THE
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND, FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. XVIII.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, TO THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF APRIL, 1828.
LONDON:
Printed by T. C. Hansard at the Pater-noster-Row Press,
FOR BALDWIN AND CRADOCK; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, REES, ORME, AND CO.; J. M. RICHARDSON; PARBURY, ALLEN, AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON; J. RIDGWAY; E. JEFFERY AND SON; J. RODWELL; BUDD AND CALKIN; R. H. EVANS; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1828.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
V. PROTESTS.
VI. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1828. Jan. 29. King's Speech on Opening the Session
1
Address on the King's Speech
4
1828. Jan. 31. Breach of Privilege—Arrest of a Peer
69
Roman Catholic Question
69
1828. Feb. 1. Roman Catholic Association
93
1828. Feb. 11. State of Ireland
259
Turkey and Greece—Battle of Navarin—Ministerial Explanations
259
1828. Feb. 14. Catholic Claims—Treaty of Limerick
350
Game Laws
350
1828. Feb. 19. Change of Administration—Ministerial Explanations
562
1828. Feb. 25. Change of Administration—Ministerial Explanations
636
1828. Mar. 3. Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
923
1828. Mar. 7. Roman Catholic Association
1049
1828. Mar. 14. Anatomical Science
1136
1828. Mar. 18. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
1161
Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts
1170
Criminal Law
1171
1828. Mar. 20. Buenos-Ayres and Brazil
1220
1828. Mar. 21. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
1236
1828. Mar. 25. Turkey and Russia
1333
1828. Mar. 28. Offences against the Person Bill
1357
Law of Evidence Bill
1357
1828. Mar. 31. Corn Laws
1364
1828. Apr. 15. Offences against the Person Bill
1442
1828. Apr. 17. Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
1450
1828. Apr. 18. Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
1557
1828. Apr. 21. Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
1571
1828. Apr. 22. Life Annuities Acts Repeal Bill
1623
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill.
1628
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1828. Jan. 29. State of the Law and its Administration
35
Court of Chancery
35
Address on the King's Speech
35
1828. Jan. 31. Address on the King's Speech
69
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
83
East Retford Disfranchisement—and Representation of Birmingham
83
Feb. 1. Committee of Supply
94
Finance Committee
95
Corn-Rent Tithes
95
1828. Jan. 4. King's Answer to the Address
96
Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts
96
Committee of Supply—Change of Administration
97
Roman Catholic Land-Tax Bill
102
Board of Works
108
1828. Jan. 5. Roman Catholic Claims
109
1828. Jan. 6. Roman Catholic Claims
114
Corporation and Test Acts
124
Arrests for Debt on Mesne Process
125
1828. Jan. 7. Mr. Brougham's Motion on the State of the Courts of Common Law
127
1828. Jan. 8. Savings Banks
258
1828. Jan. 11. Corporation and Test Acts
305
Navy Estimates
307
1828. Jan. 12. Court of Chancery
315
Navy Estimates
339
1828. Jan. 14. Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
359
Vote of Thanks lo Sir E. Codrington—Battle of Navarin
360
1828. Jan. 15. Finance Committee
422
1828. Jan. 18. Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
449
Change of Administration—Ministerial Explanations
449
19. Catholic Emancipation
571
Stamp Duty on Receipts
572
Irish Sub-Letting Act
573
Feb. 19. Lunatic Asylums
575
21. Change of Administration—Ministerial Explanations
585
Mode of taking Cities and Boroughs Poll
599
Friendly Societies
601
Parochial Settlements
602
Roman Catholic Land Tax Bill
606
22. Army Estimates
609
Ordnance Estimates
635
25. Imperial Gas Company Bill
649
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill
651
Navy Estimates
655
Army Estimates
664
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
669
26. Lord John Russell's Motion for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
676
28. Police of the Metropolis, and the Districts adjoining thereto
784
Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
816
29. Mr. Brougham's Motion on the State of the Courts of Common Law
833
Mar. 3. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
925
4. Emigration
938
Passage Vessels Regulation Bill
962
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
966
5. Slave Trade
975
Charities in England and Wales
981
6. Increase of Crime
985
Catholic Emancipation—Petition of Catholics of Ireland
987
Printing Expenses of the House
989
Registration of Freeholders
989
Treaty of Limerick
990
Scotch Law of Entail
1019
Slavery in the West Indies
1023
Westminster Sessions
1048
7. Suspension of a Judge in India
1055
Public Charities
1056
Catholic Claims
1058
