary of which he was not deserving), that he looked back with infinitely more satisfaction to the period he had occupied the office of secretary to the board of control, than the hon. gentleman could do, to the time during which lie, held it. [Hear hear!] ' From the moment the hon. gentleman gave an indefinite notice of a motion to call the attention of the House to that board be (Mr. Courtenay) must own that he looked with some anxiety, and not a little curiosity, to the mode the hon. gentleman, would adopt in bringing the subject forward; Knowing the relation in which the hon. gentleman formerly stood to the board, he indulged at first in the expectation, that he would, perhaps, come forward and state that the secretary ship, while he held it, was an office of very great trust; that all the individuals connected with the board performed their duty; that they were, therefore, intitled to their salaries; but that the business of the secretary, as well as of the commissioners, was much better performed then than at present; and that these offices had now become little better than sinecure situations. Knowing, however, as he did, how the facts of the case stood, he felt that his expectation was too good to be true. He then thought that, perhaps, the hon. gentleman would come to the House, in a modest manner, with head abased and countenance suffused with blushes, and acknowledge that he had himself formerly been guilty of holding a sinecure [loud cheers, and laughter], as well as certain considerable persons who, during the time he had been in office, acted as presidents of the board. He had imagined that the hon. gentleman would have
1131
Mr. Creevey.
—"I said in parliament."
Mr. Courtenay.
—Was it, he asked, fair to bring forward public men as useless functionaries of the state, because they did little in parliament, without considering the duties they performed in their offices? And could any thing be clone in parliament by a commissioner for the affairs of India, without a previous attention to the subject, in his office? As to the office he (Mr. Creevey) had held, he had made but little allusion to it; no more than he could help: and dropping all official manner, and assuming the tone of an independent country gentleman, he appeared on this occasion before the House, to call for the abolition of one of the commissionerships, as a useless and unnecessary office, and for a parliamentary inquiry to establish the fact; a. proceeding which the House well knew
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
Mr. Tierney
said, he felt no wish to conceal any opinion he entertained on this subject, or to withhold from the House any information he could give, with respect to the office in question. He was as ignorant of the nature of the motion, until within the last two or three hours, as the hon. secretary himself, and therefore he was as much taken by surprise and had as little time to prepare himself as that hon. gentleman. But, however taken by surprise, or however unprepared, he would detail every thing which happened while he was in that office, with as strict an attention to truth as possible. The present motion seemed to embrace two objects; one, to inquire how far it was necessary to continue the number of members now in the board of control; the other, assuming the fact that so many ought to remain, to consider whether it was proper that the same number should continue to have seats in parliament? These appeared to him to be the two objects of the motion; and he thought they were extremely fair ones. As to the importance of the board of control, no person respected that institution more than he did, or was better acquainted with the weight of business that pressed upon it. But the question for the House was, whether those duties required three commissioners, or could be performed by a more limited number? And, so far as his experience went in 1807, he declared upon his honour, that he did not think three commissioners were necessary; for during the
1142
1143
1144
l.
l.
1145
l.
Mr. Canning
said, he rose under the same necessity that had called up the right hon. gentleman opposite, allusion having been made by the hon. mover to him (Mr. C.) and to his conduct of that office which he had recently had the honour of filling for five years. He felt it his duty to say of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney), that at no time, so far as his retrospect carried him back, was the office of president of the board of control more efficiently discharged, than it had been by the right hon. gentleman. In many points referred to they both concurred; and with respect to some in which they disagreed, the change of circumstances, the progress of time, and the increase of business in the office, would, he believed, account satisfactorily for the difference. What he should have to state on the subject of the motion would be, like what the right hon. gentleman had stated, more in the shape of testimony than of argument. But before
1146
Habetis confitentem reum
1147
Me, me, adsum qui non feci,"
"qui nil feci"
l.
penetralia
1148
1149
1150
"Pursued the triumph, and partook the gale;"
1151
1152
1153
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1154
1155
"And some he paid with port, and some with praise."
1156
1157
1158
1159
argumentum ad invidiam
"See no contiguous palace rear its head
"To mock the meanness, of his humble shed,"
privilegium odiosum
1160
Mr. Buxton
wished to say only a few words in praise of the conduct of the
1161
Mr. Wynn
said, it would be idle to enter into any defence of the board of control, after the able speeches of the hon. secretary and of the right hon. gentleman who had lately filled the office of president. He himself had not been in office more than a month; but, judging from what he had seen, he could say, that the statement of his hon. friends was completely borne out by facts. As the hon. mover who occupied the place of secretary in 1806, had kept silence fir fifteen years on the inefficiency of the offices which he now proposed to abolish, he must have some-reason for now speaking out, which he had not before. That object was easily guessed at. He had employed his motion merely as a peg on which to hang his attack upon him. In pursuance of that design, the hon. mover had stated that his (Mr. W's.) accession to office was a purchase of family interest. To answer seriously a charge of this kind would be to acknowledge the probability of its truth; and therefore he would not say one word on the subject. He had now sat in the House for twenty-five years, and he called upon hon. gentlemen who had observed his conduct to say whether he had given ground for such insinuations. The hon. gentleman, in order to make out the charge of sacrificing principle to place, had mentioned his (Mr. W's.) vote against the salt-tax before he came into office, and his support of it on a late occasion; but, was there any thing inconsistent in voting against a tax at one time, and for it another? He was glad of that cheer, because it showed that he was understood by those who with him, before the year, 1806, opposed the property tax, and who afterwards preserved and increased it. In the case in question, he thought the salt tax objectionable, and voted for its repeal. He still retained the same opinion; but he was prevented from giving his vote, by circumstances which
1162
l.
l.
Lord Binning
merely wished to state a word in answer to the charge of the hon. member for Weymouth, who had said, that a dispatch from the Board of Directors, which would have disgraced Chris-
1163
Dr. Phillimore
rose, only to repel a charge against his character; and he trusted that the personal attack of the hon. mover would not lead him to be personal in return. He must, however, tell that hon. member, that before he again threw out such insinuations, and indulged in such charges, he should examine more strictly the grounds on which they were bottomed. He was inconsistent, it was said, and he had cost the country a million and a half of money. Now, how was that charge made out? The hon. gentleman answered, that he had voted for a repeal of the salt tax before he came into office, and against that repeal when in office. The statement was incorrect. He had never voted for an immediate repeal, though the charge had been malevolently made out of doors, and attempted to be supported on garbled extracts from his speeches. He disdained to reply to the quarter whence this imputation proceeded, but in his place in parliament he was willing to explain his conduct. The resolution which he had brought forward, and which was studiously omitted in the garbled extracts from his speeches, merely pledged the House to take the earliest opportunity to consider of the repeal of the tax. He would conclude by assuring the House, that when he accepted of office he had done so with a resolution to do his duty to the utmost of his abilities.
Mr. Creevey
briefly replied. He said, he had understood before he came down to the House, that the great performer was to be put in requisition that night, and that this was his last appearance on that stage for some time. Like some other great actors, however, he had overdone his part. The House had heard all the changes rung on a few words, and each time his friends laughed at his repeated attempts at waggery, as if they were new. Thus they had heard no less than four or five times the very amusing phrases of the "idle secretary," "the idle, loitering, newspaper-reading secretary," "the idle park-window gazing se-
1164
The House divided: Ayes 88. Noes, 273. Majority against the motion 185.
1165
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visct.
Maberly, W. L.
Beaumont, T. W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Baring, sir T.
Martin, J.
Barrett, S. M.
Maule, hon. W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Moore, P.
Benyon, B.
Marjoribanks, S.
Bernal, R.
Normanby, visct.
Birch, J.
Newman, R. W.
Bright, H.
Nugent, lord
Burdett, sir F.
O'Callaghan, J.
Byng, G.
Ord, W.
Boughey, sir J. E.
Ossulston, lord
Calvert, C.
Palmer, col.
Calcraft, John
Palmer, C. F.
Cavendish, lord G.
Philips, G.
Cavendish, H.
Philips, G. R.
Cavendish, C.
Price, Robt.
Coffin, sir I.
Pym, F.
Coke, T. W.
Ricardo, D.
Colborne, N. R.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Concannon, L.
Robarts, A.
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Robarts, Geo.
Crompton, S.
Robinson, sir G.
Denison, W. J.
Russell, R. G.
Duncannon, visct.
Rice, T. S.
Ebrington, visct.
Rickford, W.
Ellice, E.
Smith,—
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Smith,—
Foley, T. H.
Sefton, earl of
Folkestone, visc.
Stuart, lord J.
Griffith, J. W.
Sykes, D.
Haldimand, W.
Taylor, M. A.
Hamilton, lord A.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hill, lord A.
Tynte, C. K.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Warre, J. A.
Hughes, W. L.
Webbe, E.
Hume, J.
Wharton, J.
Hurst, R.
Whitbread, S.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Williams, W.
James, W.
Williams, R.
Johnson, col.
Williams, O.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, sir R.
Lennard, T. B.
Wood, alderman
Lushington, S.
TELLERS.
Leycester, R.
Creevey, T.
Maberly, J.
Smith, W.
POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Secretary Peel,
in moving for a committee on the police of the metropolis, said, he should abstain from discussing or even, giving an opinion upon the subject. He trusted that the House would not attribute his forbearance to any thing like insensibility to the importance of the question; it was the paramount importance of the subject, and its intimate connexion with the criminal jurisprudence of the country, which induced him, (adverting to short time he had been in office) to doubt his competency to treat it as might be expected. Any opinion which he could at present offer to the House
1166
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 15.
ILCHESTER GAOL—TREATMENT OF MR. HUNT.
Mr. Earl of Darnley
wished to call their lordships' attention to the state of the gaol of Ilchester, where it appeared that practices of a most extraordinary nature had for some time existed. Whatever the other deserts of Mr. Hunt, the individual by whom these practices were brought to light, in other respects might be, the country was much indebted to him for exposing such atrocities. He fully acquitted the government, of any concern, in the persecutions inflicted on that individual; but when they could not but know that persecution gave importance to its victim, they should have taken care that such importance was not given to the person, in question. He would move, for a copy of the report of the commissioners on Ilchester gaol.—Ordered.
IRISH TITHES.
The Duck of Devonshire
presented a petition from the corporation of the city of Waterford. The petitioners prayed their lordships to take into consideration the disordered state of Ireland, and in particular the system of tithes, and the mode of their collection. They were proprietors of the tithes of thirteen parishes, yet, notwithstanding this interest, they were willing to agree to any measure which might tend to the public advantage. He was anxious to
1167
1168
The Earl of Liverpool
felt convinced, that he only gave utterance to the sentiments of every noble peer in the House, when he expressed his regret that any circumstances should prevent the noble duke from taking a more frequent part in its debates. He had never seen a question brought forward in a more manly, distinct, and able manner. The petition was entitled to the most serious consideration, from the respectability of the body from which it proceeded, and from the influence and property of the noble duke by whom it had been presented. Whatever the inconvenience of absentees might be, and he did not deny that they were great, he had the satisfaction of knowing and believing that there was no landlord more liberal towards his tenants, and more eager to do every thing in his power to mitigate their sufferings, than the noble duke. With respect to the subject of the petition, it was a question which occupied the most serious attention of the noble marquis at the head of the government of Ireland, and of the members of administration in this country. It was necessary, however, that one or two prejudices should be removed. With respect to the present disturbances, he did not believe that much of them belonged to the question of tithes. Neither was it a question solely between the clergy and the community: for more than one-third of the tithes in Ireland was not in the posses-
1169
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, there were circumstances connected with the petition just presented, which commanded their lordships' particular attention; first, in the manner in which it had been introduced by his noble friend, who had done such ample justice to the subject; and next, in the character of the petitioners, who called upon their lordships to interfere on the great principles of justice and policy. Whatever remedy their lordships might find for the evil, it must
1170
1171
1172
1173
The Earl of Limerick
said, that though the present discontents of Ireland were not all to be ascribed to the tithe system, yet that system bore a great share in causing them. The other causes were various, but he would only advert to one of them; namely, the abominable mode in which the excise regulations were executed for the prevention of smuggling. The proceedings of the excise in this respect were sufficient to barbarize any country—to disorganize the army, and to demoralize the peasantry. The military were employed, under the conduct of the revenue officers, in scouring the country by night, and fighting with bodies of men whom the harsh mode of enforcing the revenue laws rendered ferocious and desperate. The House should not delay for a moment to investigate evils of such magnitude, and apply the proper remedy. The hardships which they had occasioned, combining with other causes, had given birth to a rebellion of the most atrocious nature, beginning in plunder, and ending in the assassination of some of the most respectable characters of the country. Those who knew the country, would not hesitate to say, that the tithes, which were intended to support a Protestant establishment, acted, by the manner in which the collection was carried into effect, as a bounty for the maintenance of the Catholic religion in Ireland.
The Earl of Blesinton
said, that the tithe system was as obnoxious to the great body of Protestants in the North, as it was to the whole of the Catholics in the south of Ireland. The conduct of those who held college livings was particularly objected to, and the statutes of the college should, he thought, be enforced against them. These gentlemen remained, till good livings fell vacant; and then, in their old age, when they were unable to perform their duties, they came down, with 14 or 15 children, to enjoy emoluments for which they did nothing.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 15.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—TREASURY CIRCULAR.
Lord John Russell
rose, to call the attention of the House to a circumstance which very nearly concerned their rights and privileges. An hon. member had received a letter, requesting
1174
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, it became necessary for him to inform the House, that the expressions just quoted to them had been written by him. They were contained in a letter which was entirely of a private nature; and although he had no hesitation in avowing himself to be the author of it, he could not admit that the expressions in question would bear the construction the noble lord had
*The following is a copy of the said letter:—
[PRIVATE.]—Downing-street, 8th March, 1822.—My dear Sir; On Wednesday next, the 13th instant, a motion is to be made by lord Normanby, to abolish the office of one of the postmasters-general, and on the 14th, the day following, Mr. Creevey makes a similar motion against the board of control.—In this manner the just and necessary influence of the Crown is from day to day attacked; and as other motions of a similar nature are to be made by lord Althorp, &c.; it will be quite impossible for any set of men to conduct the government of this country, unless practices of this kind shall be successfully resisted.—It seems as if the Opposition, in despair of coming into office, had determined to break down the means of administering the affairs of the country; and as this subject is become most serious I have no scruple in apprizing you of what is now passing, with the hope and expectation that you will think it necessary to attend, and thus to lend your aid in stemming the torrent of such dangerous innovation. Your's, most sincerely, "C. ARBUTHNOT."
1175
Lord Normanby
said, that feeling he had been actuated only by a conscientious sense of duty in the line he had pursued, he could not help thinking it extraordinary that any member should dare to impute to him a wish to support dangerous doctrines, or to undermine the best interests of the country, for having introduced a measure which had twice received the sanction of that House.
Mr. Arbuthnot
repeated, that there was nothing in the letter which he had written to bear out the construction put upon it.
The Marquis of Londonderry
had hoped, that the freedom of debate, both in and out of parliament, was sufficiently understood to allow a latitude of discussion upon public topics. The gentlemen opposite might have only one opinion of the innocent tendency of their measures; yet others might think quite the reverse of their effect. It was too much to say that one set of gentlemen should, in the discharge of what they deemed to be their duty in parliament, adopt a particular course, and yet complain that others who differed from them should deliver their opinion upon that course in the way which it struck them. Still more extraordinary was it, that such a proceeding should be brought forward as a breach of privilege. He trusted that they still lived in a land of freedom, and that neither he nor his friends were to be gagged by the gentlemen opposite, who threatened to visit with a breach of privilege, any man who ventured to express an opinion upon the tendency of their measures.
Lord Normanby
said, that he had not seen the letter alluded to, but if it contained an imputation upon him and others of being actuated by a desire to undermine the best institutions of the country, it was wholly unwarrantable.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it did not follow, because the writer of a letter entertained an opinion that the proceedings of others were calculated to pro-
1176
Colonel Davies
said, the letter contained the words,—"the Opposition, despairing of coming into office, had determined to do so and so." This he conceived was a direct imputation.
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that it was no unusual thing to charge gentlemen with an anxiety to attain, or a despair of attaining office.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, he entertained the greatest personal respect for some of the gentlemen opposite, and he believed they knew it; at the same time, he confessed he disliked some of their measures; and entertaining that dislike, he did not feel that the privileges of the House prevented his expressing it.
Lord John Russell
said, he should be quite ready to drop all farther notice of the letter, if the Speaker would say, that it was competent for any member, consistently with the privileges of that House, to say, that one set of gentlemen, despairing of being able to get into power, were endeavouring to undermine the constitution.
The Speaker
said, that the House must see the difficulty in which he was placed, in giving an opinion upon the construction of a phrase drawn from a letter, and applied so as to affect the reputation of individuals, which letter was not itself before the House. The inconvenience of endeavouring to discuss a case of privilege, under such circumstances, was obvious. In the first place, to impute a despair of attaining office to any body, was an imputation which did not come within the prohibition of the orders of that House; but the remainder of the phrase, if uttered there, would be strictly unparliamentary, and most disorderly. To impute an unworthy, much less an unconstitutional motive, to any hon. member in the exercise of his public duty was certainly unparliamentary. But then, again, if the imputation were levelled only at the tendency of measures, and not at the intentions of the individuals who had originated them, the case would be different; still it was impossible for them to consider the construction of the phrase without having the actual words before them. An opinion might be wrong and mistakenly applied, but still not unparliamentary. If the imputation were directly applied to individuals, there could be no doubt that it was most outrageously disorderly. Not hav-
1177
Mr. Arbuthnot
conceived, that any opinion expressed in a private letter could not be considered a breach of the privileges of that House. The letter in question was a private letter, and so private was it, that he declared, upon his honour, he had kept no copy of it. In writing that letter he had not the slightest intention of giving offence in any quarter; but still if the act was a wrong one, he was ready to bear the full responsibility of it. Who had made the letter public he could not tell. If in writing the letter he had acted wrong, he was the last man to shrink from the responsibility attached to his conduct.
Mr. Wynn
observed, that this was the first time he had heard the Speaker called upon to decide upon a question on an hypothetical case. The letter in question was certainly a private communication, and could not be construed into a breach of privilege. Suppose some gentleman opposite were to write to a friend, and state that the measures pursued by ministers were likely to overturn the liberties of the country—would any person contend that this was a breach of privilege? If such a communication were to be so considered, he believed they would have very many breaches of privilege to decide upon. There was not on the records of parliament a proposition more monstrous, since the time when the House had disgraced itself beyond redemption, by expelling some, and committing other members, who refused to give credit to the Popish plot in the reign of James the First.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, the right hon. gentleman had looked at this transaction as if it had been a single letter sent to a private individual. But, what would the House say, if it turned out to be a Treasury circular, sent to absent members, to induce them to attend and give their support to ministers. This, he believed in his conscience, to be the fact.
Mr. Wynn
said, his right hon. friend had stated, that the letter was a private one, and that he had kept no copy of it.
Mr. George Lamb
declared his surprise, that after the satisfactory explanation and disavowal given by the right hon. secre-
1178
Lord J. Russell
said, he had not called the letter a breach of privilege; but had said, that it was a matter which nearly concerned the privileges of parliament; inasmuch as the writer had imputed unworthy motives to members of that House. The right hon. member had disavowed any such imputations; and he (lord J. R.) was satisfied. He had made no motion— he had no motion to make.
Lord Normanby
said, that as all personal allusion had been disclaimed, he would be the last man in the House to follow up the matter any farther.
ARMY EDTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, lord Palmerston moved, "That 236,330
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said, the charge for the table kept for the officers of the foot and life-guards at St. James's Palace was 6,000
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1179
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir C. Burrell
said, that the officers of the guards were not paid so well as any other officers in the British army, and contended that they were therefore entitled to the small consideration of the table at St. James's. If an ensign in the guards were to sink the purchase-money of his commission in an annuity, he would get a much higher rate of pay than he received in virtue of his commission. With regard to the table which was kept for the officers of the guards, when the hon. member talked of the luxuries with which it was supplied, he was quite in error; for he believed the officers were rather kept on short commons than otherwise. There were subalterns in the guards of 16 and 17 years standing, whose pay would do no more than cover the expense of their regimentals.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that the table at St. James's was a privilege which had been attached to the guards ever since their first formation. Whenever allowances had been either first granted or increased to other regiments, it had always been said to the junior officers of the guards—"You must be satisfied, you have the St. James's table." If the subalterns in the guards were to be paid the same allowances as subalterns in the line received, they would have to take 30,000
l.
l.
l.:
l.
1180
Mr. Bernal
said, the gallant officer ought not to be surprised, if among the multiplicity of objects which his hon. friend's most beneficial system of retrenchment embraced, there should be some upon which his information was not quite correct. The zeal and ability of his hon. friend were proved on too many occasions to be at all affected by passing errors of this kind. For his own part, he did not view with the same objection as his hon. friend, the establishments of the table in question.
Colonel Davies
said, he should feel it, necessary to move an amendment. He should propose to reduce the vote; first of all, by 18,000
l.,
l.,
l.
s.
d.
l.
After some further conversation, the two Amendments were severally negatived, and the original resolution agreed to. On the resolution, "That 96,848
l.
s.
d.
Lord Palmerston
observed, that one major-general had been reduced in Guernsey, and two in the colonies; considerable reductions had also been made in the medical department. It was also intended to make some further reductions in the colonial establishments.
Colonel Davies
objected to the expense occasioned by employing district quartermasters-general. They were, with an active army, of' great service, but their duties in England were perfectly insignificant. The colonial staff in the Leeward and Windward Islands would also admit of a great reduction.
Mr. Hume
thought the country had a right to expect a much larger reduction. What was the necessity of keeping up four district assistants to the quartermaster-general, when there were a quartermaster-general and three assistants at
1181
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that in 1792, there were six aides-de-camp to the king on the staff, who were paid at a higher rate than at present. The hon. gentleman had greatly underrated the expense of the staff in 1792. He had totally omitted sums paid for extraordinaries and contingencies, and had taken the actual estimated expense. The noble lord defended the necessity of having proper persons to inspect the clothing of the army. As to the chaplain-general, a man might be very respectable; but if there was not some person to see that he performed the duty for the army in the way which was contemplated by the legislature, the public money would in some instances, be uselessly expended. The chaplain-general had to correspond with all the stations abroad, and the garrisons at home; and he had no person but his deputy to assist in the duties of his office, and in making up his various accounts. With respect to the district quarter-masters-general, they were not, as had been
1182
l.
dictum
Mr. Ellice
complained of the manner in which the estimates were laid before the House. The House ought to be made acquainted with the various emoluments derived from the public, in any other shape, by individuals whose names were brought forward in those annual grants. Gentlemen would then have an opportunity of judging whether individuals were too highly or too moderately remunerated. It would, in that case, be matter for consideration, whether the noble lord, who was now governor of Canada, who received in that situation 4,500
l.
l.,
l.
l.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the amendment 33. Against it, 109. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Majority
Benyon, B.
Bernal, R.
1183
Barrett, S. B. M.
James, Wm.
Blake, sir F.
Lambton, J. G.
Bury, vise.
Lennard, T. B.
Compton, S.
Moore, P.
Concannon, L.
Maberly, J.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Maberly, J. jun.
Davies, col.
Normanby, lord
Ellice, E.
O'Callaghan, col.
Fergusson, sir R.
Robinson, sir G.
Griffith, J. W.
Robarts, A. W.
Guise, sir W.
Robarts, col.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Ricardo, D.
H.
Smith, R.
Hamilton, lord A.
Wilson, sir R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, ald.
Hume, J.
TELLER.
Johnson, col.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Mr. Maberly
recommended his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) to abandon the useless task of disputing the estimates, item by item, since all his exertions were rendered unavailing by the overwhelming majorities of ministers. He entreated his hon. friend not to exhaust his own strength and that of his friends, night after night, but to propose at once a reduction of taxation to the amount which he judged fair and reasonable, and then to leave the country to decide between him and ministers. His hon. friend had undoubtedly done more good for the country than any man who had sat in parliament for the last twenty years; but still he could not help dissuading his hon. friend from pursuing a system, which the determination of ministers not to make any effectual reduction of the public expenditure, rendered wholly unavailing.
Mr. W. Smith
trusted the hon. member for Aberdeen would persevere in a course, in which he had already succeeded to an extent which must have surpassed every man's expectations.
Mr. Hume
expressed his determination to persevere, notwithstanding the discouraging opposition he had to encounter.
Mr. R. Smith
said, he understood that prince Leopold, had, with a proper consideration for the distressed state of the country, expressed a desire to have his income reduced to the same scale as that of the royal dukes. He was sure the country would feel the propriety of the step which had been taken by his royal highness; and he wished to ask the noble lord, when he intended to make this important communication to the House?