Licensing System
1059
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1060
10. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1076
Mutiny Bill
1089
Roman Catholic Land-Tax Bill
1101
11. State of the Elective Franchise in the several Districts and Cities Corporate
102
Education in Ireland
1119
12. Savings Banks
1124
Irish Vagrants
1126
Promotions in the Army
1126
Life Annuities Act
1135
Mar. 14. Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
1137
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
1138
Parochial Settlements (Scotland) Bill
1147
Supply of Water to the Metropolis
1148
Licensing System
1149
17. Tithes Commutation Bill
1151
18. Supply of Water to the Metropolis
1177
Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
1180
Passengers' Regulation Bill
1208
20. Irish Parish Vestries Act
1223
Election Expenses—Use of Ribbons
1227
Right of Election in Counties Corporate
1230
Assessment of Lessors in future Lettings of Land in Ireland
1233
Admission of Freemen in Cities and Boroughs
1234
21. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1252
24. Greece and Turkey
1301
Public Buildings—Office of Works
1304
Ways and Means
1310
Life Annuities Repeal Bill
1314
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1319
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
1320
Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
1329
25. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1334
Duty on Insurances
1335
Real Property in India
1339
Life Annuities Repeal Bill
1344
Freeholders' Registration Bill
1348
27. Canada Company
1350
28. Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
1358
Supply of Water to the Metropolis
1361
31. Mary-le-bone Select Vestry Bill
1376
Corn Laws
1379
Cities and Boroughs Polls Regulation Bill
1411
April 1. Poor Laws in Ireland
1417
West India Produce—Duty on Sugar
1422
South American Trade
1424
Foreign Trade—Imports for Home Consumption
1428
Administration of Justice in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land
1430
2. Stamps on Cards and Dice
1431
3. Controverted Election Laws
1433
Greeks—Slaves from the Morea
1438
Supply of Water to the Metropolis
1442
15. Turnpike Trusts Bill
1445
17. Catholic Emancipation
1520
Poor-Laws—Payment of able-bodied Labourers out of the Poor Rates
1521
Emigration to British Colonies
1547
Apr. 18. New South Wales
1559
East India Company—Case of Mr. O'Reilly
1560
New South Wales Bill
1564
Roman Catholic Land-Tax Bill
1569
21. Corporation of Ludlow
1610
Anatomy
1612
Corn Laws—Wages
1614
Fees on Turnpike Bills
1620
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
Jan. 29. KING'S SPEECH on Opening the Session
1
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
PROTOCOL relative to the Affairs of Greece. Signed at St. Petersburgh, April 4, 1826
87
Treaty for the Pacification of Greece, between his Majesty, the most Christian King, and the Emperor of all the Russias. Signed at London, July 6, 1827
88
V. PROTESTS.
PROTEST against the Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
1609
VI. LISTS.
Feb. 11. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Navy Estimates
314
12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Navy Estimates
350
26. LIST of the Majority, and also of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord John Russell's Motion for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts
781
Mar. 21. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1300
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
During the
of the
of the United Kingdom of
and
appointed to meet at Westminster the
th of January,
in the Ninth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King
1828.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, January 29, 1828.
KING'S SPEECH, OPENING THE SESSION.]
The Session was this day opened by Commission. The Lords Commissioners were, Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Lord Ellenborough. The Usher of the Black Rod having summoned the Commons, the Speaker, attended by a number of Members, appeared at the bar; when the Lord Chancellor proceeded to read His Majesty's Speech to both Houses, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"We are commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you, that His Majesty continues to receive, from all Foreign Princes and States, assurances of their desire to maintain the relations of amity with this Country; and that the Great Powers of Europe participate in the earnest wish of His Majesty to cultivate a good understanding upon all points which may conduce to the preservation of Peace.
"His Majesty has viewed for some time past, with great concern, the state of affairs in the East of Europe.
"For several years a contest has been carried on between the Ottoman Porte and the Inhabitants of the Greek Provinces and Islands, which has been marked on each side by excesses revolting to humanity.
2
"In the progress of that Contest, the Rights of Neutral States, and the Laws which regulate the intercourse of civilized Nations, have been repeatedly violated, and the peaceful Commerce of His Majesty's Subjects has been exposed to frequent interruption, and to depredations, too often aggravated by acts of violence and atrocity.
"His Majesty has felt the deepest anxiety to terminate the calamities, and avert the dangers, inseparable from hostilities, which constitute the only exception to the general tranquillity of Europe.
"Having been earnestly entreated by the Greeks to interpose His good offices, with a view to effect a reconciliation between them and the Ottoman Porte, His Majesty concerted measures for that purpose, in the first instance, with the Emperor of Russia, and subsequently with his Imperial Majesty and the King of France.
"His Majesty has given directions that there should be laid before you Copies of a Protocol signed at Saint Petersburgh by the Plenipotentiaries of His Majesty and of his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia, on the 4th of April, 1826, and of the Treaty entered into between His Majesty and the Courts of the Tuileries and of Saint Petersburgh, on the 6th of July, 1827.
"In the course of the measures adopted
3
"Notwithstanding the valour displayed by the Combined Fleet, His Majesty deeply laments that this conflict should have occurred with the Naval Force of an ancient Ally; but he still entertains a confident hope that this untoward event will not be followed by further hostilities, and will not impede that amicable adjustment of the existing differences between the Porte and the Greeks, to which it is so manifestly their common interest to accede.
"In maintaining the National Faith by adhering to the engagements into which His Majesty has entered, His Majesty will never lose sight of the great objects to which all his efforts have been directed—the termination of the contest between the hostile parties.—the permanent settlement of their future relations to each other—and the maintenance of the repose of Europe upon the basis on which it has rested since the last general Treaty of Peace.
"His Majesty has the greatest satisfaction in informing you, that the purposes for which His Majesty, upon the requisition of the Court of Lisbon, detached a Military Force to Portugal have been accomplished. The obligations of good faith baying been fulfilled, and the safety and independence of Portugal secured, His Majesty has given orders that the forces now in that country should be immediately withdrawn.
"We are commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you, that His Majesty has concluded Treaties of Amity and Commerce with the Emperor of Brazil, and with the United States of Mexico; copies of which will, by His Majesty's commands, be laid before you.
4
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"His Majesty has ordered the estimates for the Current year to be laid before you. They have been prepared with, every regard to economy, consistent with the exigency of the public service.
"We are commanded, by. His Majesty to recommend to your early attention an Inquiry into the State of the Revenue and Expenditure of the country.
"His Majesty is assured, that it will be satisfactory to you to learn, that, notwithstanding the diminution which has taken place in some branches of the Revenue, the total amount of receipt during the last year has not disappointed the expectations which were entertained at the commencement of it.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"His Majesty has commanded us to inform you, that a considerable increase has taken place in the export of the principal articles of British manufacture. This improvement of our Foreign Trade has led to a more general employment of the population, and affords a satisfactory indication of the continued abatement of those commercial difficulties, which recently affected so severely the National Industry.
"His Majesty commands us to assure you, that he places the firmest reliance upon your continued endeavours to improve the condition of all classes of his subjects, and to advance the great object of His, Majesty's solicitude, the prosperity and. happiness of his People."
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.]