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he
1184
On the resolution, That 14,512
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said, he thought the pay of the commander-in-chief too great. Since the peace it had been raised from nine to sixteen guineas a day. He thought his royal highness ought at least to come back to the footing of the war. He did not undervalue the services of the royal duke, but his object was, to reduce the pay of all field marshals. There were three secretaries receiving salaries of 2,000
l.
l.
l.;
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, the pay of the commander-in-chief was the military pay attached by regulation to the rank of field marshal. In point of mental exertion, and strict attention to the duties of his office, it was impossible for any public servant to discharge his duty more faithfully than his royal highness, and he was persuaded the House would not think his services overpaid. With regard to the official establishment of the commander-in-chief, there was not a more important branch of the public service than that which was discharged by his secretaries, and he was persuaded that this department would be crippled and rendered inefficient if the amendment were acceded to.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he should not have troubled the House upon the question if he had not seen the hon. member for Aberdeen attempting to take an odious and unfounded view of it. He really thought it rather too much to contend that the commander-in-chief was so inefficient a field-marshal, that he ought to be shorn of his emoluments, and, in a manner, disgraced in the service by being put upon half-pay, Why did the hon. member for Abingdon wish the hon. member for Aberdeen to come down with a lumping vote instead of going into detail? Did he do it because the hon. member's details would not bear examination? because he saw hint going on with one blunder after another, night after night?
1185
l.
Mr. Maberly
could assure the noble lord he had no intention of making an attack either upon the commander-in-chief or his secretary. All that he wished to do was merely to keep the noble lord to the recommendations of his own committee. This the noble lord had not done; and it was not fair to avoid the merits of the question by throwing out insinuations about lumping. If the noble lord would go into a committee, he would challenge him upon every item. He had not found fault with the commander-in-chief. No man was more ready than he to wish, that not his royal highness only, but every public officer who did his duty, should be paid, both in money and in honour. If they would separate the allowances of the commander-in-chief, he would have no objection to vote for them.
1186
Sir J. Shelley
fully concurred in every thing which had been said of the meritorious services of the commander-in-chief, and he would not only give him the sum proposed, but would go farther, and support an increase of that sum, if such were deemed necessary; for he considered the country was in debt to his royal highness, and that it had not sufficiently remunerated his meritorious services.
Mr. Bennet
maintained, that his hon. friend had never intended to throw out any insinuation against the commander-in-chief, or his secretary; but he had objected to an increase of pay from nine to sixteen guineas per day. He objected to it as having been too great at the time it was made; and,
a fortiori,
l.
General Gascoyne
said, that disguise the motion as members might please, it went in effect to stigmatize his royal highness, for it stated substantially that he had already received more than he deserved from the country. Now, so fat from thinking that his services had been overpaid, he would rather see an increase of his allowance. As to the secretary there was no man whose long and meritorious services better entitled him to a liberal remuneration from the country.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was a mistake to suppose that the duties of the commander-in-chief were decreased by the peace. The contrary was the fact; for those duties increased in proportion to the increase of the half-pay-list.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he had supported the vote for the office of commander-in-chief last year, and he saw no reason to alter that opinion. As it was admitted, that we should have a commander-in-chief, he did not think we could have a more able, efficient, and impartial one than the duke of York had been. As to the pay of the secretary, he did not see why it should be below his rank. He hoped his hon. friend would
1187
Mr. Hume,
in reply, denied any intention of throwing a stigma on the commander-in-chief, or his secretary, by the proposed reduction. On the contrary, he thought his royal highness and his secretary were entitled to great credit for the efficient discharge of their duties.
The amendment was negatived, and the original resolution agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 18.
MALT DUTY REPEAL BILL.
On the bringing up of the report of this bill,
Mr. Huskisson
begged to express his regret at having been absent on a former evening, when some conversation had arisen upon the subject of this bill. On that occasion it was said, that the repeal of so considerable a part of the malt duty would not lead to any diminution in the price charged by the brewers for their beer; and that when the chancellor of the exchequer thought it right to remit a great portion of a public tax, the brewers had only to put the
bonus
l.;
bonus
l.
bonus
1188
1189
s.
Mr. Calcraft
entirely concurred in the suggestion. Nothing could be more monstrous, when the legislature thought fit to ease the country of a burthen, than that the brewers, or any other great class of capitalists, should interpose and divert into private sources that profit which belonged to the public at large.
Mr. F. Buxton
thought, that nothing could be more monstrous, than that the sum about to be reduced should be allowed to go into the pockets of the brewers. But it should be considered, that the brewers had on hand a large stock of beer
1190
NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the order of the day for going into a committee of supply.
Sir Joseph Yorke
begged to call their attention to a subject which could not be deemed irrelevant. In a case where so great a service as that of the navy was concerned, he did think it right to notice to the House the late appointment of John Clarke Searle, esq., to be a Rear-Admiral of the White. It would appear to have been formerly the custom that when a gentleman, having risen in the naval service of his country to the rank of a flag-officer, chose to fill an office in the civil department of the state, he thereby abandoned the next step in his promotion. Now, there was something curious in the way in which this gentleman had passed his flag. Nothwithstanding that he had for some time filled a civil situation, he had been considered entitled to the reward which was extended to gallant officers by promotion; and not only so, but to receive it accompanied with one of the highest marks of favour which the service could bestow. But the most painful part of the story was, that just prior to this appointment, J. C. Searle, esq., had experienced a certain share of displeasure from the board of Admiralty. In fact, it had been made known to them, that a certain share of delinquency existed in the subordinate departments of the Victualling-office, and shortly afterwards an intimation was received by capt. Searle, that he should quit the chair which be then filled. To any honourable mind, conscious of its own integrity, and still more to an individual who had filled this chair for the space of 14 years—who had received, as a reward for past services, not only his own salary attached to that situation, but a pension besides, during the continuance of the war, and whose amiable lady, for amiable he had no doubt she was, had also had settled upon her a pension of 300
l.
1191
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
rose to do justice to the gallant admiral who had been named, and to prove that his hon. friend was misleading the House on subjects with which he ought to have been better acquainted. After a minute enquiry into the state of the Victualling department, he (Sir G. C.) and those associated with him in the inquiry, had found that there was not that arrangement and supervision, nor that check on the clerks, which they considered to be necessary, and thence they came to the conclusion, that it was not desirable that the late chairman should remain at the head of the Victualling-board. But it was proper at the same time to state, that nothing had transpired that at all detracted from the honour and probity of captain Searle. When, therefore, it was thought necessary to remove him from the Victualling-board, it was thought right to do it in such a way as should neither be injurious to his feelings or to
1192
Mr. Ellice
said, he had had the honour to know captain Searle for many years, and knew that nothing dishonourable could be imputed to him. He had presided during the greater part of the late war at the Victualling-board, when fleets were to be provisioned to all parts of the world, and no complaint had been made against him. But the active duties of war were very different from the duties of peace, and he who might well perform the former might be incompetent to the minute arrangements of the latter. Such was the case of the gallant admiral, and for this reason only had the late change taken place. He had called on him when he heard of the circumstance, and instead of the thunderbolt which the hon. officer had talked about, the note which removed him was couched in the kindest terms, and while it intimated that it was expedient that he should retire, thanked hint for his meritorious services. He was glad that he had had an opportunity of speaking to the character of admiral Searle and to the manner in which he had been removed.
Sir I. Coffin
thought there was not a better man than captain Searle in the service, or one who had more ably per formed the duties of his station.
Mr. Croker
begged to state, that the first inducement to put the gentleman, now at the head of the Victualling-board in the situation which he filled, grew out of the great ability with which he had filled inferior offices. He had been chosen because no other man of his rank stood so high in the estimation of his superiors: He had also been preferred in an economical point of view. Two commissioners from the navy board, of which he was one were to be provided for. By the course
1193
l.
Sir J. Yorke
had never meant to impute any delinquency to captain Searle. He only thought the board had been too hasty in removing him, and that having broken his head in the first instance, the new appointment was given him by way of a plaister.
The House having resolved itself into a committee, sir John Osborne moved, "That 64,899
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said, that in 1792 the expense of this department was only 11,788
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Croker
said, that the hon. member would find, on inspection, that no less than three commissioners of the Navy at the board, and two at the ports, had been reduced since last year. The reports on naval revision had recommended that the business of the various departments should be divided between three separate committees, and those three committees now consisted of only two members each. If any one of them could at a future time, be properly merged in either of the others, he pledged himself that it should be done. It was true, that the saving by the reduction of clerks was in a degree counterbalanced by the superannuation allowances; but it was not denied that those allowances ought to be given, and they had been calculated, not according to the provisions of an existing act, but of a prospective bill that was about to be introduced into parliament. This was a proof of the economical spirit with which the arrangement had been concluded. Last year there were in the Admiralty-office, Pay-office, Navy-office and
1194
l.,
l.
Sir B. Martin
was persuaded, that less than two members could not get through the business before each committee, and contended that the whole reduction in the navy estimates was 989,000
l.
Mr. Bernal
denied that any of his hon. friends had been guilty of quibbling. But for the exertions of the hon. member for Aberdeen, and a few others, one tenth of the savings now proposed would not have been made.
Mr. Hume
said, that in 1792 the offices connected with the navy cost only 58,000
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
1195
Mr. Croker
said, the salary of the office which he now held, had been 800
l.,
l.
l.
l.
s.
Mr. Hume
asked, what occasion there was for seven commissioners in this office? At least two of them could be reduced. He, therefore, moved an amendment to substitute 33,217
l.,
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that the accounts had never been minutely inspected, while one clerk checked the accounts of another. The arrangement was now newmodelled, and it had been found necessary to charge the commissioners with a more minute inspection of the accounts; and therefore, the reduction which had been contemplated, had not taken place. After a short conversation, the committee divided; for the amendment 30. Against it 66. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Blake, sir F.
Hume, J.
Bright, H.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Bennet, hon. G.
Legh-Keck, G. A.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Leycester, R.
Crompton, S.
Monck, J. B.
Davies, col.
Moore, P.
Evans, W.
Martin, J.
Fleming, J.
Price, R.
Griffith, J. W.
Pares, T.
Gurney, R. H.
Philips, sen.
1196
Rice, T. S.
Wood, alderman
Rickford, W.
Wilkins, W.
Robinson, sir G.
Williams, sen.
Smith, W.
Whitmore, W.
Smith, R.
TELLER.
Sykes, D.
Bernal, R.
On the resolution, "That 25,269
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Bernal
called for an explanation of the difference which appeared between the sums voted for the navy in the years 1817, 1818, 1819, and the sums actually expended. In those years, the sum actually expended, had, taking all the items, exceeded the sum voted, by more than a million sterling. He did not mean from that to infer, that there had been any thing improper in the management, but it was a proof of the confused state in which the accounts were kept. Another thing was, the expence of superintending the naval dock-yard and arsenals. If the number of clerks was reduced, he could not see why the number of those overseers might not be reduced also. Of these overseers there was a numerous class, called sub-measurers, who received 180
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
s.
l.
l.
l.
1197
l.
s.
Sir G. Cockburn
would assure the hon. member, that the points to which he had called the attention of the committee, had already come under the notice of the commissioners; and one of the chief objects of their last survey had been, how they were to reduce the overseers. That principle had been recognized, and would be acted on without delay. With regard to the circular sterns, they had been decided on, in consequence of their superior strength. The first vessel that had been so fitted, had been sent round Cape Horn, where she had been found to resist the sea much better than the square sterned vessels.
Sir B. Martin
said, that with respect to the clerk who had been taken from the dock-yard to assist in the Navy Pay-office, there was not a more active or meritorious officer in the service. He was, however, to be returned to the dockyard. He had not heard any of the complaints on the part of the artisans, to which the hon. member had alluded. On the contrary, he had had letters of thanks from the men, for the manner in which they had been treated; for, though they did not now earn as much as formerly, yet they were all kept up; and if the reduction were carried on with respect to them, not fewer than 24,000 men, would be exposed to starvation. As to the difference in the estimates, he was not now prepared with those accounts to explain them, but he was satisfied they could be satisfactorily explained.
1198
Mr. Hume
said, that in many departments of the dock-yards, the saving had been really nothing. The charge in the present year was 202,000
l.;
l.:
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir G. Clerk
said, that the subject would certainly come within the scope of the chancellor of the exchequer's bill. The board of Admiralty was prepared to act up fully to the recommendations of the committee of finance, and to place the whole of the dock-yards upon a more economical, and, he trusted, not a less efficient footing.
On the resolution, "That 9,540
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
wished to know why a naval officer had been removed from Deal, where there was much to do, to Harwich, a port where there was comparatively nothing?
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that he was not, in fact, an officer of the navy, but a store keeper, who got the title of a naval officer from his employment. He was useful in Harwich for supplying with stores the cruizers for the north sea.
Sir J. Yorke
believed there was more in this appointment than met the eye. With Sheerness so near, there was no necessity for the delivery of stores at Harwich. Perhaps the appointment could be explained better by the fact that Harwich had the honor of returning; as one of its representatives, a chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Hume
said, he understood this officer was one of the corporation of Harwich. He agreed that there was a strong suspicion of parliamentary influence being
1199
l.
l.
l.,
After a short conversation, the original resolution was agreed to, without a division. On the resolution, "That 964,000
l.
Mr. Hume
complained of the number of promotions which had taken place since the peace. At the close of the war, 1,000 midshipmen had been promoted, as it was understood, for war services, and promotion had gone on increasing ever since. Since the year 1816, upwards of 428 midshipmen, and 130 lieutenants had been promoted, and the promotion of post captains, rear admirals and vice admirals, had gone on in proportion. The total of promotions since the peace, was 797. He objected also to the principle of the promotions which took place at the late coronation. He was prepared to show, that commanders had been promoted who were low down upon the list, in preference to others higher up. This was quite unnecessary, and under the circumstances, too, of what could only be regarded as a pageant. It was impossible that talking about the present distresses of the country could produce any relief, while expenses were so needlessly increased. He knew that in these promotions there was a parliamentary influence exerted on both sides of the House, and he hoped ministers would resist it altogether. He then contrasted the number of officers on half-pay at the close of the war and. at present, and stated that the number had been increased for the sake of the patronage.
Sir G. Cockburn
vindicated the principle on which the promotions were conducted, and stated that at the coronation, the commanders who were employed, were
1200
Mr. Ellice
asked, whether the country was reduced to such a state of distress that a young man, on his return home after 15 or 16 years of arduous service abroad, was to be told it had no longer the power to remunerate him? He had heard with great pain several of his hon. friend's motions that evening. To the reductions which his hon. friend had proposed in the civil expenditure, he did not object; but he could not support the retrenchments which he wished to make in this department. The navy was already reduced much lower than sound policy warranted.
Mr. Bennet
contended, that his hon. friend had not objected to a system of fair promotion, but to a system of excessive promotion that was founded on n principle of favoritism.
The resolution was agreed to. The chairman then reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 20, 1822.
GRENADA—PETITION FOR A REDUCTION OF TAXES.]
Mr. Marryat
presented a petition from the council and the house of assembly of the island of Grenada, complaining of the distress to which the inhabitants of that island, in common with those of all the other British West India colonies, were reduced, and praying that the House would afford them such relief as was absolutely necessary to save them from impending ruin The hon. member stated, that the distress of the agriculturists at home had a prior claim to the attention of the House, but that the next subject, in point of importance was, the distress that prevailed among the agriculturists of our West India colonies. He had read in a pamphlet, said to be published under official authority, that the total of all the sums raised upon the land, in Great Britain and Ireland, under the several heads of beer, of malt, of hops, and of land-tax, for 1821, was about 9,000,000
l.;
l.
1201
s.
d.
d.,
d.,
d.
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
l.,
l.
Mr. Wilmot
said, that the state of the colonies had not escaped the attention of his right hon. friend the president of the board of trade, who meant in the ensuing week to submit a motion on the subject of regulating the intercourse of the colonies with Canada.
Mr. Ellis
confirmed all that had been said respecting the severe distress under which the colonies now laboured. That the planters had not sooner appealed to parliament was owing to the confidence they reposed in the protection of the legislature.
Mr. Bright
begged also to express his concurrence in the opinion, that the distresses of the colonies required immediate attention.
Ordered to lie on the table.
MOTION RESPECTING TUE DUTIES ON TALLOW AND CANDLES.]
Mr. Curwen,
in rising to bring on his promised motion for a committee of the whole House on the import duties on Tallow, said, that the subject was one of great importance, not only as it affected the landed interest of the country, but as it affected other interests, which it was the duty of that House to protect. He had the means of knowing the opinions of agriculturists, and he knew that they thought that the importation of foreign tallow was one amongst other causes
1207
1208
d.
d.
d.,
d.
d.
1209
d.
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
1210
l.
l.
d.,
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
d.,
d.,
d.
d.,
d.
d.
1211
Mr. Sykes
could not concur with his hon. Mend in the principal object of his motion; because, at a time when the question of peace or war was trembling in the balance—when the fate of thousands of unfortunate christians was involved in the forthcoming decision of the cabinets of Petersburgh and, Constantinople, it would be unwise to irritate the Russian government by imposing a severe additional duty upon an article of Russian produce. Such a course, moreover, might lead to some harsh retaliatory measure on their part, directed against the commerce of England. It must be evident, too, that if the importation from Russia was lessened, the exportation from England, must decrease in proportion. He did, however, perfectly agree with his hon. friend, in the necessity of repealing the tax on candles, which was a tax on labour itself; because, while gas, and oil lamps, and; a hundred other elegant inventions, were employed for the purpose of lighting the mansions of the rich, the industrious mechanic worked many hours, after his daily labour, by candle light. A tax on candles, therefore, was a direct tax on labour; and consequently one that no motives of human policy could ever sanction. He was not disposed to disagree with the financial views of the chancellor of the exchequers or to contend, that there ought not to be a surplus beyond the expenses of the country. Whether that surplus should be to the extent of five millions above the annual revenue, he would not decide; but if it were proposed that it should accumulate at compound interest, he should give it his firm opposition. He had seen that the sinking funds of sir R. Walpole and of Mr. Pitt, had no sooner been established, than they were broken in upon; and he anticipated the same result if the system were now revived. In so much of the proposition of the hon. mover, as contemplated the reduction of the tax, he fully agreed; but he could not agree in any measure which would indicate hostility on the part of this country against Russia.
Mr. Robinson
agreed in a great part of what had fallen from the hon. member for
1212
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.
s.
not
1213
Mr. Ricardo
said, he had heard with great pleasure the principles avowed by the president of the board of trade, and hoped the right hon. gentleman would hereafter act upon them; for if they had hitherto been followed up, the right hon. gentleman could never have proposed the duties upon cheese and butter [Hear!!.] The hon. mover was a great friend to agriculture, and was ready to go a great way in support of it. The length to which he had gone that night was really surprising, for he had told them exactly the quantity of tallow produced in this country, the quantity produced abroad, and the effect which the tax operating on this quantity would have upon the price, which he told them was precisely 5
l.
s.,
1214
Mr. T. Wilson
expressed the strongest objection to the measure proposed, and was very doubtful what would be its effect upon Russia. The hon. mover had stated, that when the duties on wool were imposed, the Spanish government took off the exports, but he forgot the circumstance, that Spain immediately prohibited woollen goods of the manufacture of this country. The same effect, he was convinced, would follow, if such a course were pursued towards Russia. He was a friend to free trade, and if its principles were not to be acted upon, he was anxious for the character of this, country, that it should not cast the first stone, and allow other nations to say, that they were only retaliating upon us.
Mr. Bennet,
of Wilts, said, he was a friend to the principles of free trade, but he had never heard them applied to the removal of the restrictions on the proposed repeal of the importation of hats, or silk, or leather goods, or the other innumerable articles of manufacture, but solely to the removal of the small protection which agriculture enjoyed. He was convinced that some restrictions were necessary at present, as in no manufactures could we compete with foreigners under the present weight of taxation. The tax which had been imposed on foreign wool had been
1215
Mr. Philips
called the attention of the House to the manner in which the manufacturers had come forward in favour of a free trade, referring particularly to a petition presented from the chamber of commerce of Manchester. He contended, that the skill and ingenuity of our manufacturers was sufficient to protect them against the rivalship of foreign nations. On the subject of a relaxation of taxes, he expressed his decided opinion, that the duty which might be most beneficially removed was that upon raw silk. It would produce a vast extension of the manufacture of that article, and would thereby inevitably benefit the agricultural interest; seeing that the prosperity of agriculture depended mainly upon the prosperity of the manufactures. He trusted that the session would not be allowed to pass away, without some further light being thrown upon the subject of a free trade with foreign countries.
Mr. Curwen
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Lord Palmerston
rose to move the remainder of the Army Estimates. He would begin with the vote relative to the War office. He had made, since last year, a reduction to the amount of 8,000
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1216
l.
l.
s.
Mr. Hume
said, the noble lord had made the saving amount to 8,000
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1217
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.:
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1218
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, his majesty's government had certainly very little encouragement to make any reductions, considering the manner in which they were received by the hon. gentleman opposite. He admitted that he had said, in the last session, that no reduction of clerks could be made, without inconvenience to the public service; but, if he had since deferred to the wishes of parliament, it was a little unfair to charge him in one session with making no reductions, and then to turn round upon him, and accuse him of having made them in another session. With regard to the introduction of young clerks into the office, it was the only mode by which he had been enabled to make any reductions. He had discharged individuals with high salaries of 700
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1219
l.
1220
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
Colonel Davies
said, the noble lord wing blamed by his honourable friend, not for
1221
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 26,903
l.
Colonel Davies
suggested, that the whole of this department might be dispensed with. He believed the paymaster-generalship of the army to be an entirely useless office. It was merely a ministerial office, and the only duty done was the passage of money through it. The expense of the office had greatly and needlessly increased. In 1797, the entire charge of the office was 11,340
l.
l.
Sir C. Long
said, that of all the committees of finance which had considered this subject, there was not one which had thought the office of paymaster-general useless. This office, it seemed, had escaped the diligent and accurate research of Mr. Burke, and of lord Colchester, and it was reserved for the sagacity of the hon. colonel to discover that it was altogether useless. The hon. colonel said the office was a ministerial one; now, he must think that the hon. member knew very little, if any thing, of: the nature of the office, to make such: an assertion. The business of this department could not be performed without the assistance of the paymaster-general, who had to examine and pass a great variety of accounts. Was that ministerial duty? Was the payment of the half-pay nothing? But it was said, that this was a duty which might be performed, by the Bank. Now, he, from experience, might state, that the Bank could not discharge the duty. He had to look at various accounts of officers, to see whether their affidavits were regular, whether the proper forms were gone through, and, where such forms were accidentally omitted, to decide whether the omission was of such a nature as
1222
l.;
l;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.,
l.,
Mr. Hume
declared himself unable to see where the great reductions had been made. It was true there was a diminution of charge of 1,908
l.
l.
l.
1223
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution "That 4,580
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he was sorry to find there was no intention to bring back the salary of the judge advocate-general to any thing like what it was formerly. When it was remembered that sir C. Morgan held that situation for so great a length of time, at a salary of 1,300
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Solicitor General
observed, that office of judge advocate general was a patent place, and had been on its present
1224
Mr. Hume
contended, that this was not a patent place, but an office from which the person holding it might be removed at the pleasure of the Crown. The learned gentleman had said, that the rules observed in courts of law were also observed at courts martial. He could as soon be persuaded that black was white, as that the duties of this office were as great in time of peace, as they had been in a period of war.
The Speaker
said, that as he had had
1225
l.
l.
1226
l.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 18. Against it, 124.
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
Monck, J. B.
Creevey, T.
Palmer, C. F.
Chamberlayne, W.
Palmer, col.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Robarts, A.
Ellice, E.
Robarts, col.
Fergusson, sir R.
Bickford, W.
Hume, Joseph
Whitbread, S.
Hobhouse J. C.
TELLER.
James, W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lushington, Dr.
On the resolution, "That 13,662
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
asked, what was the reason for keeping up so large a staff at that establishment? There were a governor, a lieutenant-governor, a major, four captains, and so on; in short, the whole staff cost the country 6,000
l.
l.,
l.
1227
s.
d.
l.,
l.
s.
d.
Lord Palmerston
said, the hon. member had acted most fairly in his opposition to this grant, for his argument did not so much tend to say that the establishment was too great a charge upon the public as to break it down by degrees altogether. The question, therefore, was, whether, as it was necessary to keep up a standing army, there should or should not, exist a place in which the officers of it could be properly qualified. He would not argue the necessity of professional instruction for military men, because it was evident, that unless the army was officered by gentlemen who knew the theory and practice of the art which they professed, the bravery of our soldiers would be quite ineffectual. If, then, it was necessary to have a college at all, the staff now employed on it was not too large. The students, from their particular age, being scarcely men, and no longer boys, were peullarly difficult to manage, and would become quite unmanageable, unless there Were some military men of rank and experience, to control them. The noble ford then contended that the admissions to the college were not more numerous
1228
After a short conversation, the committee divided: For the Amendment, 26. Against it, 75. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Bankes, H.
Lambton, J. G.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Aishington, Dr.
Bernal, R
Macdonald, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Normanby, vis.
Benett, J.
Palmer, E.
Birch, J.
Ricardo, D.
Blake, sir F.
Robarts, A.
Bright, H.
Robinson, sir G.
Bruce, R.
Webbe, E.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Whitbread, S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir H. W.
Hume, J.
TELLER.
James, W.
Monck, J. B.
Jervoise, G. P.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 21.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The report of the committee of supply, to which the Navy Estimates were referred, was brought up. The resolutions which provided for the Dock yards being read,
Mr. Hume
observed, that he could not suffer this particular vote to pass, without exposing to the House how the country was situated in this respect. He could not see why commissioners should be maintained at Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheerness, Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford, at salaries of 1,200
l.
l.,
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
1229
Mr. Hume
said, he conceived there was no adequate reason for keeping up a full admiral in any of our sea-ports, and understood that the expense was two-thirds greater than that attending a rear-admiral, who would be quite sufficient for all useful purposes. It appeared to him a very bad arrangement by which a flag was kept flying at Leith, whilst we had not one in the whole empire of India. The sum of 80,000
l.
Officers Promoted.
Amount of Half-pay in one year.
Amount of Half-pay to December, 1822.
In 1816 142
£.16,169 for 6½ years
£.105,101
1817 72
9,818 for 5½years
54,001
1818 103
12,473 for 4½ years
56,132
1230
In 1819 167
£.49,986 for 3½ years
£.174,954
1820 77
8,413 for 2½ years
21,033
1821 236
46,537 for 1½ years
69,806
Total 797 in 1 year.
143,399 making, since the Peace
481,029
l.
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, it was not intended to retain port-admirals as a fixed system; but since some of the present had been so employed for 30 years, and during a war of unparalleled magnitude, he was sure the House would be of opinion, that the services of our commanders ought not to be hastily forgotten. It was at Plymouth only that a flag was flying at the main; and he could assure the House that there were at that port, and at Portsmouth, nearly 200 vessels to look after. The office of port-admiral was, indeed, very far from being a sinecure. When he (sir G. C.) last came home, he was a colonel of marines; but the king had been since graciously pleased to confer upon him the rank of a major-general in that service, an honour which he valued more than it was in his power to express. He begged leave to say that he knew the marine service well: he had had the pleasure of acting and fighting with them during 20 years of war. On very many occasions they had behaved, not only with the courage, but with the discipline of the oldest regular troops; and their conduct had called down the admiration and thanks of those military men who had witnessed it. He conjured the House to reflect upon the danger which they might create by manifesting any in-
1231
The several resolutions were agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 22.
PETITION FROM NEWCASTLE, ON BEHALF OF MR. HUNT, AND IMPUTING NOTORIOUS CORRUPTION TO THE HOUSE.
Mr. Lambton
presented a petition from Newcastle upon Tyne, signed by 4,820 persons, praying for the liberation of Mr. Hunt. He had no hesitation in saying, without at all entering into the consideration of the principles or of the conduct of Mr. Hunt, with which he had no concern, that that individual had been treated in a most unjustifiable manner. The sentence originally passed upon him was most severe; and it could not be in the contemplation of the judges, that the severity of that sentence should be aggravated by the hardships and tortures which had been inflicted on Mr. Hunt by the gaoler, under the sanction of the visiting magistrates; or, at least, without any remedy being applied to the evil on their part. The petitioners urged Mr. Hunt as a fit object for the exercise of the royal clemency. They also represented the necessity of a reform in the representation; and expressed their strong disapprobation of the proceedings at Manchester.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the petition was not agreed to at any public meeting, and therefore, could not be considered as representing the fair opinions of the inhabitants of the district from which it professed to come. Neither the original petition, nor a copy, had been sent to him, although it was given to other members. The petition could only be taken to represent the opinions of those persons by whom, it was signed. He, nevertheless, though, that the circumstances which had attended the imprisonment of Mr. Hunt deserved the serious consideration of the House.
On the motion, that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Fremantle
said, it was impossible the House, in common justice to its own character aid dignity, should consent that the imputations conveyed in the Petition, should be permitted to lie on the table. Was such an expression as "the notorious and avowed corruptions which have crept into your House," to
1232
Mr. Lushington
called the attention of the House to another paragraph in the petition, which was equally objectionable. It was that in which the petitioners stated, that "the mental, tortures endured by Mr. Hunt, ought to be considered a sufficient atonement for the, crime of showing how your honourable House might he made still more honourable."
Sir R. Wilson
was surprised to find gentlemen so fastidious, particularly when he recollected that they expressed no displeasure on a former night, when a noble marquis declared, that useless stipendiary offices ought to be kept up, in order to enable ministers to carry on the machine of government. Why were those places to be maintained, but in order to secure the influence of a certain noble lord in another house, and his dependants in this? The House could not fail to perceive the object for which unnecessary offices were continued, when they recollected the manner in which lord Fife had been deprived of the place which he had held, because he voted against ministers in that House. Hon. members might, if they pleased, dispute about terms, but the facts would remain the same. They might call certain offices great, but the purposes for which they were given and held were well known. They were given, according to the acknowledgment of the noble marquis, for the purpose of obtaining for ministers a sinister influence in that House. The people had a right to complain of this.
Mr. James
was astonished at the fastidiousness of the gentlemen opposite, with respect to the passages in the petition which imputed corruption to that House, when he recollected the declaration of the late Speaker, that the buying and selling of seats in that House "was as notorious as the sun at noon-day."
Mr. Wynn
believed that no circumstances which had occurred during the last ten years had even been so grossly miserpre-
1233
Mr. Bennet
maintained, that the right hon. gentleman had incorrectly stated the
1234
Mr. Mansfield
appealed to the hon. member, whether it was to be tolerated, that the gentlemen who voted on one side of the House should be told that they were influenced only by corrupt motives? He, for one, sat in that. House, not by the influence of corruption, but by the unanimous choice of a large number of most respectable constituents; and though his vote had been often given in opposition to the opinions of gentlemen opposite, yet he had given that vote unbiassed by any undue influence or corrupt motive. He disdained such motives as much as any man; and it was, because this petition most improperly imputed them, that he should oppose its reception.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, there was no necessary for the hon. gentleman to sup-
1235
1236
Mr. Lambton
said, that he had received no notice respecting this petition, until he was advised that the parties were about to transmit it to him for presentation. It was true that it did not emanate from any public meeting; indeed, there would not have been time to have called one, so as to have secured the arrival of a petition before the day fixed for discussing the subject in which the petitioners took such an interest. Besides, they should recollect the many absolute difficulties which were thrown in the way of meetings of the people by the six acts. He was astonished that the gentlemen opposite should be now so eager to complain of a petition, merely because it was not adopted at a public meeting, when they were the gentlemen who declared, that that very circumstance formed no objection to the hole-and-corner petitions which they so highly praised. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) was perfectly consistent in opposing what he deemed an offensive imputation in a petitions He had always seen him disposed rather to close the doors of that House than to throw them wide open fir the reception of petitions containing any words likely to offend the squeamish taste of the House. They ought to excuse the people for putting a strong construction upon transactions which were not denied within that House. When on a former occasion he had presented a petition from Lyme complaining of the improper interference of a peer at an election, the hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Graham) asserted in its palliation, that if a noble earl had interfered on one side, it was equally notorious that noble persons in the interest of the opposition adopted the same course at elections. He had also heard lord Cochrane mention the regular market price of a seat, and say that he had paid 5,000
l.
1237
Mr. Peel
said, that after perusing the petition, he could not come to the same conclusion as the hon. gentleman had; namely, that no offence was intended by the petitioners. He entirely agreed with him that nothing was more impolitic than to check the expression of the people's complaints; yet he trusted to the hon. gentleman's own candour to admit, that nothing could be so prejudicial to the right of petitioning itself, as suffering the language used by these petitioners to pass without censure. It was a studied attempt to throw obloquy and insult upon all the institutions of the country it charged the government with instituting vindictive prosecutions, it cast a slur upon the administration of justice, and stated that the judges had punished Mr. Hunt merely because he shad endeavoured to bring about a reform. Was it possible to permit such an imputation as this to be east upon the judges of the land? As to declaration respecting the imputed notorious corruption of that House, if they once admitted the principle that such an allegation could be allowed in petitions, it would be too late to attempt to stop the repetition of such language. Viewing this petition, therefore, as a precedent, which, if adopted, would inevitably lead to a repetition of insults, he felt himself called upon to reject the petition.
Mr. Monck
declared, that the petition though strong, was couched in language similar to that often expressed in the discussion of the same topics. He was decidedly in favour of receiving it.
The House divided: Ayes 22. Noes 123.
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
Creevey, T.
Birch, J.
Ellice, E.
Bernall, R.
Fergusson, sir R.
Bury, lord
Gaskell, B.
Calvert, N.
Hobhouse, J. C.
1238
Hume, J.
Robarts, col.
James, W.
Robinson, sir G.
Maberly, J.
Wood, alderman
Maule, hon. W.
Wilson, sir R.
Monck, J. B.
TELLERS.
Nugent, lord
Lambton, J. G.
Ricardo, D.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Palmer, C. F.
NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply, sir John Osborn moved "That 154,200
l.
Mr. Hume
said, in the committee on these estimates last year, a great deal of conversation had taken place respecting this vote. Then, as now, his principal objection to the vote, was, as to that part of it which applied to Sheerness. Last session he submitted that they ought to vote no more money towards carrying on the works at Sheerness, until they had received sufficient information as to the propriety of continuing those works. In 1814, when these great works were first begun in our dock-yards, the estimate laid on the table for Sheerness, was 824,992
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1239
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
Sir J. Osborn
said, that with respect to Sheerness, 50,000
l.
1240
l.
Sir J. Yorke
contended, that the works at Sheerness were undertaken under the immediate direction of most able and experienced men. He had only to mention the names of Mr. Watt, captain Huddart, and Mr. Jessop. The works notwithstanding the observations that had been made, would stand the test of severe criticism. Of this expenditure it was to be observed, that every shilling was spent in the country, and in some way or other found its way back into the Exchequer, and the hon. member should recollect, that his constituents were not a little benefitted, as the Aberdeen granite was much employed. When they recollected the various instances of unprofitable expenditure—the twenty millions spent in St. Domingo—the twenty millions lost in the Austrian loan—when they cast their eyes to the course of the Medway, and observed a certain hill, on which a lazaretto was erected at an expense of one million, of which not a vestige remained, the whole having been sold for 10,000
l.,
1241
After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution agreed to.
ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the resolution "That 28,894
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
hoped many of the offices held by persons who did not perform the duties of them would be abolished on the death of those individuals. He did not think the charge for garrisons ought to be so large, and unless he heard that which should induce him to change his opinion, he would submit a motion to the committee for deducting something from it. He particularly noticed the establishments in the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, and the charge for the militia which he understood was hardly called out oftener than once a year. He also offered some remarks on the taxes raised in Gibraltar, and on the charge which it threw on these estimates. He wished to know if it could not be lessened. He thought 22,000
l
Lord Palmerston
said, that the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, threw no expense upon this country beyond that for the staff, the remainder being paid out of the revenues of the islands. The militia, instead of being called out but once a year, was called out once a fortnight, and the inspector had reported them to be a most efficient body of men. With respect to the charge for Gibraltar, it was less than formerly by 3 or 4,000
l.
1242
Colonel Davies
said, that those who had shed their blood in defence of their country ought to be liberally rewarded; but, in his opinion, those who deserved such rewards would feel the honour to be greater if they were conferred by parliament. When parliament sanctioned a reward for faithful service, no person could doubt that the reward was justly bestowed; because the case of the individual was brought forward openly. But this was not the case with reference to the Crown. It was in the power of the Crown to grant rewards from motives of the merest favouritism. Therefore, arguing on principle, the system appeared to him to be excessively bad; and, in proportion as it was objectionable, it must appear evident, that to place the duty of rewarding merit in the hands of parliament, would be infinitely better. He could not conceive why such an expense at Gibraltar should be countenanced, when it was known, that during the last reign, no less than 124,000
l
Colonel Gossett
said, the militia of Jersey was not only assembled every fortnight, but every Sunday, after divine service. Those who belonged to the militia had certain privileges, with respect to taxation; but then they received no pay, and were only clothed once in even years. The salary of the governor of he island was defrayed out of its revenue.
Sir I. Coffin
deprecated the idea of any attempt to alienate the islands of Jersey and Guernsey from this country, considering the important services which they had often rendered to this country in defending it against France, and that since the days of William the Conqueror, there never had appeared more loyal subjects in the empire. As to the governments of the several garrisons, he thought them essential to the Crown as the rewards of merit; and the manner in which these appointments were usually disposed of,
1243
Mr. Bennet
said, he had no indisposition to reward military men in the most liberal manner but the question was, in what way provision was to be made for them? The noble lord could, no doubt, adduce a long list of highly respectable names by whom these governorships had been held. The same might be done with respect to every public office. But, that was no argument for keeping up useless places. When it was attempted to do away the board of trade, the names of Gibbon, of Addison, and of other celebrated men, were mentioned as having been connected with that office, and therefore it was contended that it ought not to be suppressed. But, the question was, not who held the, office, but whether it was of any public use? He could see no reason, if military merit were to be rewarded, why it should not be brought before that House There was one argument strongly in favour of such a proceeding; namely, that no case would be brought before the House that would not bear the light. He did not mean to say that government would, unless peculiarly pressed, confer rewards on undeserving men; but they ought not to be left open to temptation. "Lead us not into temptation," was a prayer which they were constantly putting up; and to prevent ministers from encountering that temptation, which night lead them to abuse the power of the Crown, he would remove from them the authority by which they disposed of those governorships.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that last year there was a governor of the Isle of Wight, who never held any other military appointment. The governor of Dartmouth was also a gentleman, formerly a member of that House, who had no other military connection whatever. He did not know to what extent such instances might avail, but he held them to be improper.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was very true that lord Malmsbury, the governor of the Isle of Wight, never was in the army; but the governorship was conferred on him, in consequence of his giving up a pension of 2,000
l.
l.
l.
1244
l.
Colonel Davies
said, could not possibly be inconsistent with the constitution to apply to parliament for the reward of military services, as ministers themselves had proposed so many pensions to military officers at the close of the late war, which pensions too were adjudged with an alacrity that amply proved the disposition of parliament to recognise the justice of such claims.
Mr. Wynn
thought, that unless it was meant to dispute the old constitutional maxim, that the Crown was the fountain of honour, the proposition of the gentlemen opposite could not be consistently maintained. History should show gentlemen the danger of transferring to any other power than that of the Crown, the grant of military, rewards and distinctions. Upon such a transfer, the country must, whatever gentlemen might mean, become an absolute republic, for he was persuaded that they who began by petitioning; would very soon end with demands. Let the House consider how short a time elapsed before the parliamentary army in the reign of Charles the 1st, insisted upon their claims being attended to. This would always be the case when a popular assembly
1245
Mr. Hume
said, his object was, to see whether the House would consent to cut down useless offices and sinecures, and leave that just and legitimate influence to the support of the monarchy which it was the intention of the constitution that it should possess. He had never heard, until within the last week that the keeping up of sinecures was necessary to the influence of the Crown. He would always maintain, that that Crown did not deserve to be supported, which could not stand upon the legitimate influence to be derived from the patronage of so vast an expenditure as that which was incurred by the government of this country. With the view of ascertaining how many advocates there were for that system, he would move a reduction in the estimate of 12,344
l.
Mr. R. Smith
was of opinion, that, for all practical purposes, the House possessed a due control over the power of the Crown. He would not support the amendment, however useless the places might be, unless it could be proved that they were conferred without any merit on the part of those who held them. Let any instance of a reward conferred without merit be produced, and he would support a proposition for abolishing the place.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that would be the most invidious shape in which the question could come before them, as it would he going into the merits of an individual. The Crown was the fountain of honour, it was true; but it could not be said to be the fountain of reward, at least, in the sense of pecuniary recompense. It had the power of nominating to certain offices, but it was the duty of that House, as guardian of the public purse, to control and regulate the amount of pecuniary compensation for public services.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 21; Against it, 80.
List of the Minority.
Beaumont, T. W.
Bright, H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Bernal, R.
1246
Belgrave, vis.
Pares, Thomas
Crompton, Sam.
Ricardo, D.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Russell, lord J.
Hume, Jos.
Robinson, sir G.
Leycester, R.
Sykes, D.
Monck, J. B
Smith, W.
Martin, John
Wood, ald.
Phillips, Geo.
TELLER.
Palmer, C. F.
Davies, col.
Price, Robert
On the resolution, "That 137,297
l
s.
d.,
Mr. Hume
said, that the whole charge for retired allowances in the year 1819 did not amount to more than 107,000
l.;
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
apprehended, that the House must be aware of the grounds upon which officers were appointed to veteran battalions, and also of the circumstances under which they were allowed to retire from such battalions on full pay. The conditions attendant upon such permission was, that they abandoned all claim to fu-
1247
l.
Mr. Hume
called the attention of the committee to the present amount of the half-pay estimate. At the sitting of the finance committee in 1817, the charge of the half-pay had been 647,000
l.,
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
1248
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1249
Sir. J. Hardinge
said, that however frequently he differed from the opinion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, in military matters, he perfectly agreed with him, in respect to the wisdom of taking officers from the half-pay list to active service. There was a statement of that hon. member to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the House. It was one which he had repeatedly made in that House and elsewhere, and particularly at Hereford, and other county meetings. This statement was, that during a period of five years, there had been in the army 2,553 appointments—["Promotions," from Mr. Hume.] —well, promotions; and that if these had been made from the half-pay list, there would have been a saving of 200,000
l.
l.
1250
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he had not expresses any wish to take from the Crown the power of appointing officers. All that he contended for was, that a reduction of these objectionable appointments would be a real service to the army. He admitted that the gallant officer had shown that he had made a mistake in his statement, upon a former occasion. But it was the only mistake, in point of statement, he had ever committed in that, House. He had discovered the mistake afterwards, and had mentioned it to his hon. friend the member for Shrewsbury, who recommended him to correct mistake the first favourable opportunity, and this he had resolved to do. With respect to the gallant member's remarks upon county meetings, he begged to say, that he had attended but one county meeting since the time of his making that statement. If hon. members would look
1251
Lord Palmerston
said, it appeared, that the hon. member's calculations were made upon the principle adopted in venturing a smuggler's cargo; namely, that if one in. three was safe, there was still a profit. The mistake of the hon. member was no slight one. He had not only stated it in his speech of last June, but had repeated it in December, when addressing the people of Hereford, who had voted him a cask of their generous beverage, for the accuracy of his calculations. It was a pity the hon. gentleman did not discover his mistake before he received the reward, that he might have undeceived them at the time that he received so grateful a token of their approbation. The error was not one of calculation only, but of reasoning and logic. The very document from which he drew his statement, by containing the number of promotions by purchase, showed, that the vacancies could not have been filled up from the half-pay list. The noble lord here detailed the number of commissions given since the peace, the proportion of vacancies filled up from the half-pay list, from purchase, or the free exercise of the patronage of the commander-in-chief, and contended that the commander-in-chief had attended to the claims of the officers on half-pay as much as was consistent with the good of the service, and the just expectations of the other class of officers. During last year, his royal highness had given 25 commissions to civil persons, and 23 to officers on half-pay.
Mr. Bennet
stated, that six weeks ago, on going over the estimates with his hon. friend, he (Mr. H.) declared to him the mistake. He also expressed his surprise that the acuteness of the gentlemen opposite had not discovered the mistake before. It was his advice, that his hon. friend should take the first favourable opportunity of setting himself right with the House. The noble lord thought it most strange that his honourable friend should fall into such an error, because-it was a mistake of logic. Now he (Mr. B.) had
1252
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 25.
PETITION FROM CAPTAIN ROMEO.
Lord J. Russell
rose to present a petition from an individual whose claims had already been before the House. The petition was from captain Francis Romeo. He was a native of Calabria, had been forced to enter the service of Murat as a private soldier, and was raised some time after to some subordinate rank; but with this circumstance the case had nothing to do. He was employed some time afterwards by the British commanders in Sicily, in a mission of a delicate nature. It was well known that the Queen of Naples was plotting the overturn of the British power in Sicily, in order to aid that of her relative Napoleon. To defeat those plans, captain Romeo was employed, and, according to the testimony of the commanders of the British force in that country, his services had been of considerable advantage to the British interests. For these he had been promoted to a commission in the British service in that country. In 1816, on the restoration of the king of Naples, this gentleman, with the British uniform on his back, and a British passport in his pocket, was seized in the streets of Naples, and thrown into prison. It was said on a former occasion, that he had escaped from prison without trial; but the fact was not so. It was true he was not tried; but, without even the form of a trial, he was transported to Alexandria, in Egypt, and there left in a state of destitution. The whole of his sufferings the petitioner attributed to the services he had rendered to the government of this country. This statement was corroborated by the certificates of lord W. Bentinck, lieut. general Maitland, and of the late lieut. general Campbell; and from these it might be inferred, that all those who were known by the Neapolitan government to have been attached to
1253
l.
1254
1255
Mr. Wilmot
thought the noble lord had overlaid his case, by indulging in a variety of observations which had nothing to do with the petitioner. This question had been already fully debated, and the noble lord would remember, that it was never pretended that captain Romeo had rendered no services. It had, however, been maintained that his services had been duly remunerated. It was to be remembered also, that though captain Romeo might describe himself as a principal, he was, in fact, but a subordinate agent. For what he had done he had been rewarded by a captain's appointment in a Calabrese corps, to consist of 700 men, which had never been embodied. When the war ended, he had been dismissed with a gratuity and two months pay. It was denied by the Neapolitan government, that the transportation of which captain Romeo complained, was the consequence of his connexion with England; and not only was this denied, but the specific causes of that step being taken were distinctly stated, and a series of acts detailed which it had been thought right thus to visit. The noble lord stated that which was calculated to mislead the House when he spoke of captain Romeo having been arrested while wearing the British uniform. If such were the fact, captain Romeo was wearing that uniform when he had no right to wear it. It was said, that the 300
l.
l.
l.
1256
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that whatever doubts the hon. gentleman might entertain upon the subject, the object of his noble friend was quite clear—to make an appeal to the honour and generosity of the British government. Captain Romeo had rendered eminent services to the British army in a most dangerous situation; and for those services he had been most inadequately rewarded. It was admitted that the individual had rendered valuable services, the main point contended for being that he had acted, not in a principal, but in a subordinate capacity. Supposing this to have been the case, recollecting the nature of the plot which he had discovered, the remuneration had been wholly disproportionate. On this question, however, the hon. gentleman had differed essentially from the officers at that time in command of the British troops in Sicily. Lord W. Bentinck had borne testimony to the "important services intrusted to captain Romeo;" and general Maitland declared, that "it was chiefly by means of captain Romeo that such evidence was obtained as counteracted the mischief which the open enemies and treacherous friends of the British army were plotting against it." General Campbell's certificate was equally clear and decisive. The conspiracy discovered by captain Romeo was of a most formidable kind. The very ringleaders of it were, nevertheless, at this moment enjoying the favour of the court of Naples; nay, the hon. gentleman was too well acquainted with facts to deny that it had reached even the councils and the family of the king of Naples. After the detection of such a system of the blackest treachery, was it worthy of a great and generous nation to talk of an annuity of 50
l.
1257
Mr. Goulburn
was fully convinced, that captain Romeo had received a reward adequate to the nature of the services he had performed. Comparing his claims with those of other individuals, and the remuneration he had obtained with what had been granted to them, there was no disproportion calling for the interposition of the House. The reward assigned to him was that of a subordinate agent, and to those of higher rank little more had been given, although they were more importantly concerned, and had stronger testimonials in their favour. It was to be observed, that while captain Romeo was with the army, employed in collecting and giving information, be received his regular pay; but, long subsequent to the termination of these transactions, he made a demand for losses sustained to the extent of 2,500
l.
l.
1258
l.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that several individuals had been arrested and put to death for treason in Sicily, in consequence of the discovery by captain Romeo of a conspiracy, the object of which was the destruction of the British army. He would ask, whether the frustrating of a conspiracy, which had justified the execution of the head of the police, did not call for a larger recompense than 300
l.
Mr. Hutchinson
asked, whether any case at all parallel could be mentioned, where the remuneration was so insignificant? Captain Romeo had endured an imprisonment of five months, and was then banished to Egypt; and, after his property in Calabria had been confiscated, he was rewarded for all he had done and undergone by a wretched pittance of 50
l.
1259
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that his view of the facts of the case, which he had detailed on former occasions, had not been in the slightest degree altered by any thing that had occurred that evening. One thing at least he was glad to observe on this occasion; namely, that the character of a police officer was more agreeable in the eyes of gentlemen opposite, when he performed his functions abroad, than when he was called on to execute them at home. There appeared to be quite a rush of gentlemen anxious to speak in favour of that character. Captain Romeo was an officer of that description, and, it was alleged, had performed services, under the observation of those military officers, whose names lied that night been quoted. He complained that his services had not been requited; but he would satisfy the house that captain Romeo had not been treated harshly by this government. Now, much as he respected lord W. Bentinck, and disinterested as he believed the declaration of general Campbell to have been, still it was evident that their statement was not founded on inquiry, but was rather matter of opinion. Opposed to their representation, was the statement of sir W. A'Court, the English ambassador at Naples, who had thoroughly investigated all the circumstances of the case; and, from all the information he could obtain, he had come to the conclusion, that the statements laid before the British government by captain Romeo were not well founded. He learned that captain Romeo had sustained no persecution, and that he had been removed from Calabria on account of acts which he had done subsequently to the British troops being in possession of Sicily. Now, it could not be expected that this government was to demand protection for captain Romeo, against the consequences of any acts to which he was a party after the British troops had evacuated Sicily. Sir. W. A'Court had examined all the facts minutely, and was decidedly opposed to general Campbell. The latter gave a loose opinion, that he believed this indivi-
1260
l.,
1261
l.