His Majesty's Speech having been again read by the Lord Chancellor, and also by the Clerk at the Table,
The Earl of Chichester
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—My Lords; In rising to address your lordships on the present occasion, with a view to propose that an humble and dutiful Address be presented to his Majesty, in reply to his most gracious Speech, which we have just heard read, I am fully sensible of the difficulties that must unavoidably, and of ne-
5
6
7
8
Lord Strangford
said:—My Lords, in rising to second the motion of the noble lord, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, thanking him for the Speech which he has been graciously pleased to direct to be delivered from the Throne, I confess I feel peculiar satisfaction; the rather because I believe that the main points urged in that Speech are such as must necessarily convey a feeling of hope and consolation to all his Majesty's subjects. One ground of satisfaction at the tenor of the royal Speech is discoverable in the spirit of peace and amity that pervades it. It contains what may be construed into his Majesty's gracious declaration, and may be understood to convey an expression of the royal resolution, to use every possible exertion to maintain the repose of Europe on the firm foundation, the proud basis, on which the memorable efforts of English valour and conduct had placed it at the battle of Waterloo, and subsequently by means of the treaty of Paris. My Lords, I am rejoiced at the expression of such a sentiment; and connecting his Majesty's resolution with the peaceful assurances which our government continues to receive from the leading powers of Europe, I consider the Speech from the Throne well calculated to allay the anxiety which the present posture of public affairs in the east of Europe might otherwise excite. The maintenance of general tranquillity is an object well deserving the care of his Majesty's ministers, and, if steadily pursued, will confer more splendor, and reflect greater credit, on the national character, than the achievement of the most signal victories. At the same time, the peaceful triumphs to which I have alluded, not only possess the advantage of greater and more lasting renown, but are also more easily attained, than the hazardous, and sometimes ruinous, successes of war. My Lords, it is impossible to advert to a conflict, the occurrence of which we must all deplore, without admitting, that not even the glory connected with the achievement can, for a single instant, diminish the regret which our tri-
9
10
11
Lord Holland
next rose. He began by assuring their lordships, that he had no intention when he entered the House that evening, to trouble their lordships with any observations on the Speech which had been delivered to them from the Throne—or to say one word which might interrupt the unanimity of their lordships on the present occasion. Many reasons, with which it was unnecessary to trouble their lordships, some of a private and personal nature, and some of a public and general character, made him wish not to enter into debate for any unnecessary purpose. He had expected, that the address which would be proposed that night in reply to his majesty's Speech would be one which would not cause any great, difference of opinion. He had been willing to overlook its faults of omission, many and grievous as they were: and he had been willing, moreover, to overlook any inconsiderate expressions, with which he might not be inclined to agree: and he would even now say, that with the general substance of the Speech he for one, was pretty well satisfied. He fully agreed with the noble lord, that the expressions which his majesty had used upon one great point—he meant his desire for peace—were such as became the Throne, and ought to be expected from it; and he felt as strongly as the Speech itself, that the great object
12
13
14
15
16
17
jure divino
18
*
*
19
20
21
*
*
22
23
24
Lord King
said, that before their lordships separated, he wished to offer a word or two on a very homely subject, of which, he was sorry to see there was no mention either in the Speech from the Throne or in the Address, though it had occupied no inconsiderable portion of their lordships' time during the last session. He meant the Corn-laws. Now, that subject appeared to him to be a more difficult subject for the administration even than the battle of Navarino. It would be a grievous question to any administration, and it would not be less so to the present, seeing that there were in it two or three avowed friends, two or three decided enemies, and—what was, perhaps, more dangerous than all, two or three concealed enemies to the Corn-laws. As there were in the present administration some persons who had been in the last administration, and in the administration before the last, and who most probably would also be found in the next administration, it was to be hoped, that while they were busy in making terms, and no doubt good terms, for themselves, they had not forgotten to make equally good terms for their own principles of free trade, and for a new Corn-law. He would, however, ask what security the country had upon the point? It was said, that the country had the same President of the Board of Trade that it had before. Now, he thought that the country would have a much better security, if the noble duke at the head of the government, who had the whole substantial power—who had not only the common and ordinary powers of prime minister, but had concentrated in himself the civil and military power—was known to entertain views favourable to free trade, and to the subject to which he alluded; but when he recollected the noble duke's conduct last year,
25
The Duke of Wellington
said:—My lords, if there be any one subject more than another, on which the country is agreed as one man, it is, that there should be a complete settlement of the Corn question. I have, therefore, very great pleasure in being enabled to inform your lordships, that it is the intention of his majesty's government, at an early period of the present session, to submit to the consideration of parliament a measure relative to the Corn-laws, and for regulating the importation of corn, founded upon the principle of the measure which was introduced last session. Having thus been under the necessity of addressing your lordships, in answer to the question put to me by the noble baron, I hope I may be permitted to say a few words in answer to what fell from the noble lord who addressed the House just now. First, with regard to the term "ancient ally," I must state that the Ottoman power has long been an ally of this country; that the Ottoman power is an essential part of the balance of power in Europe; that the preservation of the Ottoman power has been, for a considerable number of years, an object, not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe; and that the revolutions which have occurred, the changes of possession which