Mr. Hume
said, the ground which the noble lord took last year, when this subject was introduced to the House, was diametrically opposite to that on which he depended this night. He (Mr. Hume) had contended last year, and would still contend, that captain Romeo performed certain services of a most important nature, at the time the British troops were in possession of Sicily. That fact was not denied; but the noble marquis and the right hon. gentleman both contended, that there was no claim for remuneration. How stood the case? This individual had performed services which the authorities which had been quoted declared to have been useful; and he demanded a recompense for those services. Every person who at that time entered the British service in Sicily had the pledge of the British government, that they would be protected from the government of Naples. Under this pledge, captain Romeo proceeded to Naples, where he was arrested and lost his property; and on account of that loss, he applied to this government for relief. Last year, when he stated these facts, the noble marquis read a letter from sir W. A'Court, in which he stated, "that captain Romeo, after being arrested under the charge of committing some offence against the Neapolitan government, had escaped from prison." At that time, he (Mr. H.) happened to have in his possession, a letter from the Swedish consul, in which it was stated, that he had given captain Romeo a passport to go to Egypt, by direction of the Neapolitan government. This was the escape which captain Romeo had effected; and, when one of the noble lord's facts was so grossly erroneous, it might be inferred,
1262
l.
l.
Mr. Forbes
thought this was a case which deserved the attention of the British government. There was one circumstance connected with the situation of captain Romeo, which he begged leave to mention, that if it were not true, ministers might contradict it, and set the poor man's mind at ease. He was at present under the greatest apprehension that he would be arrested under the Alien act, and sent out of the country. On Friday last, some persons, who stated themselves to be police officers, had called at the house in which he rented a miserable garret at the rate of 4
s.
1263
l.
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he feared the credulity of the hon. gentleman had been imposed upon. With respect to an order for sending this person out of the country under the Alien act, the alarm was totally groundless. He hoped the hon. gentleman would mention the case to which he alluded, and which he seemed to hold out as a threat for extorting a favourable reception of the petition.
Mr. Forbes
said, he would then ask, whether a pension of 800
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, it was certainly true that a pension had been granted to lady Torrens. It was in the knowledge of the House that the disposal of pensions to a certain amount formed a part of the constitutional power of the Crown. Sir H. Torrens was well known to the country; and he thought that a pension granted to his lady, as an acknowledgment of his services, would never be considered an improper exercise of the royal prerogative.
Lord J. Russell
thought that the testimony of the British generals ought to outweigh that of the Neapolitan government. He was quite sure that the government could have no intention of enforcing the provisions of the Alien act against the petitioner; and he did hope that they would reconsider his case.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it was extraordinary, if there had been so large an outlay, as 2,500
l.
1264
The petition was ordered to be printed.
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The order of the day was read for going into a committee of supply, to consider further of the Ordnance Estimates. On the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Creevey
said, he should take that opportunity of doing what He had done last session e namely, of directing the attention of the House to a particular item in the Ordnance Estimates, which ought not to be included in theme die alluded to a sum of 4,670
l.
s.
d.
l.
1265
l.
s.
d.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, was certainly competent to the hon. gentleman to make the present motion, with a view of entering his protest against the principle of the particular vote on the Journals. He thought, however, it would be more convenient, both to the hon. gentleman and to the House, not to discuss the question now, but to reserve his observations till the particular vote came before the committee in the estimates, or when he brought forward his promised motion on the subject.
Mr. Hume
said, that the instruction ought in all fairness to be allowed by the noble lord. It was only to the extent of desiring the attention of the committee to it. The committee could dispose of it as they might think proper. On that ground he should oppose the present motion.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that the committee of supply might leave out a particular vote; but it was not within its province to divide upon a general question of colonial policy.
The House divided: For the Instruction, 22; Against it, 62.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, R.
Newport, sir J.
Blake, sir F.
Phillips, G.
Belgrave, lord
Phillips, G. R.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Ricardo, D.
Butterworth, J.
Smith, hon. R.
Davies, col.
Western, C.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Williams, W.
Kennedy, T. F.
Whitbread, S.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wilson, sir R.
James, W.
TELLERS.
Leycester, R.
Creevey, T.
Martin, J.
Hume, J.
Monck, J. B.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
Mr. Ward
proceeded to move the Ordnance Estimates. The sum required was 1,244,000
l.
l.,
l.
1266
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
l.:
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.;
l.:
l.;
1267
1268
l.,
l.
1269
l.;
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
1270
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
admitted, that the officers of the Ordnance department had been active in their inquiries, but he was yet unsatisfied with the quantity of reduction effected. He would state his own view of what he thought might have been done, and would then leave the committee to judge between it and that proposed by the right hon. gentleman. Though one or two of the changes which had been effected appeared to him to be likely to produce a beneficial result, he thought that the board for the barrack department was kept up at a very heavy and unnecessary expense; and he should therefore make a motion to get rid of it altogether. He should submit to the committee the expenses of the Ordnance department at different periods, in order to enable it to decide what they ought to be at the present moment, by comparing them with what they had been upon former occasions. He should take the year 1817 as one period, and the year 1796 as the other, and in his view of the Ordnance expenses in those years he should leave out of consideration the amount of stores, and also the charges not provided for by parliament. In 1796, the ordinaries for Ireland amounted, to 22,000
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
1271
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1272
l.;
l.;
l.
1273
l.
l.,
l.;
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
1274
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Ward
asserted, that, though some offices might be dispensed with, no such sum could be saved in the barrack department as the hon. member had suggested. With regard to the year 1792, he had already taken a view of our Ordnance establishments at that period, and remarked that, upon enumerating all the subtractions which had been made, it appeared there was a diminution in our favour at present of 29 clerks, It was true that the charge of the establishment in Pall-mall had been augmented; but this was in consequence of the very great access of business which had there taken place. An immense portion had been transferred from the out-stations to Pall-mall and the Tower. As to the store-keeper at the Tower, it should be recollected, that be was now the auditor of the store-accounts, and the hon. gentleman seemed not to have noticed, that the sum of 1,800
l.
l.
l.
1275
l.
l,
l.
l.
1276
Mr. Ellice
agreed with his hon. friend, that considerable farther reductions were practicable, and that a junction might be advantageously effected between the two establishments at the Tower and in Pall-mall. How was the House to come to a right conclusion on this subject, if they undervalued the recommendations of persons specially appointed by the Crown for the purpose of inquiring, when there was nothing on the other side but the statements of those interested against them? As to the amendment, there was one principle on which he would support it, and every other, directed against an increase of emolument as compared with the year 1796; and that was, unless it could be shown that the business for which it was granted had proportionately increased likewise. No gentleman expected his private property to increase above that standard, and painful as the process must be, the necessities of the country demanded farther reductions. He did not see why the master-general's allowance should not be diminished; sure he was, that if
1277
l.
Mr. Ward,
in explanation, observed that most of the appointments were from the officers on half-pay, but that in some cases it was necessary to introduce new persons.
Mr. Hume
contended, that he did not deserve the imputation of proposing reductions arbitrarily. He had entered into particulars, and shown how savings might be effected. He even quoted in support of his recommendations the recorded opinion of a commission which had investigated the subject. In the storekeeping department alone, by the adoption of the reforms which the commissioners had pointed out, and which he had re-urged, the whole saving of 10,000
l.
l.
The committee divided: For the amendment 30. Against it 95. Majority against the amendment 65. The original resolution was then agreed to.
1278
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S.B. M.
M'Donald, James
Benyon, B.
Maule, hon. W.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Birch, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Blake, sir F.
Pym, F.
Bright, H.
Rickford, W.
Bury, visct.
Ricardo, David
Creevey, T.
Robinson, sir G.
Davies, col.
Robarts, col.
Dickinson, W.
Rumbold, C. E.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Scott, James
Griffith, J. W.
Smith, W.
Haldimand, W.
Whitbread, S.
Hume, J.
Wood, ald.
James, W.
TELLER.
Jervoise, G. P.
Ellice, E.
Lushington, Dr.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 26.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Earl Grey
wished to ask, whether the House was now in possession of all the measures which the government meant to propose for the relief of the Agricultural distress?
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that a committee had been appointed by the other House to inquire into the distress, with a view to some general measure on the corn trade; but what the result would be, he could not pretend to say. He himself was not aware of any particular proposition being in contemplation, in addition to the measures which had already been brought forward.
Earl Grey
believed, that those who were suffering from the depressed state of agriculture by no means thought it likely that they would obtain any practical relief from the labours of the committee alluded to. For his own part, neither now, nor at the time of its appointment, did he expect any advantageous result from its inquiries. Finding, then, that his majesty's government had it not in contemplation to propose any farther measures of relief, aware that the distress had increased instead of diminished, convinced that the measures which had already been proposed were most trifling and nugatory, and believing that the reduction of taxation was the only means whereby relief could be procured—he would on as early a day as possible after the holidays, bring the distress distinctly under the consideration of the House; and also that measure, from which alone relief could be expected; namely, the reduction of taxation.
1279
CIVIL LIST AND ALLOWANCES TO FOREIGN MINISTERS.
Lord King
rose to call their lordships' attention to the subject of which he had given notice. He proposed to move an address to his majesty, praying that he would be pleased to order further reduction in certain parts of the Civil List. It had been his intention to propose, that their lordships should thank his majesty for those reductions which he had already ordered, and particularly in that part which was more peculiarly personal to his majesty; but the forms of the House prevented him from executing this grateful task, because their lordships had not before them any regular information of what had been done. But, as a part of the public, they might be permitted to know the fact, that a reduction which parliament could not have asked had voluntarily proceeded from the king. This act of his majesty had given great satisfaction to the country; but in proportion as that satisfaction was great, so was the disappointment at finding that no father reductions were to be made. And here he must repeat his regret, that he was denied the opportunity of farming an address in the shape he had at first intended. He was of opinion when the Crown made a sacrifice for the benefit of the subject, it was the duty of parliament to thank his majesty for so gracious an act. It appeared to him that it would have been far more decorous if a message on the subject had been brought down to both Houses, and the sense of parliament taken upon it by voting an address. Why ministers did not adopt this course, he was at a loss to know, unless they had at length resolved to do good by stealth. As, however, the offer of a reduction of his majesty's personal expenses had so graciously been made, he could not but be surprised at the reluctance evinced in the other departments of the civil list to follow the laudable example which had been set them. He thought it would be casting a very improper reflection on that House were he to suppose that a proposition for reductions in the civil list would be an ungrateful topic to their lordships. Many of their lordships, it was true, held situations which connected them in some measure with the subject, but he could not but think that they occupied such situations for the honour, and not for the profit, attached to them. It would be difficult to place the points to which he had to call their lord-
1280
l.,
1281
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
1282
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
1283
1284
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1285
l.
l.
l.
annus mirabilis
l.,
l.;
l.
l.
1286
l.
1287
l.,
l.
Jus Gentium,
l.
l.
l.
l.
1288
l.
1289
l.
1290
1291
The Earl of Liverpool
began by remarking, that it might be imagined by any one who had heard only the speech of the noble lord, that his majesty's ministers were animated by no feeling except that of a wanton disposition to increase the public expenditure. Now, this appeared to him a most extraordinary as well as unfounded charge, seeing that their lordships had before them the reports of the finance committee of the House of Commons, which sat in 1817; and by referring to them it would be seen that that committee had considered every branch of our civil government as well as our military expenditure, and had, in contemplation of peace, estimated what ought to be the amount of our establishment. Now, what was the fact? Why, that his majesty's ministers had already carried their reductions 1,200,000
l.
1292
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
1293
1294
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
1295
1296
1297
1298
Lord Holland
said, the noble earl had fairly admitted, that the case which they had to argue was reduced within a narrow compass, and that the plain question which they had to decide was, whether or not the present scale of diplomatic expenditure was necessary, situated as the country now was? He thought it could
1299
1300
1301
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
1302
l.
l.
l.
l.
1303
l.
l.
l.
1304
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1305
1306
l.
l.
l.
1307
l.
"une économic large."
1308
1309
Lord Ellenborough
complained, that the papers on the table were not sufficiently satisfactory, as they did not contain an account of the contingent expenses. In reply to what had fallen from the noble lord, he would state that the expenses incurred by our foreign missions in 1815 and 1816 ought not to be taken as a criterion to judge of the expenses of commons years. He likewise contended, that of all the different species of expenditure incurred by government, that incurred by government, that incurred in the diplomatic service was the most necessary; for it was information—it was dispatch of business—it was the best means of facilitating those results which government most wished to produce, in short, expenditure in diplomacy was secret service money and if an ambassador was improperly limited in the employment of it, it was quite impossible for him to be of any utility to his country.
The motion was then negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 27.
ROASTED WHEAT.
Sir R. Wilson,
seeing the secretary of the Treasury in his place, wished to call his attention to a circumstance of considerable importance. He had received a letter from a person who was now detained in prison for nonpayment of a fine which had been imposed upon him for selling Roasted Wheat, not with an intent to defraud the revenue, but
bonâ fide
1310
l.,
Mr. Lushington
said, that the consideration of the general question with respect to the selling of roasted wheat had been referred to the board of excise, who had not yet come to any decision upon the subject.
Mr. Abercromby
was of opinion that the act required amendment. As it at pre, sent stood, it went the monstrous length of declaring that if any person should discover a substitute for coffee, no matter how wholesome or economical, he should not be allowed to sell it.
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION—PETITION OF JOHN BARKLEY.
Dr. Lushington
begged to call the attention of the House to a petition which he held in his band. The name of the petitioner was John Barkley, and he was 17 years of age. He was one of those individuals who had fallen victims to the proceedings of that society which had usurped the name of "constitutional." That society had not only brought the petitioner to trial, but had harassed him in the first instance, and had made him undergo a preliminary imprisonment. On the 4th of March last, the petitioner's trial came on before the Common Serjeant and a London jury. Before the trial commenced, his counsel objected to the jury on this ground, that they were not competent to give a fair verdict, because only two days before they had tried and convicted William Vamplew for publishing the identical libel for selling which the petitioner was indicted. The common serjeant was of opinion that the objection was not well-founded. He (Dr. L.) would, however contend that to compel a person to be tried by a jury which had already prejudged his case, was a violation of the first principles of justice. It was laid down by lord Coke, that no person was qualified to sit upon a jury, if he had already been party to a verdict in a cause where the same question had been tried, although between other plaintiffs and de-
1311
1312
1313
The Solicitor General
said, with respect to the publication for which the petitioner was tried, that a more blasphemous and seditious libel never issued from the press of this country. Every person who had read the public prints of the day, was aware of the mischievous character of that infamous publication. It was openly declared by Mr. Carlile, the employer of the prisoner, that he would set the law at defiance—that nothing should prevent him from pursuing the career which he had commenced—that though he might be imprisoned, his family one after another, were willing to become martyrs in the cause for which he suffered; and that
1314
1315
Dr. Lushington
said, it was no answer to his argument to say, that the publication was of a very dangerous character. He had contended, that, in proportion as the matter of accusation was atrocious, there was the more reason that the individual accused should have a fair trial. He did not stand up to justify the publication—he had always opposed himself to the doctrines which it contained; but he felt himself bound to look to the mode and manner in which the trial was conducted, and having considered it, he stated what he felt; namely, that the defendant had not received a fair trial.
Ordered to be printed.
1316
GAOL DELIVERY—PETITION FROM THE GRAND JURY OE ESSEX.
Sir Eliab Harvey
rose, to present a petition from the grand jury of Essex, the object of which was so clear and distinct, that it required very few observations in its support. The petitioners called on the House to devise some means by which general gaol deliveries should be rendered more frequent in the county of Essex. At present, it happened that individuals remained in gaol from six to nine months before they were discharged. He held in his hand the calendar of the last Lent assizes, from which it appeared that, from the termination of the summer assizes, early in August, until the 13th of November, 22 prisoners were committed, whose trials could not take place until the following Lent assizes. Six of that number were acquitted, and two were discharged by public proclamation, no prosecutor appearing. It was a great hardship on the individuals who were thus imprisoned for many months; and it was also a heavy expense to the county. The length of time also which elapsed between the commitment and the trial, deterred many persons from prosecuting. He moved, that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Western,
in seconding the motion of his hon. colleague, begged permission to go a little farther into the consideration of the subject. When on former occasions, it was under the consideration of the House, the noble lord opposite had declared, that it was the intention of his majesty's ministers to apply a remedy to the evil of which the petitioners complained. Neither he nor the petitioners doubted that his majesty's ministers would consider the subject, and devise a remedy; but it was most desirable, as the petitioners stated, that the legislature should immediately proceed to pay attention to this important subject. He did not wish unnecessarily to touch on a subject which fell within the province of the learned gentlemen opposite, and of other individuals of high rank and eminence in the law; neither did he want to interfere with the important duties of the learned judges; but the attention of the petitioners, some of whom were magistrates of the county, had been directed to this subject, in consequence of the hardship and inconvenience which the existing system produced. They found, on examining the gaol-calendar, that generally one-half of the persons brought to trial at the Lent assizes were
1317
Nisi Prius
1318
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that any one who had read the petition, or had heard the speech of the hon. member for Essex, could not fail to be impressed with the importance of the subject of which it treated. He conceived that nothing could
1319
1320
Mr. Leycesler
said, he had heard with
1321
fiat,
Mr. Peel
rose, merely to supply an omission in his previous statement with respect to the new circumstances in which it would occasionally place some of the judges. Nothing could be more remote from the intentions of government than to subject them to any additional expense; and he felt confident that if additional expense should arise from the proposed system, that House would most readily make it good.
Mr. Dickinson
was sorry to express his disappointment at finding that the measure of his hon. friends, the members for Essex, was not likely to be adopted, and that one so contracted in its circumference, and so narrow in its view with regard to its real object, was intended to supply its place. He had known many instances of the grievance complained of, one of which occurred now; a boy of twelve years old was accused by another boy of a felony; he was committed in the month of August; he was all the winter in gaol; and in the month of April he was discharged, for the grand jury found no bill. What good sense was there in saying that this remedy should be applied to Hertfordshire, a county purely agricultural, and where the criminals were notoriously few; and that it should not be extended to Somerset-shire, where, from the population, crimes were committed in the largest number,
1322
celerem et plenam justitiam,
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that this subject was of the highest important to the country, and he had heard with pleasure that a scheme was in contemplation, by which a great portion of the inconvenience would be removed. Even at the last assizes for Kent, it was found impossible to get through the business which had accumulated. One judge could not perform the whole; and so numerous were the criminal cases, that 13 out of 28
nisi prius
Mr. Chetwynd
said, that there years had elapsed since his hon. friend the member for Essex first called the attention of this House and the public to this important subject; and although the original proposition was not acceded to, it was generally understood, that some plan by way of experiment was contemplated by his majesty's government to remedy the evils complained of; otherwise, petitions to a similar effect would ere this have emanated from other counties. If it be a maxim of our law, as stated in a book of the highest authority, that "dilatio justitiæ est quædam negatio"—if there be any truth in the saying of a wise king of old, that, "because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is set in them to do evil;" and if it be for the advancement of the commonwealth that justice should be speedily and promptly executed, there cannot be two opinions as to the expediency and necessity of a more frequent delivery of our gaols, and that measures should be adopted to prevent the possibility of an innocent individual being im-
1323
W. Smith
said, that not one, but experiments, ought to be made, rather than leave the prevailing system without a remedy. A case had lately occurred,
1324
The Attorney General
said, he was fully aware of the inconvenience suffered under the existing state of the law; but, in proportion as it was important, they ought not to adopt any scheme to amend it without adequate deliberation. The difficulty of dealing with the evil in question might be judged of, from the circumstance or there being such various opinions as to the mode of remedying it. An experiment was to be tried upon the home counties; and he was sure that it could not be extended farther without new modelling the courts, and increasing the number of judges. In all they did, they must, above all, take care that justice was administered satisfactorily to the people. Justice must be done without hurry; and the people must feel that they had the best talents of the judges. The situation of a judge should be an inducement to gentlemen of the highest talents at the bar. The judges had little enough leisure at present; and if they increased their burthens, no gentleman sufficiently qualified would accept the situation. After the experiment had been tried, the House would be better able to judge whether it should be continued or extended.
Dr. Lushington
agreed, that no alteration ought to be made in the number of the judges, except upon the most mature consideration; but, if after the experiment should be tried, the judges were found incapable of bearing farther burthens, then he hoped the House would consent to increase their number. There had been periods in our history when the number of judges was greater. In the century before the last, there had been five judges in each court, and at one period six. When it was considered that the judges returned in October from the circuits, and that the next session began in November, it could not be supposed that they could bear additional labour at that period. No
1325
Mr. Sykes
thought that the experiment which had been so successfully tried in the four northern counties, might be advantageously extended to the other parts of the kingdom.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the plan suggested by his right hon. friend was sufficiently confined to insure all the advantages of local convenience, without hazarding its ultimate success by too extensive a scale of operation. The experiment on the northern circuit afforded an illustration of his argument; for in that instance a cautious, but not less accelerative system had been adopted; and the plan was not extended at first to all the counties included in that circuit. A still greater degree of caution was necessary in the present instance; and it would be dangerous to rush at once into so extensive an experiment as that of extending a third assize to all the counties in England. The country with which he was connected, looked with much anxiety to the result of this experiment; for there were many counties in Ireland where the calendars pressed as heavily upon the judges as they did in this country. His right hon. friend could not have given a stronger pledge to the House of the sincerity with which the government had entered on this measure than by beginning upon such a scale as would enable him to place it upon the most advantageous practical principle, and to carry it most speedily into effect.
1326
Ordered to lie old table, and to be printed.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Dr. Phillimore
rose and addressed the House as follows;*
* From the original edition printed for John Murray, Albemarle-street.
1327
* The 32 H. 8, c. 38, cannot be so considered; it declared, that all persons might lawfully marry, but such as were prohibited by God's law; and that all marriages contracted by lawful persons in the face of the church, and consummate with bodily knowledge, and the fruit of children, should be indissoluble; but it did not lay down any general law for the regulation of marriage.
† It is not my wish to have it understood, that an alteration of the law was never contemplated before this period; for I find that by an order of 31st March 1677, Dr. Lloyd and Dr. Exton (two eminent civilians of that day) were summoned to attend the Lords' committee, to consider of an act to prevent clandestine marriages; and, I believe, that soon after the Revolution a bill to prevent clandestine marriages passed the House of Lords, but was lost in the House of Commons.
1328
de facto
i. e.,
per verba de prcesenti
* 1 Inst. 79.
† Decret. lib. 4, tit. 2, cap. 3, 4. The probability is, that both the common and the canon law derived their rules on this head from the Justinian Code. Cod. 5,60. 3.—Dig. 23, 1–14.
‡ Si inter virum et mulierem legitimus consensus interveniat de
prœsenti,
§ rom the age of seven to the age of
1329
twelve, as to the woman; and fourteen as to the man, they cannot contract matrimony
de præsenti,
de futuro.
*4th and 5th, Ph. and M. made every man liable to fine and imprisonment, who married a woman child under sixteen years of age; and gave her estate during her husband's lifetime to the next heir;—but the marriage was indissoluble. By the 6th and 7th Will. 3rd, c. 6th; 7th and 8th. Will. 3rd, 35, 10th Ann. c. 19, various penalties were imposed on clergymen who married parties without publication or banns or without license.
† See the 62nd Canon.
‡ A marriage with a person who was under a præ-contract to another person, was placed on the footing of a marriage with one who had already a husband or wife.
1330
* Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 1. p. 438.
† It was stated, in the course of the debates on the Marriage Act, in the House of Commons, as an authenticated fact, that 6,000 marriages had taken place, within one year, in the chapel in the Fleet prison. See Parl. V. 15, p. 19.
1331
* It was opposed by the duke of Bedford, and eleven or twelve peers.
† Perhaps I ought to have excepted the Jews Naturalization Bill.
‡ See Hardwicke papers; the account is given in a letter from Dr. Birch to Mr. Philip York. and will be found in the parliamentary History, v. 15, p. 84.
1332
per verba de prœsenti,
* The law of præ-contracts, in Ireland, was not repealed till the 58th Geo. III. c. 81.
1333
tractu temporis non convalescunt.
* King v. Inhabitants of Preston; 2 Burrows, 827, 1 Blackstone, 192.
1334
ab initio.
1335
nati natorum
* He is the
de facto
ab initio,
† The case of Watson
v.
‡ Only two instances occur to my recollection, in which I have observed that the license has been obtained upon the oath of the woman.
1336
* Qui aliter, quam præsente Parocho, vel alio sacerdote de ipsius parochi, seu ordinarii licentiâ, et duobus vel tribus testibus, matrimonium contrahere attentabunt: eos sancta synodus ad sic contrahendum omnio inhabiles reddit; et hujusmodi contractus irritos et nullus esse decernit, prout cos præsenti decreto irritos facit et annullat.—Can. et Dec. Conc. Trid., Sess. 25, c. 1.
† 9 Geo. 2, c. 11.—By this act marriages and matrimonial contracts, where either of the parties are under the age of twenty-one, without consent of the
1337
ab initio;
father, or, if dead, of the guardian, given in writing under his hand, or if there be no guardian, of the lord chancellor; are declared to be null and void,
if
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
* Sect. 3.—"Provided always, that if no such suit be commenced within one year after the solemnization of such marriage, or the making of such matrimonial contract, such marriage or matrimonial contract shall,
from the expiration of the said year, be good and valid,
† Delegates, 1789. ‡ Delegates, 1809.
1338
* I rather apprehend that I may have inaccurately stated the date of the final sentence in this case; the proceedings are not at this moment within my reach, but I believe that the cause, though in substance decided in April 1820, stood over for further evidence as to one fact till a later period; the issue of the suit is correctly stated.
† This suit was brought by the woman.
‡ 12 Car. 2, cap. 24, sec. 8.
1339
* From a note I have of this case, it appears that the following amongst other expressions fell from the learned person who pronounced judgment in this case:
"This marriage was not clandestinely had, but it is admitted, that the woman was a minor, married by the consent of the mother who was supposed to be a widow. The father was in fact then living, he is still living, and he only could legally give consent; without his consent the marriage is null and void. Eighteen years after the celebration of the marriage, without any alleged impropriety, this proceeding is instituted, not at the suit of the husband, as more frequently happens, but at that of the wife. It does not appear whether there is any issue. It is the duty of the court to be completely satisfied that the marriage was a mere nullity: if it was, I have only to pronounce it to be such. The marriage took place on the 29th of May, 1800. The woman was rather under twenty years of age; her mother consented to it; there is no suggestion of any fraud; but there is no doubt as to the minority; the very circumstance of her being married as a minor With the consent of her mother, establishes that fact. The want of the consent of the father is proved. Though the parties did contract marriage, and were connusant of each other's age, yet either of them have a right to a sentence from this court, declaratory of the nullity: indeed, no such sentence is necessary; but it is a matter of convenience to the parties, and a duty to the public, to declare the situation in which this man and woman stand, to each other."
1340
ipso facto
1341
versus
* Mr. Justice Le Blanc and Mr. Justice Bayley concurred with lord Ellenborough in this judgment. Mr. Justice Grose was dissentient from it. He considered the consent to the marriage of an illegitimate minor to be a
casus omissus
In the King v. the inhabitants of Hodnet, 1st Term Reports, p. 96. The marriage of an illegitimate minor by license was held to be null and void under the Marriage act, but in that case no consent was given by any one, and the question was expressly decided by lord Mansfield on that ground.
† See Dr. Croke's report of the case of Horner v. Liddiard, Consistory of London, 1799.
She was described in the license as Harriet Liddiard, otherwise Whitelock, a minor; and, it was stated that the marriage was about to be solemnized by and with the consent of Sarah Liddiard her mother and guardian. The marriage took place on the 7th of March, 1796. The suit was instituted in February, 1799.
‡ East. Term Reports, p. 1.
1342
* It consists with my knowledge that
1343
within the period alluded to, suits for nullity of marriage on this ground, have been entertained in the Peculiars Court of Canterbury, in the Consistory court of York, in the Court of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, in the Consistory of Rochester, &c. &c. It is to be observed also, and it is worthy of the most serious consideration, that causes of nullity involving such important rights of property, and affecting, as they do, the legitimacy of issue, as well as the validity of the marriage bond, must frequently be decided in the country Ecclesiastical courts (which unfortunately abound throughout England), by persons who have had no opportunity of acquiring legal knowledge and experience, but whose sentence nevertheless, if not appealed from, is as valid and conclusive as it would have been if it had been pronounced by either of the learned judges who preside over the Ecclesiastical courts at Doctors Commons.
1344
* 23 George II., cap. 10 (Irish), was passed for the purpose of explaining and making more effectual the 9th of George II., cap. 11. (Irish). The following is the clause to which I allude: "And whereas since the making the said act, many persons intending to avoid the force and effect thereof, and to evade the same, have left this kingdom or absconded to avoid the service of process in a suit, to be instituted pursuant to the said act for annulling such marriage or matrimonial contract: be it enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the 29th day of September 1750, it
1345
shall and may be lawful to and for the father, guardians, or guardian of such infant, who shall marry without such consent as aforesaid, and the parties entering into the same or either of them, shall leave this kingdom or abscond, by which means it may be difficult to serve process in a suit to be instituted for annulling such marriage or matrimonial contract; or in such case, if there be no father or guardian, for any person or persons to be appointed by the lord chancellor, the keeper or commissioners the great seal, for that purpose within one year after such marriage or matrimonial contract, file an allegation in the ecclesiastical court of the diocese, where such infant was usually resident before his or her going out of this kingdom, or entering into such marriage or matrimonial contract, in the same manner as if the necessary parties had appeared in a suit instituted in the said court to annul such marriage or matrimonial contract; which ecclesiastical court shall thereupon issue process to compel the persons so marrying or entering into such matrimonial contract, to appear in the same court within a time therein to be limited, and shall have full power to proceed to hear and determine the said cause, in the same manner as if the parties thereto were resident, and the said marriage or matrimonial contract entered into within the said diocese, if it shall appear by affidavit that such process was served in the usual manner on the said parties, whether in this kingdom or in any parts out of this kingdom; and, if it shall appear in the said suit by proper proof, that the said recited marriage or matrimonial contract was contrary to the said act, such marriage or matrimonial contract should be adjudged and declared by the ecclesiastical court where such suit shall be commenced, to be absolutely null and void to alt intents and purposes.
1346
* In the first bill I brought on this subject (in 1817), there was no such permission.
1347
dehors
jus adulterare
1348
malum in se,
de facto
1349
certiorari
ab initio.
* The king
v.
† See Parliamentary History vol. 22, p. 370.
‡ Bishop Horsley in one of his charges to the clergy of the diocese of St. Asaph, gives the following account of the bringing in of this bill: "However, my reverend brethren, you may put your minds at ease, and the parties so unlawfully married may put their minds at ease, if it may give ease to your minds to know that all that is past, is pardoned and obliterated; and to theirs to know, that the knot so loosely tied at first is now drawn tight and hard, and made indissoluble, and that the legitimacy of their offspring is secured."
"In the spring of 1801, I carried two bills through parliament. The one is a general act, the 77th chapter of the 44th of the king, intituled 'An Act to render valid certain marriages solemnized in certain churches and public chapels in which banns had not usually been published before, or at the time of passing an act made in the 26th year of the reign of his late majesty king George the Second, intituled 'An Act for the better preventing Clandestine Marriages.' The other specially relates to the chapel of Voélas. It is the,
1350
de facto,
de jure;
88th chapter of those acts of the same year of the king which are local and personal, but to be judicially noticed. It is intituled 'An Act for enabling the officiating minister for the time being of the Chapel of Voélas, in the county of Denbigh, to publish banns and solemnize marriages in the said chapel.'"
"By the former, the public act, all marriages solemnized in public chapels in which banns had not usually been published, without any other deviation from the provisions of the Marriage act, before the 25th day of March 1805, are made good and valid; and the clergymen who so solemnized them are indemnified against the penalties of the Marriage act; and, the registers of such marriages are made good and lawful evidence in all courts of law and equity. But it is farther enacted, 'that the registers of all such marriages as hereby are made to be valid in law, shall within fourteen days next after the said 25th of March 1805, be removed to the parish church of the parish in which such chapel shall be situate; or in the case of a chapel extra-parochially situate, then to the, parish church next adjoining to such extra-parochial place.'"
"I hope the provisions of this statute
1351
dictum
communis error facit jus,
have been attended to; and, you will take special notice, that the benefit of this statute comes down only to the 25th of March, 1805. If, since that day any marriages have been or shall be solemnized in chapels in which banns had not been usually published before the passing of the act of the 26th of George the Second, all such marriages are still null and void, as they would have been if this act of mine never had been passed; the clergymen so solemnizing them are not indemnified; and, the registers are not evidence in any court of law and equity."—Bishop Horsley's Charges, p. 205.
More marriages of the same description occurred, and they gave rise to the 48 Geo. III. c. 27, which was to the same purport, and had the effect of legalizing all the void marriages of the same description, which had occurred subsequently to the passing of bishop Horsley's act.
The legislature has, in other instances, passed bills to give validity to
de facto
1352
ipso facto,
The 58 Geo. III. c. 84, after stating that doubts had arisen respecting the validity of marriages solemnized within the British territories of India, by ministers of the church of Scotland, declared, that all marriages of that description, heretofore had and solemnized, should be adjudged, esteemed, and taken to have been of the same effect, as if they had been solemnized by ministers of the church of England.
The 21st and 22nd Geo. III. c. 25, (Irish) was passed to give retrospective effect and validity to the marriages of many Protestant dissenters, which were supposed to be nullities in law. The preamble stated, "That whereas the removing doubts that may have arisen concerning the validity of matrimonial contracts or marriages entered into between Protestant Dissenters, and solemnized by Protestant Dissenting ministers, will tend to the peace and tranquillity of many Protestant Dissenters and their families;" and then proceeded to enact "that all matrimonial contracts and marriages heretofore entered into, or hereafter to be entered into, between Protestant Dissenters, and solemnized or celebrated by Protestant Dissenting ministers or teachers shall be, and shall be held and taken to be good and valid to all intents and purposes whatsoever."
1353
infinitum;
bona fide
1354
*The act was entituled, "an act to discontinue the proceedings on certain actions already commenced, and to prevent vexatious actions under the 43rd of the king."
1355
felo de se,
* They were an institution of the council of Lateran; the publication of them is thus enjoined by the council of Trent: "Idcirco sacri Lateranensis Concilii Sub Innocentio III. celebrati, vestigiis inhærendo præcipit, ut in posterum, antequam matrimonium contrahatur, ter à proprio contrahentium parocho tribus continuis diebus festivis in ecclesiâ inter misarum solemnia publicè denuntietur, inter quos matrimonium sit contrahendum."—Con. et Dec. Con. Trid. Sess. 26. c. 1.
† One of our most approved canonists thus records an antient constitution of the church on this subject, and the reason of its enactment:—"In matrimonio quoque contrahendo semper tribus diebus Dominicis, vel festivis à se distantibus, quasi tribus edictis, perquirant Sacerdotes à populo
de immunitate sponsi et sponsœ.
1356
* Since the second reading of this bill, I have been informed by a clergyman resident in the county of Kent, that in the month of February last, eleven persons, all belonging to his parish, and all but one under age, had their banns published at the same sime, in the church of another parish, in the same county in which they had never resided, for the purpose of being clandestinely married. I mention it as one among a thousand instances of this sort which have been transmitted to me upon authority on which I can rely.
† Unless fraud can be shewn in the use of the names under which the banns are published, as, for instance, in the case of Pouget v. Tomkins, (Ecclesiast. Rep. vol. i. p. 499,) where a lad of 16 was married to his mother's maid, under a publication of banns made in the church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, in which parish neither of the parties were resident, and there was no chance of their names being recognized. This marriage was set aside, because the banns were published under
1357
the names of William Pouget only, whereas the lad's real names were William Peter Pouget; and it was proved that Peter was the name by which he was familiarly known to his relations and friends. The court considered this omission as fraudulent, and annulled the marriage. But in another case, where a boy under 18, who had just left Eton, and was resident at his father's seat in Buckinghamshire, was married to an obscure person, resident in a neighbouring parish, after a publication of banns in a church in the borough of Southwark, in which it was almost impossible that either of them should be recognized; the court held, that it had no authority to dissolve the marriage, though the clergyman, struck with the youthful appearance and demeanour of the lad, twice stopped, in the course of the ceremony, to question the parties as to their age and residence, which questions were specifically, but falsely, replied to by the mother of the woman about to be married: but, as in this instance, no fraud could be proved in the use of the names, the court held that the proclamation of the banns was not vitiated. It is not intended to dispute the correctness of the conclusion of law, in either of these cases, but, assuredly, on principle there is no ground for the law to make such a distinction, in cases where the fraudulent nature of the transaction admits of no doubt.
1358
* I insert a letter I have just received from the incumbent of a very populous parish in the north of England, as affording an excellent specimen of the statements I have received on this subject from, very many quarters:
"You have directed your attention particularly to the facilities which are given to improper and clandestine mar-
1359
sui juris
riages, by the present defective provision relating to the publication of banns. As a parochial clergyman, I have had the opportunity of witnessing some of the defective provisions, and I beg to add my testimony to that of many others of greater weight, which I dare say you have received, in complaint of the evils for which you are proposing a remedy.
"It is possible, however, that your attention may have been excited principally by the inconvenience of the present state of the law, as it effects marriages, in which one of the parties at least is in some of the higher conditions of life. I am desirous of bespeaking your notice in behalf of the lower classes, who take this freedom which the law leaves to them, but did not mean to give them, of marrying in a very disorderly way.
"You propose, I believe, to make it a compulsory duty on the side of the clergyman, to verify the names, residence, and condition of the parties. It is for want of some such imperative regulation that the disorderly practices, which I allude to, among the lower classes, prevail. Any marriages may now be effected without the knowledge of parents, friends, or public. The parties have only to send their names to certain populous parishes, where they have leave to get their banns published without scrutiny, and in the multitude of names published, and the obscurity of the persons in question, there is an easy concealment of any project of marriage. It is not necessary for the parties to assume fictitious names; the concealment passes as a matter of course under the looseness of the practice.
"It would be a sufficient objection to
1360
this lax, practice, that the clergyman is made often to utter a solemn untruth in, the face of the congregation, as to the residence of the parties, who get named without residence at all in the place where their banns are published; and that the intention of the law to give some notoriety to the intended marriage, by publication of banns, is utterly defeated. But in all this country nothing is more common. It is often a fancy or humour of the parties, that they will be married in the town, and not in the country, or in the place where they live. It costs them no trouble, no-change of abode, to indulge their wish. Sometimes they come home married, and take their friends by surprise. In my own parish not a year passes without instances of these clandestine marriages. In all the neighbouring country parishes the case is the same.
"The evil of these frauds is not confined to indiscreet and undutiful marriages, contracted without the advice or privity of friends; it goes to worse things; you will easily see how unions of bigamy, and others highly improper and unlawful, are promoted. I know an instance of a person living near to me, married to the daughter of his deceased wife, a daughter by a former husband; and also the case of a person married to his niece—these marriages having taken place in churches, of other populous parishes, near the places where the parties lived. For such abuses it is sincerely to be wished you may be able to provide a remedy, by bringing the law of marriage to be more favourable to the peace and virtue of families.
* In the last three months of 1817, the banns of 284 couple were published in the parish church of Mary-le-bone, and of
1361
de navo:
these 568 persons all, except two, were stated to reside in the parish, whereas the great; majority of them were non-residents.
1362
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, Mr. Ward moved, "That 248,744
l.
s.
d.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that the accounts of repairs and current expenses in some of the colonies, were so complicated, that it was almost impossible to know how the various sums were applied; and therefore, instead of going into minute details, his objection should be to the large account. He had moved for certain returns, which would elucidate some parts; but they had not been produced. The only account he had was from Demerara, and he would take that as a specimen of the current accounts in the other colonies. In the estimates for that colony was a sum of 1,879
l.
l.
l.
l.
1363
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1364
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Wilmot
said, that as the objection had been raised to the item for the expenses of the dam of Demerara, he felt it necessary to repeat the information which he had given to the hon. member upon a' former occasion, and with which he was
1365
After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. Creevey
said, he should propose an amendment relative to the grant for the fortifications of Barbadoes. Strong as the case was that he had made out on this subject on former occasions, it was at present far stronger than it had ever been before; for the committee had now a distinct admission from a member of his majesty's government, that in cases where works were carried on that were necessary for the service of a colony, the colony was to be called upon to sustain a portion of their expense. Such at least was the doctrine proposed regarding the island of Demerara; and that brought him to consider the case of the island of Barbadoes. The public was now called upon to pay 4,000
l.
1366
nil.
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Wilmot
maintained, that there was a wide difference between the cases of Demerara and Barbadoes. The repairs in the latter case were of a military nature; but in the former they were made for the purpose of conferring advantage upon the chief town of the colony. Alluding to what had fallen from the hon. member, regarding the insular situation of Demerara, he must take the liberty of correcting the geography of the hon. member. On looking to his map, he would find that the insular situation of Demerara was to be found nowhere except in his fertile imagination. The hon. secretary then proceeded to contend that the 4½ per cent duties were not applicable to the purposes which Mr. Creevey had mentioned. Those duties had been given to the Crown, in exchange for certain concessions which it had made to the colony. In proof of this assertion, he referred to the colonial act of 1663, and to certain other papers of which he read extracts to the House. Upon a reference to the whole of these acts, he could see nothing whatever to establish the proposition, that the 4½ per cent duties were given to the king, for the purpose of being applied exclusively to the colonial purposes of the islands. He must argue this question upon the analogy furnished
1367
Mr. Creevey
said, that nothing was so extraordinary as to hear the conditions of one act of parliament, which were in their nature and terms imperative, attempted to be construed by the analogy of other acts, which had no application whatever to Barbadoes. What signified to him what had been the 50 years practice of swindling and stealing in defiance of the Barbadoes act? [Murmurs from the ministerial benches]. He liked those murmurs, and wished that the people could hear them.
Mr. Bright
would not enter into the controversy, whether or not the Crown had perverted the 4½ per cent duties. It was a very fit subject for inquiry at another moment; but he thought the country was bound to maintain the fortifications at Barbadoes, and he must therefore support the present grant.
Mr. Bernal
said, the object of his hon. friend was, not to refuse the sums necessary to support the island of Barbadoes, but to see that those sums were taken from a proper source. He contended that the 4½ per cent fund ought to be applied to the expenses of the island. With reference to the act of Charles 2nd, it was one of atrocious and tyrannical extortion; and one of the articles of lord Clarendon's impeachment was founded upon that lord's defence of the king's conduct towards the island.
Mr. Marryat
contended that it would be very hard on the colony of Barbadoes, because we had taken from them the fund which belonged to them, to call upon them to provide a fresh fund for the purposes of the colony. If a motion were brought forward on the subject of the misapplication of the 4½ per cent fund, it should have his support; but there was not a shadow of justice in refusing to the colony the supplies necessary for its defence.
Mr. P. Moore
contended, that his hon. friend had made good his position, that the funds arising from this 4½ per cent duty had been dissipated by official profligacy, and that now, when the fortifications of Barbadoes were out of repair, the people of England were called upon to advance the expenses.
Mr. Williams
agreed, that the fortifications ought to be kept in repair by the king out of the 4½ per cent duties, and not by money drawn out of the pockets of the people of this country.
1368
The committee divided: For the amendment 39. Against it 81. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. A.
Moore, P.
Belgrave, lord
Maberly, J.
Bennet, hon. G.
Martin, John
Blake, sir F.
Pym, F.
Boughey, sir J.
Palmer, C. F.
Bernal, R.
Rumbold, S.
Burdett, sir F.
Ricardo, D.
Barrett, S. M.
Robinson, sir G.
Dickinson, W.
Rickford, W.
Davies, col.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Rice, S.
Griffith, J. W.
Smith, W.
Gurney, R. H.
Scott, J.
Haldimand, W.
Whitbread, W.
Hume, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.
James, W.
Williams, W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wood, alderman
Lushington, Dr.
TELLER.
Leycester, R.
Creevy, T.
The rest of the resolutions were agreed to and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 28, 1822.
BOARD OF ADMIRALTY BILL.]
Lord Melville
presented a bill for reducing the quorum of lords of the admiralty from three to two. His lordship stated that this bill had become necessary, in consequence of the new commission nominating five lords of the admiralty, instead of seven, in compliance with the vote of the House of Commons the act in existence rendering it imperative for three or more to do any act. Had he been a member of the other House, he should certainly have opposed the reduction of the lords of the Admiralty to five, that number being insufficient for the due discharge of the business of the board, without the greatest inconvenience. Had the number been reduced to six, it would, he admitted, have been sufficient in time of peace; but certainly in a period; of war it would be found absolutely necessary to have seven. As it was, the present; limited number would be productive of great inconvenience. It was, at all events, essential to pass the present bill, making the quorum two instead of three, on account of the business which it would be necessary to transact at the outports by at least two of the lords, which left only three for the business in London, one of whom might frequently be unable to attend. He should not now go into the
1369
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 28, 1822.
ILCHESTER GAOL—PETITION FROM BETHNAL GREEN.]
Sir R. Wilson
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Bethnal-green, praying for a remission of the sentence on Mr. Hunt. The petition had been signed by a thousand inhabitants in the course of a few hours. It complained of the aggravated treatment which Mr. Hunt had received in violation of the directions of the judge, and it stated the great service which Mr. Hunt had conferred on the country by detecting the abuses which existed in the gaol of Ilchester. It commented severely on the conduct of a certain clerical magistrate; and certainly, if the charges brought against that magistrate were well founded, he appeared to be a most rigid disciplinarian, and one who attended but little to the precepts of the religion which he professed to teach. There was one paragraph in the petition, which would probably call forth some observation. In that paragraph a distinction was taken between two classes of members in that House, which, he believed, was sufficiently well ascertained and understood in the country. It was well known that House was composed of two descriptions of members; one class nominated by their constituents, and who represented the people; the other sent there to represent individuals and particular private interests—one class who were free agents; the other, who were the organs of the will of others—one class, who really attended to the debates in that House, and whose minds were capable of being influenced by reason and argument; the other class, whose previous engagements rendered it unnecessary for them to apply their minds to the subject under discussion. The following was the paragraph of the petition to which he alluded:—"Your petitioners disclaim any the least intention to insult your honourable House, by any remarks they may make upon its character, which they wish to see pure and unblemished in public opinion; but
1370
Mr. Dickinson
expressed his disapprobation of the terms in which the petition was conceived. They were highly disrespectful, and it was not true that "boys"
1371
On the question that the. petition be brought up, the House divided: Ayes 17 Noes 67.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, R.
Price, R.
Calvert, N.
Rice, S.
Duncannon, lord
Ricardo, D.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Ridley, sir M.
Hume, Joseph
Sykes, D.
Kennedy, T. F.
Tennyson, C.
Lennard, T. B.
Wood, alderman
Newport, Sir J.
TELLERS.
Normanby, lord
Bennet, hon. G.
Palmer, C. F.
Wilson, sir R.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—PETITION FROM MONMOUTH.]
Mr. Hume
said he had a petition to present for a reform of parliament, from the Mayor, and Commonalty of Monmouth; but after the extraordinary course which the House had pursued with respect to the last petition, he did not well know what to do with it. It was the right of the people to call for a reform of parliament, and he would say, that the circumstance which had just occurred sheaved the necessity of that reform. To reject a petition without hearing it read, was contrary to the just rights and privileges of the people. Reform might be put off by temporary expedients, but it could not be defeated; the principle was working and would ultimately triumph. He could not but consider it a marked insult on the people, to dismiss their petition even without hearing it read.
The Speaker
said, that the House could not suffer persons outside the walls of parliament to cast improper reflections upon it. Inside these walls he was sure that hon. gentlemen would speak of its proceedings with decency.
Mr. Hume
said, he had always understood, that it was the right of the people to petition parliament; but be never heard before that it was the right of parliament to reject their petitions. They were bound to hear them read; and then, if any thing appeared to be inadmissible, they might reject them. He had not heard a single improper word in that part of the petition from Bethnall-green which had been read by the gallant officer. It contained truths, though they might be unpalatable ones. In the petition which he now held in his hand, the petitioners humbly set forth that they considered a reform of parliament absolutely necessary for the salvation of the country; and they prayed that it might be speedily effected.
1372
Lord G. Somerset
said, that the petition was by no means signed by the most respectable inhabitants of the town of Monmouth: he could not look upon it as a petition coming from the commonalty of that town; he did not see, that it contained any objectionable passages, however he might differ from the sentiments it contained.
Mr. W. Courtenay
seconded the bringing up of this petition, for the sake of pointing out the great difference between it and that which the House had just rejected. It was said that the House had rejected a petition without hearing its language; but he would appeal to the gallant officer, whether, in the passage which he had read, it was not his meaning to call the attention of the House to the language? He did conceive, that those who contended for the unlimited admission of petitions, whatever the language might be in which they were couched, were, in truth, the most formidable enemies of the sacred right of petition. He valued the right of petition as much as the hon. member for Aberdeen could do; but he thought that hon. gentleman was quite wrong in saying that the House had no right to reject petitions, numerous instances having occurred within his own memory, in which such a right had been exercised.
Mr. G. Bennet
could not go the length of saying, that there was no petition, whatever its language might be, but what the House was bound to receive. The question then was, whether the petition presented by his gallant friend had come before them with a fair case made out, and a statement of grievances, for the purpose of obtaining redress; or whether it was conceived in language that was insulting to the House? This was the only test by which to try any petition; and. the result of its application in this instance was, that the petitioners had a fair case, and had properly stated their grievances. They began by disclaiming all intention of insult, and they alluded to a declaration (that the sale of seats was as notorious as the sun at noon-day) which most undoubtedly had been made in that House by no less a person than the late Mr. Ponsonby. If any one could doubt the fact for a moment, he would take upon himself to prove it at the bar of the House in less than ten minutes. Besides, the petitioners did not state a case, as if it was put on their own authority; but they stated it,
1373
Sir J. Newport
said, it very often happened that hon. gentlemen presented to that House, petitions, containing sentiments in which they themselves did not concur. Now, if the principle that had been that evening laid down was to be acted upon, the consequence would be, that any member so circumstanced would have nothing to do but to select some strong passage from the petition, and describe it in his speech as being objectionable, to ensure the rejection of the petition. He, therefore, did mean to contend, that the House ought never to exercise this strong power of rejection, until after it should have heard the petition read. It was on these grounds that he had supported the reading of the petition lately rejected.
Mr. Dickinson
re-stated his objections to the petition which had been rejected. It was affirmed in the body of it, that "boys" were brought into parliament to vote. Now, this was not fact. By the term "boys," an indifferent person would naturally suppose, that striplings under age were intended. Every hon. gentleman well knew that the youngest members of that House were between 21 and 25; and that of these, there were very few. He believed there was but one instance, in which an individual had been admitted to sit in that House, being under the age prescribed by law. He alluded to the
1374
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he was the last man to support any petition that might seem to convey any thing like an insult upon the House. In the case before them, however, the petitioners made no direct allegation. They merely affirmed, that such a report had gone abroad. In his opinion, the House would neglect its duty, if it persevered in rejecting petitions without hearing them read.
Mr. Hume
begged to correct the misstatement of a noble lord who had said that this petition was not signed by the majority of the commonalty of Monmouth. Though the names of the noble lord's friends and supporters might not appear at the foot of it, it certainly was subscribed by the majority.
Lord G. Somerset
contended that information was as good as that, of the hon. gentleman, and if it were correct the majority of the burgesses had not signed the petition.
Ordered to lie on the table.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURT.]
Mr. Lennard
said, he had to call the attention of the House to a subject of considerable importance to the working classes of the county of. Middlesex. By the 23rd Geo. 2nd the county court of Middlesex was constituted in its present form. The object of the court was, to facilitate the recovery of small debts not exceeding 40
s.
1375
l.
s.
d.
s.
l.;
1376
Mr. Bernal
said, there was no proof or allegation before the House, that there had been any delay or denial of justice in the court alluded to. There had been no complaint preferred by any suitor that justice had been mal-administered, and in the absence of any such complaint why should a motion be adopted that would impeach the character of the present county clerk, whose character was highly respectable? This county clerk (Mr. Heath) had, it was said, a salary of from 1500
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Bennet
said, it was impossible, from the very showing of the officer himself, that substantial justice could be done to the suitors in this court. It appeared that the court sat two days in the week, to try causes which averaged 17,000 in the course of the year, and which, including summonses, amounted to about 200 cases for each day of sitting. The commissioner might be a very intelligent person, and extremely anxious to do his duty, but the return plainly proved that the business of the court could not be performed in that
1377
The Solicitor-General
considered this motion as irregular. No petition had been presented, imputing any misconduct to the judge, impugning the conduct of the subordinate officer, or stating that there had been any denial of justice in this court. The hon. gentleman had not, therefore, made out any parliamentary ground for inquiry. The hon. member for Shrewsbury had stated, that the jurymen were selected from a class of persons who were not fit to sit on Juries. He was inclined to think that the hon. member had been misinformed; for, by the act of parliament, the juries in this court were selected from the same class of persons as decided on cases in Westminster-hall. By the same act it was provided, if any misconduct appeared in the proceedings of this court, that two of his majesty's chief justices should have the liberty of investigating the matter complained of, and of remedying the evil where the complaint appeared to be well founded. The constitution of this court had been selected by Mr. Justice Blackstone, as the subject of particular praise. The largeness of the fees demanded was complained of. Now, one of the reasons which induced Mr. Justice Blackstone to praise the constitution of the court, was the moderate rate of the fees? If greater fees were demanded than the act autho-
1378
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1379
Mr. Lennard
said, that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any imputation upon the gentleman who now held the office in question. But if the House granted him a committee, he pledged himself to prove the charges which he had made against the office generally.
The motion was then put, and negatived.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The report of the Army Estimates were brought up. On the motion for agreeing to the resolution, "That 13,662
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to a grant to that amount. The mere salaries of officers at this College exceeded 6,000
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
Mr. F. Palmer
treated the College as an excrescence, which, if it would not yield to mild applications, must be attacked in the way of radical cure. It was impossible for the country, distressed as it was, to support the charge of such an establishment.
Sir H. Hardinge
observed, that the hon. member had made a most erroneous statement with respect to the cadets educated at the Military College. He had stated the whole number in the college, since the peace, to be 1,764. Now, in this the hon. member made a mistake of not less than from 1,200 to 1,300. The hon. member's peculiar and felicitous mode of calculation was this—he took the number of cadets in the college, for each year of the five or six years, and he added them up, giving the sum total as the number of cadets in the college for that time. Nothing could be more erroneous, and the hon. member should have known, before he made this statement, that more than one year was necessary for completing the education of a cadet; that it took four years, and therefore, in adding together the numbers in every year, the hon.
1380
Mr. Hume
said, he would restate his facts, and maintain their correctness, viz. that in the five years, 1816 to 1820 inclusive, there had been each year from 412 to 290 cadets educated at the public expense—at an expense of 115,280
l.;
l.
1381
l.,
l.
The committee divided: For the amendment 15. Against it 35.
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
Newport, sir J.
Blake, sir F.
Price, Robt.
Crespigny, sir W.
Rice, S.
Davies, col.
Smith, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Western, C.
Leonard, T. B.
Whitbread, S.
Lushington, Dr.
TELLERS.
Martin, J.
Hume, J.
Maxwell, J.
Palmer, C. F.
The several resolutions were agreed to by the House.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 29.
BOARD OF ADMIRALTY BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Darnley
wished to ask the noble viscount opposite, whether he had been rightly reported, when he was represented to have said, that the diminution of two lords of the Admiralty would occasion encreased expense to the public; and if he had said so, on what ground that opinion was founded?
Lord Mclville
said, he had not only expressed that opinion, but could state facts which would convince the House of its being well founded. A few months ago, he had gone with other members of the board, to some of the principal dockyards, and had made inquiries which led them to believe that a considerable saving might be effected. It was then determined, that two professional members of the board should go down and carry the arrangement necessary for that saving into effect. But now that, with the exception of himself, there remained only four lords of the Admiralty, it was impossible to send down two professional lords for the purpose which he had mentioned, as it was always necessary that there should be two in town. The proposed inquiry must, therefore, be postponed, as well as the saving which it was expected to produce,
1382
l.
The Earl of Liverpool
agreed noble friend, that the abolition of two lords of the Admiralty was a measure by no means favourable to the public service or to economy. With regard to the constitution of the board, he had communicated with various professional men, and they all agreed, that in a board consisting of not more than five persons, majority ought not to be seamen.
Lord Holland
said, that as to the opinion, that the reduction was not advantageous to the public, such declarations from the noble earl must lose something of their weight, when it was recollected that he had formerly declared that the government of the country could not be carried on if such reductions were made. It was no wonder, therefore, that he regretted such a loss; but all his wailings, though assisted by the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, would not bring back the two departed members to the board.
The Earl of Harrowby
insisted, that his noble friend had never said he could not carry on the government if this or that office were reduced. All he had said was, that a great public inconvenience would result from the reduction. This, too, would be the opinion of the public, when they recovered from the delusion which at present prevailed on questions of this kind.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 29.
VAGRANT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
1383
Mr. Chetwynd,
in proposing the second reading of this bill, observed, that the measure contained no provision that was not to be found in the existing laws. He had heard that some persons, particularly ladies, complained that by the bill the minstrels who perambulated the streets would be prevented from serenading theme; but he would inform those persons, that, under the laws at they at present stood, wandering musicians were considered vagrants. It was his intention, on the present occasion, merely to propose that the bill be read a second time.
Colonel Wood
seconded the motion. As the bill at present stood, the exhibition of shows was prohibited, and he knew that some persons feared that a very entertaining personage called. Mr. Punch would no longer be allowed to amuse the public. He therefore felt great satisfaction in stating, that his hon. friend would have no objection to introduce a special clause in favour of Mr. Punch. The public were indebted to his hon. friend for the prospect which held out of relieving the country from the heavy expense incurred by the passing of vagrants. The sum which had been expended for that purpose last year amounted to 100,000
l.
Mr. Hurst
observed, that although in the profession of the law, and acting as a magistrate for the last fifty years, he was at this moment unable to define the duties of a peace officer under the present vagrant laws. They were an ill digested mass, and called loudly for revision.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the laws relating to vagrants ought to be simplified, and brought under a more concise shape. The public were much indebted to the learned gentleman for the bill now before them.
Mr. Lyttleton
supported the bill, as it tended to distinguish the vagrant laws from the poor laws, of which there had been some danger of their becoming a part.
Mr. P. Moore
hoped that his friend Punch, as well as the persons who carried about wild beasts for show, would not be included in the list of vagrants by this law, as they were subjects of great and general amusement.
Alderman Wood
supported the bill, as he thought its provision very salutary.
The bill was read a second time, and referred to a select committee.
1384
SHERIFFS DEPUTE IN SCOTLAND.]
Mr. Home Drummond
presented a petition from the dean and faculty of advocates at Edinburgh. He said, that he considered that learned body had conferred a great honour on him in entrusting their petition to his hands, and hoped, from the weight that was due to their opinion, as well as- the importance of the subject to which their petition related, that he might be allowed to explain the nature of the case, concerning which they had been induced to trouble the House on this occasion. By the act of the 20th. Geo. 2nd by which the heritable jurisdictions in Scotland were abolished, his majesty was authorised to appoint a sheriff in every county who should be a lawyer of a certain standing at the Scots bar, and required to reside for a limited, period during each year within his county. The petitioners had heard of an intention, on the part of his majesty's government, to require the sheriffs to reside permanently in their jurisdictions, and it was against this intended alteration of the system that they had presented this petition. He submitted, that if any alteration of this sort was intended it ought to be done by act of parliament. If, in 1748, a statute was necessary to regulate this matter, he did not see why recourse should not be had to the same authority in the year 1822. It was implied necessarily in the act of 1748, that it was in the opinion of the legislature inexpedient to require longer residence than that statute enjoined, and the penalties by which that regulation was enforced could not be made to apply to any farther period of residence. How, then, was his majesty's government to enforce this additional residence they had in view? By making a bargain with the sheriff, by promising him a pecuniary reward—a thing most objectionable in principle; for it was easy to see, that if the government might bargain with a judge to do a certain part of his duty in a particular way, or to do a thing which was not his duty, and to pay him a reward for this, the independence of those jurors was at an end. He was aware that there was no improper object here in view, and that the measure proceeded from an anxious desire to promote the public interest. But he did think that this mode of accomplishing the object was improper. In the next place, he had to submit to the House that the measure was most inexpedient in itself. The object of the act of
1385
viva voce
1386
Sir J. Montgomerie
admitted that much good had resulted from the act of 1748; but at the same time he contended, that change of circumstances and manners might have operated to require the alteration now proposed. The sheriff of Edinburgh was always resident, and he would put it to any man to bear testimony how well the business of his court was carried on, owing to that permanent residence, and he was desirous of having Glasgow placed on the same footing.
Mr. Secretary Peel
was decidedly of opinion, that as the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh was a resident officer in his shrievalty, so ought the sheriff Lanarkshire. That judge had Glasgow in his district, a large and populous city, requiring the constant residence of this important officer, and therefore he was of opinion that this alteration at least should be introduced into the act of 1748, that its sheriff should be a constant resident, and that he should be placed on the same footing as the sheriff of Edinburgh, who had a salary of 800
l.;
Mr. Abercromby
said, that, with the exception of Edinburgh, Lanarkshire, and Renfrew perhaps, he was decidedly of opinion that constant residence should not be required. The learned gentleman recommended an act of parliament.
Lord A. Hamilton
argued, that the measure ought to be carried into effect by an act of parliament, though for his part, he had no hopes of a proper person being induced, by 800
l.
Mr. Peel
said, he would not pledge himself to bring any measure before parliament.
The Lord Advocate
was of opinion, that the faculty of advocates were misled in the opinion they had formed upon the intended measure of government. He believed that they expected a measure for nicking the whole of the sheriffs of the counties of Scotland reside within their jurisdiction. Nothing was ever farther from the intention of government.
The petition was then read.
1387
Mr. Home Drummond,
on moving that it be printed, said, that he entertained serious doubts if the bargain the right hon. gentleman seemed about to make, in promising the sheriff a sum of money for doing a thing which the law did not require of him, was, under all circumstances of the case, a legal transaction.
Mr. Kennedy
objected to the point of residence resting between government and the sheriff. He wished for a bill on the subject.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC PEERS.]
Mr. Canning
rose, for the purpose of giving a notice, to which he begged to call the attention of his right hon. friend the attorney-general for Ireland. Gentlemen who had been present during the debates of last year, on the bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, might possibly do him the honour to recollect, that in one of those discussions he had insisted strongly upon the state of the law affecting Catholic peers, and had intimated his intention of bringing that part of the subject forward at a future time: he had since repeated this design more privately to gentlemen on both sides of the House. Nothing could be farther from his wish than to interfere, in any degree, with the larger and more general measure, which, if brought forward, he would promote to the best of his abilities: but, on the expediency of bringing it forward at the present moment, he offered no opinion. As the session was advancing, and as to postpone the notice until after the holydays might even endanger the entertaining of the subject at all, he took that opportunity of stating, that on the 30th April he would move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of the 30th Charles 2nd as debars Roman Catholic peers from exercising their right of sitting and voting in the House of Lords. It was due to the noble persons whose interests were concerned, to declare solemnly, and upon his honour, that he had had no communication with them, upon the subject of the present notice.
Mr. Plunkett
said, that the particular measure noticed by the right hon. gentleman formed a very principal part of the great question which, last year, he had the honour of bringing forward. With regard to the general measure, if the expediency of reviving the subject depended upon himself—if he were called upon to
1388
Mr. Tierney
believed, that but one opinion would be felt as to the notice of the right hon. gentleman. From the attorney-general for Ireland, he wished to know whether he had made up his mind upon the fitness of introducing the measure for the relief of the whole body of Catholics; or whether his ultimate opinion was to depend upon the sentiment entertained by the friends of the measure, in England and in Ireland, in the House and out of it? No doubt it was fit to collect the judgment of the various parties, but he
1389
Mr. Plunkett
said, it would afford him great satisfaction, could he give a more explicit answer to his right hon. friend. He had not been able yet to bring his mind to any definite conclusion, though he was not conscious of having omitted any means of informing himself upon the subject. The sentiments of the Roman Catholics with whom he was connected would, of course, mainly govern him; and he had every reason to believe that they were not at present anxious to press the matter forward. He felt that he should not do right if he now entered into the question as to the time when it might or might not be proper to introduce the subject; but he must be considered as exercising his own discretion on a matter so momentous: he had given it every possible attention, without being influenced by any indirect view, either public or personal. Whenever he found that it could be discussed favourably, he would not be backward to bring the question forward. He begged to remind the right hon. gentleman that this had never been considered an annual measure, to be brought forward session after session. It had been said, that the success of last year was a strong argument for persevering; but he could not bring his mind to any such conclusion. The nearer he approached to the final accomplishment of the object, the more tremulous was his feeling with respect to it. He did not think the state of Ireland at this time, such as to warrant the friends of the Catholics in pressing for an early discussion of their claims; and he really believed that the Roman Catholics had good taste and good feeling enough to abstain. Whether or not, philosophically speaking, the prevailing discontents in Ireland might
1390
Mr. Bright
observed, that the measure of which the right hon. gentleman had given notice, was one great step to the admission of the Catholics to political power, and should be resisted accordingly.
Sir J. Newport
said, that he looked at the Catholic question in a light directly opposed to the view of the attorney-general for Ireland. The state of that country seemed to him an additional reason for bringing forward the measure without delay, since, in his opinion, it would accomplish the permanent tranquility of Ireland. The question was not open to other individuals until the right hon. gentleman relinquished it, no other individual was warranted in interfering with it. He was opinion, that the Catholic question ought to be brought forward this session, and that no time ought to be lost.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—COMMISSARIAT—BARRACKS.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that in proposing a vote for the Commissariat Department, he felt it necessary to trouble the committee with a few words, in explanation of the manner in which the estimates were drawn up this year, prior to any question being put to him on the subject. The estimates were drawn up in a mode differing considerably from that which was adopted last year, and it became his duty to state in what the alteration consisted. Last year the rations for the commissariat department were, on the whole estimate, taken at a fraction beyond 6
d.,
l.
l.
d.,
1391
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
1392
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.;
l.,
l.
1393
l.
Mr. Hume
said, the committee must feel satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. gentleman. He, for one, was greatly pleased with it. He was glad to find that the right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to simplify the mode of drawing up those estimates by rendering the different items more clear and distinct than they had usually been. There was a very considerable reduction of expense in this department. Last year the sum voted was 401,000
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
1394
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1395
Mr. Arbuthnot,
adverting to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. gentleman respecting the storekeeper's department, said, he had, perhaps, been rather remiss in not stating that arrangements had been made, which afforded him every reason to hope, that the whole duty of that department would in future be transferred to the Ordnance. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that though a year had elapsed since this subject had been mentioned, the time had not been passed in idleness. His thoughts had been anxiously turned to it, with a view of making the transfer as soon as this could be effected, with due regard to economy, and proper attention to the public service. He believed he might say, that from this time forward, the whole of the business of the Store1ceeper's department would be transacted at the Ordnance. The item of 70,000
l.
1396
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Bennet
said, that the income of Mr. Herries, 2,700
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
spoke to the meritorious services of Mr. Herries, and begged to inform the hon. member, that there were very few members of that House whose education and talents surpassed those of that gentleman. The hon. gentleman was not justified in considering him merely as a clerk. From a clerk to the Treasury he had risen to a most important situation, having, in every instance, given the highest satisfaction to the heads of his department. Mr. Herries to the close of the war had been entrusted under a commission with the management of an immense sum connected with the military expenditure of the country. No less than 17,000,000
l.
1397
Mr. Bennet
did not mean to deny that Mr. Herries was a most excellent servant. What he objected to was, that he had received the salary which ought to pay a higher office than that which he had filled.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that since it was admitted that Mr. Herries was a most excellent servant, he would take upon himself the responsibility of having advised a just remuneration for his services.
Mr. Bennet
said, it was easy for the right hon. gentleman to refer the House to his responsibility. Though he had often heard of responsibility in that House, he had yet to learn what the word meant. He did not know whether the day of real responsibility would ever arrive, but he hoped to God that it would, and that, too, while the present ministers were living.
l.
Mr. Hume
expressed himself satisfied with the proposed transfer of the storekeeper-general's department to the Ordnance. But, on the item of 27,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
1398
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that since he had been in office he had never appointed any person to the situation of barrack-master who was not connected with the army. It was a mistake to suppose that a barrack master had nothing to do at present; for he had the care of the barracks and of the stores. He had never made an appointment from political motives; indeed ho could appeal to the hon. member for Shrewsbury to bear him out in this assertion with respect to a particular case. [Mr. Bennet assented.] In consequence of the observation which had been made; last year as to the barrack-master at Haddington, he had directed inquiry to be made; and the result of it was, that the individual in question was not a linen-draper, and that he regularly discharged the duties of his situation. As to the objection to the sum for repairs, it was impossible to prevent the barracks falling to ruin, unless they were repaired.
Colonel Wood
said, that as to the general question of repairs, he certainly thought that too many barracks had been built; but it would be penny wise and pound foolish to pull them down or to suffer them to fall into decay. He did not think many officers on half-pay would
1399
Mr. W. Smith
thought it impossible for any gentleman to go into a detail of the estimates without committing mistakes, and those mistakes were sure to be thrown in his teeth by the gentlemen opposite. Surely 60,630
l.
l.
Sir J. Newport
said, it appeared as if there was no limit to the discretion of the barrack department. He observed a sum of 10,000
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that no considerable expense was ever incurred without the approbation of the Treasury. He was not able to give the particulars of the sum alluded to, on account of the illness of the officer at the head of the barrack department.
Mr. R. Smith
thought the circumstance just mentioned by the right hon. gentleman was an irresistible argument in favour of the amendment. The expenditure of Abe last year was in general a guide for that of the present; and as the 10,000
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that as there certainly appeared to be some foundation for the argument that the repairs in question were extraordinary, and as he was, for the reasons he had mentioned, not able to give the committee the particulars of it, he would not press the vote, but would agree that the 10,000
l.
Mr. Bennet
said, that the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, was intended as a reduction of the allowances to barrack-masters, and was therefore not touched by the concession which had just been made. With regard to the present vote, he really thought that as much as 40,000
l.
l.
l.
1400
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, he understood the object of the hon. member for Aberdeen was merely to take 10,000
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he had last year opposed the grant for the barracks at Manchester, and his arguments had failed in convincing the House. Now, it appeared, that the barracks were given up, and the money was lost to the public.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, it was only the temporary barracks at Manchester to which he had alluded. Those of a permanent nature were retained.
The resolution as amended to 111,600
l.
l.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hurst, R.
Baring, sir T.
James, Wm.
Bernal, R.
Moore, P.
Bright, H.
Monck, J. B.
Boughey, sir F.
Newport, sir J.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Ord, W.
Benett, J.
Powlett, hon. W.
Chetwynd, G.
Pym, F.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Ricardo, D.
Duncannon, visct.
Robarts, col.
Dickinson, W.
Sefton, lord
Evans, W.
Smith, W.
Farrand, R.
Sykes, D.
Griffith, J. W.
Williams, W.
Gipps, G.
Warre, J. A.
Hume, J.
Wood, M.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 1.
ROASTED WHEAT.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he had intended to move for a copy of the opinion of the attorney and solicitor-general on all the cases of prosecution instituted by the Excise against persons selling Roasted Wheat, &c. but he had altered his motion at the suggestion of the noble earl opposite. He would briefly call their lordships' attention to the returns on their table. It appeared from them that the commissioners of Excise had thought themselves authorized by act of parliament, not merely
1401
1402
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he did not object to the motion. He admitted that he saw no reason why persons should be prohibited from selling roasted wheat, or any other roasted grain. But the question was, whether an opening was not made for fraud when it was sold in the state of powder. The prohibition in that case might be necessary, not only for the protection of the revenue, but for, the protection of the purchasers of the article, which was thereby liable to be adulterated. Parliament was bound to guard against frauds of this nature, and prohibition was for the interest of the individuals liable to be imposed on.—The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 1.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—RATE OF INTEREST.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he held in his hand a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Linlithgow, complaining of distress. The remedy which the petitioners proposed was, the laying out of a million of money on the part of government in the purchase of corn in the market. He particularly directed the attention of the House to one paragraph in the petition, to this effect:—Your petitioners do not pretend to find fault with taxes, being convinced that they are necessary for the support of the state. To reduce taxation would be like a drop of water falling into the immense ocean—our distresses are so far beyond the reach of any relief to be obtained in that way." In that opinion he fully concurred. He felt disappointed that the Bank had not seconded the plan of the government, by consenting to discount at a lower rate of interest. He was convinced that the Bank, by refusing to discount at a lower rate of interest, had contributed materially to the distresses of the country. The conduct of the Bank was indeed extraordinary. It did nothing to facilitate money transactions, which was originally the object of its institution. Why had the Bank continued its rate of discount higher than in other countries? Why was it necessary to pay 5 per cent in London, and only 4 per cent in Paris? He was willing to admit that the country was greatly obliged to the Bank for their conduct
1403
Mr. Manning
felt it extremely difficult to reply to the observations of the last speaker, because he had no authority to state any thing on the part of the Bank. The hon. member had said, that a great portion of the agricultural distress was to be ascribed to the conduct of the Bank. A charge so totally without foundation, he had never heard. In his opinion, the distress of the agricultural interest was occasioned by over production, arising from the large quantities of land enclosed during the last twelve years. The directors of the Bank had been held up to public indignation as being the cause of agricultural distress, because they had not lowered the rate of interest. But the Bank had nothing to do with lowering the rate of interest. That was altogether a parliamentary question. The learned member for Guildford had once proposed to repeal the usury laws; and if that had been agreed to, interest would have been taken at 10 or 12 per cent. Another attack in which official persons had joined had been made upon the Bank, because it had not lowered the rate of its discount to 4 per cent. He did not know why the Bank were to be called usurers and extortioners on this ground. The Bank lent out its whole capital of 15,000,000
l.
l.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
defended his proposition to repeal the usury laws, which was merely, that the rate of interest should be left to find its own level. He had by no means abandoned it, and the measure which was in contemplation for re-
1404
Sir W. W. Wynn
said, he should hear with great satisfaction of the reduction of the rate of interest, and wished to know whether the reduction of the heavy tax on the transfer of mortgages was actually in contemplation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that ministers, with the advice of the law officers of the Crown, intended to introduce a clause into a bill now preparing, remitting the heavy
ad valorem
Sir T. Lethbridge
agreed, that the Bank was not the cause of the agricultural distress, and that the country was under great obligations to the Bank; but on the other hand, the Bank were under great obligations to the country; and he thought that they should not be slow to reduce the rate of interest, which ultimately they could not keep up.
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, said, the only source of immediate relief both to landlord and tenant was a reduction of the interest of money. The law, though it prevented the Bank from taking more, did not, he apprehended, prevent them from taking less than 5 per cent. If 4,000,000
l.
l.
Mr. Western
said, the ministers should be aware of the situation in which agriculture stood. The gentlemen whose property was embarked in that pursuit were on the brink of ruin. He was convinced that two-thirds of the farmers of Essex were at this moment, if they were called upon to settle their accounts, in a state of insolvency. He called upon the noble marquis to consider whence such a situation had arisen. Had it happened in this country before? Had it happened in any other country, that a whole class of men were deprived of their property? So far from expecting this, there was every reason to have hoped for the reverse. Their situation was one which must convulse the whole frame of society, unless it were speedily altered. Landlords for the last two or three years had been
1405
Sir E. Harvey
confirmed what had fallen from his hon. colleague on the subject of petitions. He also bore testimony to the great extent of the distress in Essex.
Mr. Huskisson
could not avoid expressing his opinion, that if the Bank could be induced to lower the rate of interest, it would contribute in some degree to release the pressure which gentlemen so bitterly lamented. When it was said that it had lent 15 millions to the public at 3 per cent, it ought not to be forgotten that parliament had given the Bank important and exclusive privileges. If the ordinary rate of interest was elsewhere under 5 per cent, he could not understand why the Bank should refuse to discount on good securities at the same rate, when it had in fact found it worth while to lend to the state at 3 per cent.
Mr. Monck
said, the Bank had a right to make the best use of their capital, and that any relief occasioned by the lowering of interest would be of small amount, except to mortgagees. The distress of the country could, in his opinion, be relieved only by raising the price of agricultural produce, or by reducing taxation.
Mr. Huskisson
begged to disclaim all right to interfere with the affairs of the Bank of England. He had only stated his opinion as an individual member of parliament.
1406
Mr. Pearse,
contended that over-production was the real cause of the distress, and that the rate of interest had always been governed by the price of the funds.
Ordered to lie on the table.
REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRESSED STATE OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. Gooch
brought up the report of the select Committee on the distressed, state of the Agriculture of the United Kingdom, and moved that it be read. The marquis of Londonderry suggested, that as arrangements had been made for printing the report as soon as possible, it might be better not to have it read at present. After a short conversation, it was agreed that the report should be taken into consideration on the 22nd. The following is a copy thereof:—
AGRICULTURAL REPORT.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into the Allegations of the several Petitions which have been presented to the House in the last and present Sessions of Parliament, complaining of the distressed state of the Agriculture of the United Kingdom, and to report their observations thereon to the House;
Considered that among all the important objects referred to them, none could be more deserving of their earliest attention than an inquiry into any measures that could be suggested for affording some temporary relief to the distresses of which the numerous petitioners with so much reason complain, and which appear, from the returns of the average prices of corn during the late weeks,
*
Your Committee do not venture to determine whether the present state of the corn market be owing to an excess of production, or to what extent that excess may reach, beyond the usual and requisite supply; or whether the necessities of the occupiers of land cause an unprecedented eagerness to dispose of their produce at almost any price; but it appears from an official return, that the quantity of British wheat and oats (but not of barley) sold in Mark-lane, between 1st November and 1st of March last, has very considerably exceeded the quantity sold in
*
the highest price of any 1 week in 1822, was 56
s.
d.
9th — 10.
2nd — 10.
23rd Feb. 47. 7.
1407
the corresponding months of the twenty preceding years. Such an excess of supply beyond demand can have no other effect than to continue the depression of price, and increase the accumulation of the stock upon hand; while it is evident, from the present very low rate of price on the continent of Europe, as compared with prices in this country, that there is no chance of resorting to the natural expedient of relieving the market by exporting any portion of our own corn, even with the aid of any bounty which would not be excessive.
Two other modes have, therefore, been under the consideration of your Committee; by the first of which it was proposed that one million of exchequer bills should be applied to purchasing, through the agency of government, and laying up in store, a certain portion of wheat grown in the United Kingdom; and by the second, that facility and encouragement should be offered to individuals to deposit a part of their stock in warehouses, so that they might not be forced to come into the market simultaneously, and under the disadvantage of excessive competition, but might be enabled to wait until the supply having approached nearer to the wants of the consumers might afford, if not a remunerating, at least a price some what less ruinous for their produce. With regard to the first of these proposals, the general objections against making the public, through the executive government, a dealer and speculator in corn, the suspicions to which it might give rise, and the uneasiness in the public feeling which it might eventually excite, the danger of its being drawn into precedent, the claims which it might be supposed to give to other important articles of domestic produce, whenever they might be exposed to similar depression, and the universal rule of allowing all articles as much as possible to find their own natural level, by leaving the supply to adjust itself to the demand, discourage your Committee from recommending it, even under this extraordinary emergency, and with all the guards and qualifications of a temporary expedient. But with regard to the second, although much less efficacious in its operation, the objection of government becoming a purchaser does not apply, as individuals would in this case act for themselves, and according to their own discretion, the government interfering no otherwise than by making advances
1408
s.
s.
The other proposition was, that for the purpose of relieving the glut which at present presses upon the grain market, the government, whenever the average price of wheat shall be under 60
s.
There is another measure also to which it is fit to call the early attention of the House. The foreign grain and flour of all sorts in different warehouses under the
1409
Much us your Committee lament, that so little prospect of immediate relief can be held out to the urgent distresses which have been submitted to their anxious consideration, they think it material to obviate and counteract any unfounded alarm which may have been, either casually or industriously, circulated, that there was ever the least intention entertained by your Committee of rendering the present condition of the British cultivators worse than it is under the existing law; and they therefore submit, with great confidence, to the House, that the act of the 55th of the late king, c. 26, which regulates the importation of foreign corn, ought to continue in force until the average price of wheat shall be 80
s.
1410
1411
s.,
s.
Should parliament decide to legislate during the present session, your Committee would recommend, that after our wheat shall have reached 80
s.
The foundation of any future bill should be the principle of so far modifying the operation of the existing law as to obviate, as far as may be, by the imposition of reasonable duties upon the admis-
1412
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
In compliance with an application made to them by several of the owners of the foreign grain now stored in warehouses, your Committee have already recom-
1413
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.
1414
Your Committee have felt it their, duty, for obvious reasons, to lay without further delay before the House, the result of theirs deliberations; but they would consider that they had omitted a most material part of the task imposed upon them if they neglected to inquire into the present system upon which foreign corn is ware-housed. Your Committee are now engaged in carefully investigating this important subject, and they will not fail to report the result to the House as early as the nature of their inquiry will permit.
April 1, 1822.
COLONIAL TRADE BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House on the Colonial Trade Acts,
Mr. Robinson
rose and said:
*
*
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
ipso facto,
independent
one
another,
1422
1423
1424
—"What seasons can control,
What fancied zone can circumscribe the soul?
Who conscious of the source from whence she springs,
By Reason's light, on Resolution's wings,
Spite of her frail companion, dauntless goes,
O'er Lybia's deserts, and through Zembla's snows."
1425
1. "That the chairman be directed to ask for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the trade between his majesty's possessions in America and the West Indies, and other places in America and the West Indies.
2. That the chairman be directed to ask for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the trade between his majesty's possessions in America and the West Indies, and other parts of the World, exclusive of America and the West Indies."
Mr. Wilberforce
complimented the right hon. gentleman upon the steady support which he had given to the abolition of the slave trade, but feared that the bills proposed to be introduced would, by increasing the intercourse of our colonies with other nations, facilitate the illicit importation of slaves. The hon. gentleman also adverted to the system of registry devised as a security against the introduction of new Negroes into our islands. In Trinidad, he believed it was carried fully into effect, but in many of our islands, and in the principal one, Jamaica, it was in a very limited degree attended to.
Mr. Barham
did not believe, that the measure proposed would have the effect of introducing fresh slaves into the British colonies. The planters, indeed, must be mad who thought of importation at the present moment, for, so far from having money to buy new Negroes, they had not the means of supporting those already in their possession. He would support the bills, for he thought it absolutely necessary to do something for the relief of the colonial interest.
Mr. Marryat
considered the measure as one of the greatest importance, not only with respect to its general object, the amelioration of trade, but also as it affected the Negroes. From the state in which their masters were at present, they were in extreme distress. The measure, therefore, whilst it went to save the masters from ruin, was also highly interesting to the slaves. The object of it was to place those who had abolished the slave trade upon the same footing with those who had net. As a proof of the vast opening there was for an extended commerce emanating from the West Indian colonies, he had that morning seen a list of 575 ships engaged last year in that branch of trade. As to the navigation or
1426
Mr. Fowell Buxton
tinned, that the House would recollect a discussion which had taken place last session as to the importation of East India sugar. When it was proposed to permit the importation of East India sugar upon the same terms exacted the importation of West India, the answer was, that as England monopolized the West India markets, compelling the colonies to buy and sell with her and with her only, therefore she was bound, as long as she maintained that monopoly, to admit no competitor into the market which she afforded. He hoped, that if the concession now proposed was made to the planters, the restriction upon the importation of East India sugar would be removed; for certainly, all the sound principles of general commerce applied just as fully to the admission of East India sugar into this country as to the sale of West India in foreign markets. As regarded the condition of slaves, too, in our West India islands, he had farther objections beyond the inefficiency of the Registry act; and he trusted that the present opportunity would be taken, to demand the correction of the objectionable practices, in return for advantages bestowed. One most important point necessary to the happiness of slaves in our West India islands was, that they should become
adscripti glebœ.
1427
Mr. Huskisson
denied that any thing like exclusive advantage was intended to the colonies by the arrangement contemplated. The case had been opened by his right hon. friend as a broad question of commercial policy. The advantage projected was to all—to the navigation, to the mother country, and to the West India possessions. The right hon. gentleman then touched upon the effect of the proposed bills as applying to the slave trade, and denied that any facility would be created by the free intercourse greater than that which already existed. What had of late years afforded so much encouragement to the slave-trade, as that intercourse which, through the mistaken policy of the British government, had gone on extending itself between the United States and Cuba, as well as the Brazils? Had the British West India islands been at liberty to export their produce to all the northern parts of America, we should not have found the people of this latter country deriving all their supplies of certain articles, from the colonies of other European states, which were thereby induced to enlarge their cultivation, and to import an additional number of slaves. The same cause had operated to increase the distress and difficulties of our planters, and indirectly to spread the horrors of the detestable traffic which all our old and respectable colonists, wished to see finally abolished. We might form some notion of the benefit that would have resulted to the West Indies from an open trade with North America, supposing that in the existing superfluity of our own produce a new foreign market was discovered for it. The hon. gentleman who `Spoke before him seemed to intimate his dissent from this part of his argument, and had already remarked, that much of the evil was to be traced to our impolitic acquisition of too many colonies during the last war. But, admitting this to be
1428
1429
Mr. Plummer
expressed his satisfaction at the introduction of the measure, and read some parts of a letter to prove that the West India colonies were, together with distress, threatened with a famine.
Mr. Evans
thought that some positive regulations should be made to prevent the importation of fresh slaves.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the present race of West India planters seemed to be influenced by views so different from those of their predecessors, and the question now before them involved merits so distinct, that he was unwilling to throw the least impediment in its way. Whatever was consistent with the welfare or interests of this country, he was disposed to concede. He feared, however, that the new system could only be established at our expense; and it could not be disputed that the distress at home was equally great with the distress in the colonies.
Mr. Philips
hoped, that the consideration of no individual interests would be permitted of interfere with a measure which was consistent with the soundest principles of commercial policy and justice. He was convinced that by the operation of this measure a stop would be put to the continuance of the slave trade.
Mr. Bright
was of opinion that Canada ought to have the advantage of the pro-
1430
Mr. Butterworth
supported the general principle, and believed it would tend to promote an effectual abolition.
The resolutions were agreed to; and leave was given to bring in the two bills.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—SECRET SERVICE MONEY.
The House resolved itself into a committee of supply. On the resolution, "That 40,000
l.
Mr. Hume
wished to know why the sum was so large in time of peace? He could not see for what purpose this large sum was wanted; certainly it could be for no good purpose. It was giving ministers the means of doing harm. If the money was properly disposed of, they would not be afraid to let the public know how it was applied. He believed the vote was but 15 or 20,000
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, if the hon. member wished to know the amount expended under this head n former years, he might have an account of the expenditure in each year for the last eleven years; but if he wished to know the particular details of how it was expended, it was rather an Irish proposition, for it would then be secret service money no longer. The hon. member would find that Mr. Burke had not dissented from the principle of the grant for secret services, bur, on the contrary, had admitted it to be necessary for carrying on the government. With respect to the present grant, he could state, that the greater part he believed 24,000
l.,
Mr. Hume
did not deny the principle of secret service money, but was anxious to know what quantum of the present grant was given to particular persons. The noble lord had last year stated, that the expence of a part of the proceedings against her late majesty, namely the Milan commission, was defrayed out of the secret service money. This appeared to be an application of the fund which never could have been contemplated by parliament.
1431
The Marquis of Londonderry
said the principle of the expenditure was in cases where the honour and interest of the country were concerned, and in the case mentioned it would not be contended that the honour of the country was not concerned. Parliament had so considered it last year; but when it ceased to be a secret service the money required was openly paid to the solicitor employed.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the secret service money voted last year was 25,000
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it was not to be supposed that precisely the same sum would every year be necessary for this service. The hon. member was not justified in using the term bribery, as applicable to the present question.
Mr. Hobhouse
did not mean to impute bribery in the grossest sense of the word; but the noble marquis was too well acquainted with foreign courts not to know that if he wished to preserve a particular influence, we must fight with silver spears.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that a smaller sum had last year been voted, because a considerable portion of the grant of the preceeding year remained unexpended.
The resolution was then agreed to.
On the resolution, "That 78,794
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the enormous proportion of charge, under the head of the foreign secretary of state's department amounting alone to 30.000
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the charge in the foreign secretaries de-
1432
Mr. G. Bennet
moved to reduce this sum of 10,000
l.
The committee divided: For the Amendment 19. Against it 67.
List of the Minority.
Barrett, S. M.
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Maule, hon. W.
Bright, H.
Palmer, C. F.
Calvert, N.
Robarts, A.
Colburne, C.
Robarts, col.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Robinson, sir G.
Hume, J.
Smith, W.
James, W.
Whitbread, S.
Lushington, Dr.
TELLER.
Moore, P.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Monck, J. B.
The resolution was agreed to, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 2.
BREAD.
Mr. Calvert
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to reduce into one act all the regulations respecting bakers and sellers of bread, within ten miles of the Royal Exchange. He observed that the last act on this subject had been found ineffectual in affording protection to the public; but he was of opinion that there were two ways in which perhaps, that object might be accomplished—the one by the sale of bread, like any other article, by the pound; and the other by the sale of it by the price, that is, in loaves of the value of 1
s.,
d.,
d.,
1433
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
EXTRA POST—PETITION OF MR. BURGESS.
Mr. S. Wortley
moved to refer to a select committee the petition of Mr. Henry Burgess, praying for remuneration for the expences he had incurred in the place for an Extra Post.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, he had distinctly understood from the chancellor of the exchequer, that there would be no cost to the country from the experiment. On that ground he had supported the bill for giving Mr. Burgess's plan a trial though he had never thought it could succeed. He was very much disappointed to find a claim for remuneration sanctioned by the right hon. gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he certainly had stated that the experiment was to have been made at the sole charge of the projector; and if Mr. Burges had been allowed to make the trial, he should never have sanctioned any claim for remuneration; but when, after being induced to incur considerable expence by the decisions of the House, Mr. Burgess had been prevented from making his experiment by the bill being thrown out on the third reading, he thought the petitioner had a strong claim on the indulgence and compassion of the House.
Mr. P. Moore
was opposed to the grant of any money, the effect of which could only be the encouragement of projectors.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that if Mr. Burgess had any claim upon government for the encouragement given to him, ministers ought to have paid him the sum they thought due upon their own responsibility. He could not see in what way the House had given this individual any encouragement. If he chose to proceed with the experiment, after the rejection of the bill,
1434
Mr. S. Wortley
said, that the claim was not for any expense incurred by Mr. Burgess after the bill had failed, but during the progress of it.
Mr. N. Calvert
thought the Treasury were wise, not to turn a deaf ear to suggestions of improvement in a matter so important to commerce as the Post. The Mail Coach system had been at first as much opposed by the Post-Office as Mr. Burgess's plan. The petitioner should be allowed nothing that he did not prove a right to, but his claim should be inquired into.
Mr. Ricardo
said, the ground on which the chancellor of the exchequer had put the case would have induced him to vote against the motion if he had known nothing else of it. The right hon. gentleman had called on them to accede to the motion as a matter of compassion or indulgence. Now, they were not entitled to vote away the public money from their own sentiments of compassion. If the Treasury had given Mr. Burgess encouragement to incur expence, they should take on themselves the responsibility of remunerating him.
Mr. Marryat
said, there would be no end to projects if projectors were to be indemnified against failure at the public expence.
Sir M. W. Ridley
contended, that if Mr. Burgess had a claim, there was no disappointed speculator who might not come to parliament for compensation.
Mr. W. Smith
thought there was no extraordinary ingenuity in the plan which entitled it to the special notice of parliament. The plan appeared to involve nothing beyond the substitution of a two-wheeled for a four-wheeled carriage, and an attempt to increase the velocity of the vehicle.
The House divided: Ayes 28. Noes 36.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 3, 1822.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, presented a petition from the agriculturists of Wiltshire, complaining of distress, and praying for relief. The hon. gentleman, after dwelling on the im-
1435
1436
Mr. Ellice
said, he rose anxious to carry into effect what had been his intention on the presentation of the report the other evening, to call the attention of the public to the extraordinary propositions it contained, in the hope that a full expression of the feelings of the country would find their way to the House, after the holidays, on the subject. The noble marquis had, very properly, in his view of the case, then deprecated discussion, and he might do so still; but as there were two parties interested in the case, the distressed petitioners, whose prayers were uselessly, as it now appeared, and as he had anticipated at its appointment, referred to this committee, and ministers, it was fit the former should be fully aware of all the relief it was intended to extend to them. It suited government perfectly well to send the grievances of the people to a committee up stairs, upon whose report they could rely, while the house were busy in passing supplies, upon which a profuse expenditure could be continued, and that they might ride over this session like the preceding one, without the least practicable remedy being suggested or effected for the agricultural distress [Hear, hear!]. At last, however, they had the labours of this committee before them, and he for one would not consent to postpone an examination into the merits of the report, although it was difficult to deal with a composition, if he might use the term without disrespect to the members who composed the committee, so full of inconsistencies and absurdities. Be could scarcely say whether its faults of commission or omission prevailed; but he was certain, if no other remedies or relief were practicable, or intended, than those which appeared on the face of the report, it would have been much better at the commencement of the session to have told the petitioners—"We feel your distress, but overloaded with debt and taxes, it is not in our power to relieve it." This would have been at least more candid and consistent than to have excited a hope; which would now be so grievously disappointed. On looking at the report, no other object appeared to engage the attention of the committee, than that which was impracticable, raising the price of corn, and although they had prudently abstained from assuming entirely the
1437
s.
s.
1438
s.,
s.
s.
1439
1440
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
1441
1442
Mr. Frankland Lewis
did not consider this, at all a desirable moment for going into the vast range of matter connected with the report. The hon. gentleman had, however, in such strong terms attacked the agricultural committee, that it became necessary for him (Mr. L.) as a member if it, to express a hope that neither the House nor the country would concur in the censures that had been so freely bestowed. The hon. gentleman had accused the committee partly for what it had done, and partly for what it had not done; but when he said, that the proper course for it to have pursued was to have investigated the causes of the distresses, and to have ascertained how far they arose from taxation, and how far from a change in the currency, he widely differed from the hon. gentleman. Had that course been recommended in the committee, he should have resolutely resisted it; because, although he had very often heard hon. members argue that the distresses were attributable to the change in the currency, he had never yet heard any individual hardy enough to say, that the step that had been taken in this respect ought tot be retraced. The House had given the committee, in the order of reference, no such power or instruction; and to what beneficial or practical result could it have led, to rip up what no hon. member had been found daring enough to attack in any substantial form? To have assumed this power, and to have inquired what taxes might or might not be fitly repealed, would have been a direct interference with the duty of the whole House, which was the labour of every session, and for which a session was hardly ever found sufficiently protracted. It was to be remembered also, that the committee which had just reported was to be considered as a sequel to the committee of the last session, and that committee had entered into a minute investigation of the causes of the distress. It was, therefore, most unnecessary and unwise for the committee to travel over the same ground as had been investigated the session before.
1443
Mr. Western
did not concur in the censures bestowed upon the committee by his hon. friend, the member for Coventry, nor did he think the points to which he would have directed its attention, open to its consideration. He was ready with the hon. gentleman who last spoke, to do justice to the motives of the members of that body, however he might dissent from the conclusion to which they had arrived. This committee had been only a revival or continuation of that of last year; and when it was asserted, that the object of it had been to raise the price of grain, it was putting it in a way not quite fair. The landed interest complained, that although the act of 1815 was meant to give them protection, yet that it was mainly defective, as when the ports were open, there was no limit to the quantity of grain that might be imported and warehoused, and thus a lasting glut was produced in the market. To this the committee had applied a remedy, which he thought wholly incompetent, and placed the British agriculturist even in a worse situation than before. Intending to do justice, the committee had been most egregiously mistaken, and the report would, therefore, only increase the dissatisfaction and dismay among the farmers. Such was the present state of the country, that it was impossible to say in what manner the duty proposed could operate effectually. It became the House, without delay, to look at the extraordinary situation in which the landed interest was placed. It was a bold assertion that he had made on a former, night, but a true one, that two-thirds of the farmers of Essex, could they make up their accounts, would be found insolvent. Did not this impose upon the House the duty of duty of a full and an immediate investigation?
1444
1445
Mr. Ricardo
said, that no one could be more aware of the great difficulties which had been occasioned by alterations in the currency than himself. He had given the subject the greatest attention in his power, and had laboured hard to show the necessity of a fixed and unvariable standard of value. At the same time, he could not agree with the hon. member for Essex, as to the operation of the changes in the currency upon agriculture. Let them suppose the utmost extent of the operation—the changes in currency on the pressure of taxes. They must deduct from the whole amount of taxation, the amount of those taxes which were employed in expenditure, as they had been diminished in proportion as the value of money had been augmented. Supposing, then, 40,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
1446
s.,
1447
s.
s.
1448
1449
Mr. H. G. Bennet
rose to protest against the doctrine, that taxes had nothing to do with the distresses of the agricultural interests. He did not profess to be able to go into the calculations which his hon. friend had stated, but he could state that in 1792 prices had been as low as at this moment. But the taxes had been at the utmost but 19,000,000
l.
l.,
1450
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1451
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had heard nothing that evening to convince him that it would not have been better to reserve the discussion till an opportunity when some more practical proposition should be brought forward. He put it to honourable members opposite, whether they had not lost a great deal of precious time in not raising question upon the state, of the currency during the considerable part of the session which had passed, if they believed that measures affecting the currency would give relief. He meant such measures has had been proposed by the hon. member for Essex, and which would probably be seconded by the hon. member for Coventry, who had supported the bill in 1819 as ardently as any member, but who seemed, to be doing all he could since, to atone for that support. The hon. member for Essex ought not to have been satisfied with making a fruitless complaint that night; but if he thought that he could influence the judgment of the House, he ought to have submitted a measure such as he had alluded to. The hon. member ought to have satisfied the House that the bill ought to be repealed, and not to have merely maligned it. He could now understand the course pursued by the hon. member for Shrewsbury. He could not before understand why it was thought desirable that, with imperfect views, they should enter into the discussion of a subject which came before them in no practical shape. But he could now see the object of the hon. member for Shrewsbury; and he must enter his most solemn protest against the purpose which he had in view; for, if he understood him right, he wished to sound the public mind, through the channel of the distresses of the agricultural classes, to ascertain if they were disposed to favour that most flagrant deviation from sound policy as well as from common honesty—
1452
1453
1454
Mr. Bennet
said, he had broached no doctrine of the kind. He had only stated, that the measures of ministers were driving along in that course which would terminate in a national bankruptcy. That he repeated. The measures which had defrauded the creditor in 1797, and the debtor in 1822, were rapidly proceeding to ruin the nation.
Mr. Ellice
wished to say one word in answer to the noble lord's charge of inconsistency in his opinions with respect to the bill of 1819. At that time, as now, he supported the principles of the committee, and was anxious to put an end to a system which had so long disgraced this country, the only standard, in fact, being the discretion of government and the Bank in the issue of paper He had since opposed any attempt to revise the decision of the Committee, but he had at the time stated all his apprehensions of the result of the determination to restore the ancient standard, and he had not been deceived by them.
Mr. Ricardo
corrected the error which appeared to have prevailed in the mind of his hon. friend, the member for Salisbury, that he (Mr. R.) was an advocate, for taxation. On the contrary, he had voted for every reduction of taxes that had been proposed in the course of the session, because be was anxious for the repeal of taxes, feeling that every tax must prove a burthen upon the public.
Mr. Peel
would put it to hon. members, whether any thing like full discussion could be had at the then moment, and urged the impropriety of partial discussion, as tending to throw erroneous views before the country. For himself, he rose merely to enter his protest against being supposed to concur in the doctrines of the hon. gentlemen opposite; but he could not forbear
1455
1456
Mr. Calcraft
did not insist upon the bill of 1819 as one of the very material causes of the present agricultural distress, although it did press in some measure upon that interest as well as upon others; but when the right hon. gentleman relied upon the prosperity of the manufacturers, he would tell him that the very distress of the agriculturist was one great source of that prosperity. He was bound to declare (although he knew the doctrine would not be popular on his own side), that the agricultural distress arose out of the too great production, and that overproduction created such a competition in the market, that the tax which the grower paid he was unable to throw upon the consumer. The manufacturer was well off; because the price of produce was ruinously low. The agriculturist was starving, because he raised produce under heavy burthens, and was compelled to sell at prices which would not reimburse him. And, what was the relief proposed for all this suffering? One million was to be laid out in corn for the purpose of warehousing. But he must contend, that that measure would do nothing at all for the agriculturist. The million must be laid out in corn which would bear warehousing, and that kind of corn was already at a fair price. The warehousing plan would do no good at all to the grower, and it would do a great deal of harm to the consumer. They came, then, to the question of what ought to be done; and, upon that point, he must call the attention of the House to the declaration of the noble lord. The noble lord said, that, suppose the whole taxes of the country, much less 5,000,000
l.
l.
1457
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had never meant to contend that the remission of taxes would afford no relief. He had only maintained, that if it were possible the country could exist as a country, all the taxes being swept away, the present distress would not be removed. The absurdity of supposing that it could be so removed had been forcibly pointed out by the hon. member for Portarlington.
Mr. H. Gurney
thought the existing distresses, which might more properly be called the pecuniary embarrassments of the country, had been entirely produced by the measure commonly called Mr. Peel's bill.
The petition was ordered to be printed.—Adjourned to the 17th.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 17.
ACCESSORIES IN FELONIES.
Mr. Bennet
rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the laws against Accessories before the fact in certain Felonies." The House must be well aware that in certain cases of felony, such as murder, arson, robbery, and others, the individuals who were, perhaps, the instigators to the crime, but did not participate in its commission, could receive no other punishment than twelve months imprisonment. He would mention an instance which placed the impolicy of the law in this respect in a strong point of view. A jeweller in Arundel-street, was some time since robbed of property to the amount of 2,000
l.
1458
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Mr. Bennet
then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the laws respecting the crime of Manslaughter." Twelve months imprisonment, which was the punishment usually inflicted at the quarter-sessions, upon persons convicted of petty larcenies, was all to which the judges at present could sentence a person found guilty of manslaughter, however cruel might have been the circumstances attending the commission of the latter crime. He was of opinion, that the judges should be empowered to award the punishment of fourteen years transportation in aggravated cases of manslaughter; and the object of his bill was, to give them that power. He referred to the case of the man who was thrown from a window in Charles-street, Drury-lane, and died in consequence of the injuries he received. The parties concerned in that transaction, who were found guilty of manslaughter, could receive no greater punishment than twelve months imprisonment.
Mr. Wynn
was of opinion, that no part of the law required more amendment than that which related to manslaughter. Under the head of manslaughter, cases most widely differing in the degrees of criminality were comprehended. A mere accidental blow in a scuffle, if it occasioned death, was considered manslaughter, and the deliberate killing of an officer in the execution of a warrant, if the instrument was in any degree informal, was no greater crime. These two things were considered in the eye of the law as exactly the same offence, and the judge had no power to inflict a greater punishment with respect to one than another.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
BEER TRADE.
Mr. Tierney
presented a petition from the land-owners of Maidenhead, in Berkshire, praying for a speedy change of regulations in the mode of licensing public-houses. The petitioners complained of the bad quality and
1459
Mr. Wynn
thought, that the giving licenses to persons intead of houses would be attended with mischief. It was part of a magistrate's duty to say where a public house should be as well as who should keep it. If licenses were made personal, the holders might remove their residences at pleasure, and so two or three public-houses might be situated close to one another.
Mr. Grenfell
said, the intention was, not to interfere with the discretion of the magistracy, but to put the licenses into the hands of individuals, instead of affixing them to buildings.
Sir R. Wilson
doubted whether any licenses ought to be granted to such houses as were the property of brewers.
Mr. Bennet
trusted, that the House would not run away with so important a question. A proposition such as that, which his gallant friend had just hinted at, and which would put millions of property in jeopardy ought not to be looked at hastily. He intended, if he could find time in the present year, to bring in a bill for recasting the laws relative to the licensing and the regulation of public-houses.
Mr. Brougham
was happy to hear of his hon. friend's intention. The licensing system stood in lamentable need of a revision. Not only was the very large and wholly uncontrolled power held by magistrates over publicans most liable to abuse, but in some cases abuse of it had been proved. In many instances of complaint he was disposed to trace the fault rather to bad judgment in the licensing justice than to wilful abuse; but abuses had been shown; and he could not help thinking, that magistrates, in their discretion, were disposed to restrict the number of public-houses too far. To allow a monopoly to one house in each district, and that monopoly to a house belonging to, or connected with, a brewer, led immediately to the sale of an inferior commodity; and the result was an evil far greater than that against which the magistrate, in his caution, intended to provide: persons who, in other circumstances, would have drank good
1460
The petition was ordered to be printed.
MARRIAGES OF UNITARIAN DISSENTERS.
Mr. Brougham
presented a petition from the Unitarian Dissenters of Kendal in Westmoreland, complaining, that certain parts of the provisions of the Marriage act pressed on their consciences, and praying to be placed upon the same footing in that respect with the Jews and Quakers in England, and with the Unitarian Dissenters in Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. W. Smith
begged, before he opened his proposition to the House, to put in two petitions, the one from Sheffield, the other from Stockton upon Tees.
The petitions having been read,
Mr. W. Smith
proceeded. In bringing forward the present motion, he should begin by stating the grievances of which the petitioners complained. Their complaint was, that by the regulations of the act of the 26th George 2nd, commonly called the Marriage act, they were placed in a situation painful to themselves and different from that in which, previous to the passing of that act, they had been permitted to stand. It would scarcely be denied by any one that marriage was a civil ceremony. It was so considered, not only by the common law, but by the canon law; and from the year 1753, up to the passing of the act now complained of, marriages solemnized by the Dissenters in their own places of worship had been held good and valid. The act of the 26th Geo. 2nd, however, enacting that every marriage, to be held legal, must be solemnized in the church, by the Ministers of the church, and according to the ritual of the church, completely deprived the Dissenters of their before enjoyed privileges. He was one of the class of persons now praying to be relieved from the pressure of that act, and it was important to those persons, as a class, that, coming before parliament, they should stand
rectus in curia.
1461
1462
Mr. H. Gurney
did not see what possible objection there could be to Unitarians being married by their own clergymen. The whole service would then be suited to their own sentiments, and, banns being regularly proclaimed in the church, no inconvenience could arise from it. On the other hand, there were many objections to parties having the service performed by clergymen of a different persuasion. He wished, therefore, that instead of such a measure as was now proposed, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Dr. Phillimore) could embrace the subject in his bill.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 18, 1822.
COMMITTEE FOR SIMPLIFYING THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving for the appointment of a committee, to investigate the manner in which the Public accounts are at present kept, and to suggest such improvements in the system as might appear necessary. The first object he had in moving for this committee, was, to devise some means of simplifying the manner in which the Public Accounts were prepared. He wished that the accounts annually laid before the House should be made up on a mercantile plan, presenting, at one view, as in a balance sheet, the income and expenditure of each year. An attempt had already been made to lay before the House a statement of this kind. If a summary of the debt and expenditure of the country, in one short abstract, were annually laid before parliament, that summary might be considered as a sort of index to each particlar account; so that any gentleman could, without difficulty, refer to the items of which it was composed.
1463
Mr. Maberly
said, that the errors which were manifest on the face of the public accounts rendered it necessary that a thorough revision of the system should take place. By the adoption of a balance sheet, gentlemen were at once enabled to detect any error which might occur in the detailed accounts; and while such a check existed, it would compel those whose duty it was to superintend the public accounts, to make those accounts consistent with the balance-sheet. When this system was fully carried into effect, the public would reap great benefit from it. Country gentlemen, who did not at present pay much attention to financial subjects, on account of their complexity, would, when the accounts were simplified, very easily understand them, and would at once see the increase or decrease of the Public expenditure, or of the public debt.
Sir H. Parnell
did not mean to oppose the motion, but he would suggest that the proposition did not go far enough. It was not merely a simplification of the annual accounts that was called for; but a simplification of the whole system of keeping accounts in all the public departments. He could refer to various reports which had been presented to that House, complaining of the mode in which the accounts were at present kept. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to an extract from the evidence of the accountant-general, Mr. Stedman, given before a committee in 1810. That gentleman admitted, that the accounts were very much in arrear, the amount to be balanced in each year being about 14,000,000
l.
1464
Mr. Lushington
said, that the labours of the committee would not be so light as the hon. baronet seemed to imagine. The range of their investigation would be so extensive, that it was doubtful whether they would be able to make a report that session. He hoped, however, that their labours would enable government to lay the annual accounts before the House much earlier than heretofore, and in a different shape from that in which they formerly appeared. If the duties of the committee were extended to the whole system of keeping the public accounts, it would be impossible for them to effect any useful purpose whatever in the present session.
Mr. Ellice
could not concur with his hon. friends in their view of the advantages which the country was likely to derive from this motion. He had hoped, in consequence of what occurred in the last, as well as in the present session that a committee would have been appointed to inquire generally into the public accounts; and although great labour would be thrown on such a committee, he could not see why they should not, like the committee on trade, report from time to time, on particular parts of the public accounts. One object for which he wished that committee to be appointed was, to inquire into the mode of managing the sinking fund. They were at present keeping up two or three useless establishments for the purpose of paying with one hand what was received by the other. Thus, if 18,000,000
l.
l.
1465
l.
Sir J. Newport
thought the most satisfactory course would be, for the committee to take up particular branches of the subject and report on them from time to time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not think it would be proper to report from time to time, and could not consent to enlarge his motion to the extent which gentlemen opposite desired. If it were so enlarged, it would bring subjects into discussion, the consideration of which properly belonged to other bodies. Some of
1466
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 22.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Sir W. Lemon
presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Cornwall. The petitioners adverted to the distresses of the country, and stated their conviction that those distresses did not arise from a transition from a state of war to a state of peace, but chiefly from a lavish expenditure of the government.
Mr. Grenfell
bore testimony to the respectability of the individuals who had signed the petition: but he was bound in justice to himself to declare that he did not concur in many of the opinions which the petition contained. Although he felt, in common with every member who heard him, the severity of the distress which pressed upon agriculture, yet he was of opinion, that that distress was not of so general a nature as had been represented. He believed too, that it would be but of temporary duration, and that the period was not far distant when it would be in a considerable degree removed. He knew that many members of that House, and writers out of doors, had painted the present and prospective situation of the country in gloomy and desponding colours. For his own part, he was one of those who never did despond. He never yet had desponded, and he recollected no former occasion on which he was less disposed to entertain gloomy apprehensions of the situation of the country than at present. If those who appeared to despair of the state of the country would admit as proofs of national prosperity an increasing population, accompanied with a considerable extension of trade, both foreign and domestic, together with a degree of active employment throughout the manufacturing districts seldom surpassed, and a more general diffusion, not only, of the necessaries, but of the comforts and even luxuries of life among classes of the community which before were unable to obtain them; and if, in addition to these circumstances, the superabundance of capital manifested by the investments which were made in building, in public works, and in every other
1467
Ordered to lie on the table.
BRAZILS—CONDUCT OF THE CONSUL GENERAL.
Mr. Hume
said, he had a petition to present from British merchants trading to Rio Janeiro. He had on the 13th of June last year, moved for papers relating to the commerce of this country with the Brazils. The noble marquis, now in his place, did not object to the motion, but took upon himself to doubt the accuracy of his statements. He was happy now to have it in his power to prove the accuracy of his statements. He came prepared to lay before the House one of the grievances under which British commerce suffered in that place, as in every part of the world, from the conduct of the consuls. An act of George the 1st, authorised the levying of duties for merchants in distress, but placed the sum levied in the hands of the merchants themselves. In 1808, sir James Gambier had been appointed consul at Rio Janeiro, and had imposed a duty of 10
s.
1468
l.
l.
1469
The Marquis of Londonderry
doubted the correctness of the statements contained in the petition; but on a future occasion he should be better prepared to discuss its merits.
Mr. T. Wilson,
seeing the indisposition of the noble marquis, wished to avoid discussion at the present moment. It was evident, however, that if one half of the complaints contained in the petition were well-founded, the consul-general, instead of serving the British interest, was doing every thing to oppress it.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
STATE OF IRELAND.
Sir Newport,
in bringing forward his motion upon this subject, assured the House most unfeignedly that he had never addressed them under feelings of greater embarrassment. His duty (and he felt it to be an urgent duty) was, to call the attention of parliament to the present condition of Ireland; never had the state of that country more imperiously required attention: But although he had frequently been compelled to press upon the consideration of that House the wretched state of the Irish population, and the manifold grievances under which that population suffered. He now experienced something, he would not call it of reluctance, but something like unpleasant feeling towards the task which he was once more to undertake. He experienced this feeling the more forcibly, because the motion which his present address to the House was intended to introduce would be nearly the same with that which he had submitted to them in 1816—which he had then brought forward under the support of three most intelligent, most eloquent, most enlightened friends—two out of these most able advocates of Ireland, and of the rights of Ireland, unfortunately for their country have sunk into the grave. When I mention Mr. Ponsonby, is it necessary to add to that name the attribute of ability or of information? The House knows the opportunities he enjoyed of acquiring information, and the ability with which he applied that knowledge to whatever he undertook. The second is a name identified with that of the country which gave him birth. He watched over her cradle; he followed her hearse; and after opposing with unequalled vigour the extinction
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
morrow
morrow
1478
Mr. Goulburn
said, if the right hon. baronet had felt embarrassed in rising on this subject, how much more embarrassed must he (Mr. G.) feel, in offering himself to the notice of the House, to speak on the affairs of a country with which he had been connected for so short a time, and with talents so inferior to those of the right hon. baronet. But while he thought it necessary to claim the indulgence of the House, he would engage to follow the example of the right hon. baronet, by not trespassing on their time longer than the importance of the subject demanded. With respect to the question now before the House, he trusted that he should not much err when he considered the object of the right hon. baronet in bringing it forward to be rather to promote a discussion on the affairs of Ireland than to carry the address itself. He did not deny but there were facts and arguments embraced by the address which he was not prepared to dispute, and in which he was ready to concur. He agreed that disorders had prevailed in Ireland—that to meet those disorders the House in its wisdom had given the government of that country the extraordinary powers which were thought, necessary for that purpose—nor could he doubt that those powers would be found to have been used with that firmness which was necessary, to put down the disorders which prevailed, yet ht the same time with
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
Mr. N. Calvert
expressed his intentions of supporting the motion, and was desirous of stating briefly the reasons why he did so. The hon. member then proceeded to draw a comparison between the population and the revenues of Scotland and Ireland. He stated, that the population of Ireland was two-thirds greater than that of Scotland, notwithstanding which the revenues of the two countries were only equal. He was convinced, that, properly managed and governed, Ireland would be as productive to the means of the empire as any other of its branches. He did not mean to impute the least blame to the existing government of Ireland. It was to those governments which had passed away, that all her miseries were to be ascribed.
Mr. Spring Rice
felt, that on an occa-
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
"Soles occidere atque redire possunt,
—vobis
Nox est perpetua una dormienda."
1497
1498
1499
*
Vide
1500
Mr. Charles Grant
rose and said:* Sir;—If I thought that the failure of the present motion would in the smallest degree tend to make the people of Ireland believe that this House is careless of their interests, I should feel more hesitation than I do in resolving on the vote which I, shall this night give. But, as I trust it wily produce no such impression, I shall follow, without scruple, the course which, seems to me most advisable. I concur with most, if not all, of the statements and representations of my right hon. friend, and those who have supported him; but I cannot concur in his motion, because it appears to me to imply an unmerited censure on the Irish government. At the commencement of the session, Sir, I expressed my confidence in that government, and I am not aware that any thing has yet occurred which should induce rue to withdraw that confidence. If I believed the reproach, apparently conveyed by this motion, to be just, I should most willingly accede to it; but, as my persuasion is of a different kind, it would be scarcely fair or honest in me to make myself a party to the implication. I am glad, however, that the important subject of the state of Ireland has been brought under the consideration of the House; and I shall beg leave to offer some remarks upon it, not in the presumptuous hope of adding much that is new, either in statement or argument, to what has already been so well said; but because I think it the duty of every member to supply the House, on this interesting subject with such information, however limited, as it may be in his power to afford.
*>
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
immediately
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
pure Hibernian,
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
l.
1523
extrinsic
1524
1525
1526
facilius incitare currentem quam commovere languentem.
1527
gens-d' armerie
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
l.
1533
1534
1535
1536
Mr. Ellis,
of Dublin, deprecated the present discussion, as calculated to excite public irritation; whereas the object of all public discussion should be, to soften down irritation. He could not allow the statements which had been made by several gentlemen in the course of the debate, to operate unqualified on the mind of parliament. It was his duty to state the view he had taken of this important question; and if he, in delivering his opinion, should betray the infirmity of human nature, it could not be denied that those who cherished different feelings, and who had that night expressed them, were not free from the same infirmity. As far as the discussion had gone, very remote causes had been assigned for the troubles by which Ireland was now agitated. It appeared to him, that several gentlemen had adopted hasty opinions, on which they had argued, instead of adducing facts, and inferring consequences from them. He, however, would take a different course; he would state the facts which influenced his opinion, instead of arguing on fanciful and uncertain
data.
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
s.
Mr. Plunkett
said, he would not at that late hour, trespass long on the time of the House, and in the few remarks he had to make on the motion of his right hon. friend, he should confine himself strictly to the main question. The House might feel assured, that it was far from his intention to follow the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, through the details of his disgusting attack upon the population of that country which had returned him to parliament. [Hear, hear!] He owned, that when the hon. and learned member was first about to desert the duty which belonged to him in the Irish court of Chancery, in order that he might devote his attention to parliamentary duties, he (Mr. P.) felt great regret; but he now withdrew from the bottom of his heart, every regret on that account, and
1542
literally
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
Mr. Grattan
supported the observations of his right hon. and learned friend, whose knowledge of the state of Ireland made him competent to point out all the bearings of the question under consideration. The hon. member earnestly recommended unanimity in Ireland, and expressed a hope that he should see the day when Protestant and Catholic would be firmly united under the same laws and government.
Mr. Peel
said, that the course which the debate had takes rendered it unnecessary for kin to trouble the House at any length upon the present occasion. Having, however, held an office in Ireland for a longer period than that office had been retained by any person during the last century, he trusted the House would excuse him if he ventured to address to them a few observations on the question which had been brought forward. In what he had to say he would abstain from making any allusion to the Catholic question; and he thought the right hon. baronet had acted wisely in refraining from making any reference to that question in the address which he had submitted to the House. When his right hon. and learned friend should, as he had given notice, submit the consideration of that question to the House, in the next session, he should feel it his painful duty to persevere in the opposition which he had always offered to the claims of the Roman Catholics; but, until that period arrived, he thought he should best consult his own feelings, and the general wishes of the House, by avoiding any reference to the subject. The points of difference between the right hon. baronet and those who opposed him appeared to be not very numerous, or of very great importance. The rt. hon. baronet had proposed a general
1552
1553
1554
Sir H. Parnell
said, he was willing to place confidence in the pledges which had been given by the chief secretary of Ireland, and the attorney-general, that the several measures which had been proposed for improving the condition of Ireland, would be made the subject of the constant and serious consideration of the British government, and in due time brought forward for the sanction of the House. He certainly had heard with great regret, the reply the right hon. gentleman had made to the question which he had asked him early in the evening, concerning tithes; because he
1555
1556
Sir J. Newport
rose to reply and said, that after the explanation which had been given on part of government, and particularly after the pledge which had been given by his right hon. friend, the attorney-general for Ireland, who had thrown oil upon the troubled waters, that measures for the relief of the people of Ireland were under the consideration of government, he would not press his motion to a division. He thought it necessary to deny that he intended, by his motion, to convey any reflection upon the present government of Ireland. If the motion had been of such a character, he would have been the last man in the House to propose it. He was happy that he had called the attention of the House to the subject, since it had been the occasion of eliciting a declaration of the intentions of government, which appeared to him very satisfactory.
The motion was then negatived.
INDEX
TO VOL. VI.
NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session, 1.
Agricultural Distress, 449, 555, 681, 915, 1278.
B
Board of Admiralty Quorum Bill, 1368, 1381.
Breakfast Powder, 992, 1400.
C
Civil List, and Allowances to Foreign Ministers, 1279.
H
Hunt, Mr.; Treatment of, 1166.
I
Ilchester gaol, 1166.
Ireland, 93, 185,
Irish Insurrection Bill, 185.
Irish Tythes, 1166.
N
Navy Five Per Cents Bill, 1039.
R
Roasted Wheat, 992, 1400.
T
Tythes, 1166.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session, 19, 102.
Accessories in Felonies, 1457.
Admiralty; Lords of the, 866.
Agricultural Distress, 96, 279, 345, 350, 454, 462, 509, 557, 558, 918, 983, 1402, 1406, 1434, 1466.
Army Estimates, 895, 920, 978, 1178, 1215, 1241, 1379.
B
Banks of England and Ireland, 992.
Barracks, 1390.
Beer Trade, 1458.
Board of Control, 1120.
Brazils; Consul General of, 1467.
Breach of Privilege, 281, 644, 1173.
Bread; Sale of, 1432.
Breakfast Powder, 1309.
C
Canada; Distress in, 1073.
Civil Officers Pension Bill, 753.
Collection of the Revenue, 1048.
Colonial Trade Bill, 1414.
Commissariat, 1390.
Constitutional Association, 1310.
Control, Board of, 1120.
D
Distressed State of the Country, 220, 558.
Distributors of Stamps, 279.
Duties on Tallow and Candles, 1206.
F
Flanagan, Thomas; Petition from, 281.
Funeral of Her late Majesty, 923.
G
Gaol Delivery, 1316.
Grenada; Distress in, 1200.
H
Hawkers, Pedlars, and Hackney Coach Licenses, 747.
Hunt, Mr. Henry; Treatment of, 151, 510, 749, 862, 891, 1077, 1231, 1369.
I
Ilchester Gaol, 151, 510, 749, 862, 891, 1077, 1231, 1369.
Interest; Rate of, 1402.
Ireland; State of, 104, 163, 1469.
Irish Insurrection Bill, 163.
K
Knightsbridge Barracks, 159, 801.
L
Letters addressed by or to Members, 281, 644.
Lords of the Admiralty, 866.
M
Malt Duty Repeal Bill, 1187.
Manslaughter, 1458.
Marriage Act Amendment Bill, 1326.
Marriages of Unitarian Dissenters, 1460.
Middlesex County Court, 1374.
Mutiny Bill, 1063.
N
Navy Estimates, 455, 612, 783, 866, 883, 1190, 1228, 1238.
Navy Five Per Cents, 663, 894, 997, 1011.
O
Officers Pension Bill, 753.
Opening of Letters, addressed by or to Members, 281, 644.
Ordnance Estimates, 1264, 1362.
P
Post Office, 990, 1433.
Post Master General, 1082.
Public Accounts, 1114, 1462.
Q
Queen; Funeral of the late, 923.
R
Reform of Parliament, 1371.
Revenue; Collection of the 1048.
Roasted Wheat, 1309.
Roman Catholic Peers, 1387.
Romeo, Captain; Petition of, 1252.
Royal Scots Burghs; Stale of, 519, 800.
S
Salt Tax, 837.
Saving Banks, 455.
Scotch Juries in Criminal Cases, 917.
Scotch Commissary Courts, 458.
Scots Burghs; State of, 519, 800.
Secret Service Money, 1430.
Seditious Meetings Amendment Bill, 916.
Sheriffs Depute in Scotland, 1384.
Sinking Fund, 863.
Slave Trade Laws Consolidation Bill, 278.
Stamps; Distributors of, 279.
State of the Country, 220, 558.
Superannuation Act Amendment Bill, 1015.
T
Tallow and Candles, 1206.
V
Vagrant Acts Amendment Bill, 1047, 1382.
W
Waithman, Mr. Sheriff; Outrage committed by the Military on, 159, 801.
Wilson, Sir Robert; his Dismissal from the Army, 282.
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
B
Blesington, Earl of, 19, 188, 1173.
Buakingham, Duke of, 209, 735, 744.
C
Calthorpe, Lord, 189, 452.
Camden, Marquis, 192.
D
Dacre, Lord, 741.
Darnley, Earl of, 190, 1166, 1381.
Devonshire, Duke of, 1166.
E
Eldon, Earl of,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 95, 192, 734, 1046, 1809.
Erskine, Lord, 915.
G
Grey, Earl, 1043, 1278.
H
Harrowby, Earl of, 745, 1045, 1382.
Holland, Lord, 95, 196, 1298, 1382.
K
King, Lord, 96, 189, 731, 1279.
L
Lansdown, Marquis of, 8, 94, 210, 718, 992, 1046, 1169, 1400.
Limerick, Earl of, 1173.
Liverpool, Earl of, 13, 94, 185, 217, 682, 1039, 1168, 1278, 1291, 1382.
Lord Chancellor, (Eldon), 1042.
M
Melville, Viscount, 1368, 1381.
R
Redesdale, Lord, 195, 746.
Roden, Earl of, 3.
S
Stanhope, Earl, 555, 681.
Suffield, Lord, 449.
W
Walsingham, Lord, 7.
Wellington, Duke of, 208.
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abercromby, Hon. James, 134, 1310, 1386.
Althorp, Viscount, 558, 875, 889, 913.
Arbuthnot, Right Hon. Charles, 1174, 1176, 1177, 1263, 1390, 1395, 1398, 1399.
Astell, William, 87.
Attorney General [Sir Robert Gifford] 158, 183, 652, 1010, 1324.
B
Bankes, Henry, 588, 680, 771, 863, 1027, 1095.
Bankes, George, 829.