26
27
The Earl of Eldon
expresssed a hope that, in the arduous situation in which the country was at present placed, no impediment would be thrown in the way of the government, in their efforts for the preservation of the peace of Europe. It could hardly be said, that there had been an administration in the country for the last nine months. It could hardly be said that there had been a parliament in the country which had either considered or done any thing for the same period. Under these circumstances, it was high time to look to the most pressing object of British interests,—the preservation of the peace of Europe. He did not mean to enter into the consideration of the treaties which had been alluded to, seeing that they were not at present before their lordships. If, however, he understood the meaning of those treaties, as he had read them in various publications, one of them aimed at the preserving of peace, and the other provided that hostilities should not be committed. Yet, in the
28
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the last time he had spoken in that House, he had expressed his disapprobation of an unnatural alliance, which he had prophecied would soon dwindle away. A noble lord opposite had then made a very ingenious remark; but he would now ask him, whether recent events had not completely fulfilled his prophecy? He rejoiced at the change which had taken place. He trusted that, under the new administration, the country would be placed on a high and commanding situation. The name of the illustrious individual at the head of the government carried great weight with it throughout Europe. In no transaction of his public life had he failed. Indeed, he seemed to have been born under a star which insured him success. Now that his noble friend was at the head of the national councils, he was persuaded the interests of the country, both at home and abroad, would be managed in such a way, as would again raise England to that proud preeminence from which she had declined during the last year. The noble earl opposite (Grey), than whom no man stood higher in the public opinion on account of his rare consistency and noble disinterestedness, particularly during the events of the last year, had said, that a want of confidence in the person at the head of government was a fair ground of opposition to his administration. He would take the proposition in its converse sense, and say, that his unbounded confidence in the
29
Earl Grey
said, that the noble marquis had been pleased to speak of him in a very kind and much too flattering manner. He rose now merely for the purpose of stating distinctly, what he had said on a former occasion, to which the noble marquis had alluded, and which did not bear the interpretation that the noble marquis had put upon it. The noble marquis had stated, that he (earl Grey) had said, that a want of confidence in the head of the administration was a just ground of opposition to the administration. Now, he did not recollect that he had given expression to such a sentiment. He did undoubtedly say, that a want of confidence in the head of the administration was a just, nay, the best ground for any man refusing his accession to it. He had said, further, that a want of confidence, not in the head only of an administration—for it was not a personal objection that had actuated him in his conduct last year, it was an objection to the general principle on which the administration was composed—but a want of confidence in an administration generally, was an effectual bar to a pledge of general support. That was the situation in which he found himself placed last year. He did not see in the composition of the cabinet such an assurance for the prosecution of measures and principles which he considered essential to the good government and prosperity of the country, as would induce him to give it his general support; and on those grounds he withheld his support, although some members of that administration were persons entitled, in the fullest extent, to his confidence. At the same time, however,
30
31
The Duke of Wellington
said, that the noble earl had rightly understood him. What he had stated was, that a bill would
32
The Earl of Darnley
Earl Ferrers
begged to ask the noble duke at the head of the government, whether he retained the office of commander-in-chief of the forces?
The Duke of Wellington
replied, that when he received his majesty's commands to form an Administration, he felt great reluctance to place himself at the head of it. Finding, however, that it was the unanimous opinion of his colleagues, that he ought to occupy that situation, and finding also that, under the circumstances, it was not easy to find a person to fill the office which he now had the honour to hold, he determined to resign the office of commander in chief.
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he did not rise with the intention of offering the slightest objection to the Address, which it was his ardent wish to see unanimously carried; but, after what had been stated in the course of the discussion, having recently been honoured with an office in a situation in his majesty's government, he felt himself called upon to declare, that there was no one act of that government, but more especially no one of its acts connected with the transactions which had been the subject of that night's conversation, that he would not consider himself bound to defend. He could assure his noble friend at the head of the foreign department, who immediately represented the person at the head of that department before him; whose dying instructions he received; and whose intentions he was expected to fulfil; that whenever he should be called upon to defend the whole of that system of which he was the representative, from whatever side of the House the attack might proceed, he would find in him a sincere and zealous, though perhaps a useless, supporter. He felt confident, that even though his noble friend should not be able to do so, he himself could satisfy the House of the sound principles on which the negotiations had proceeded. He could also satisfy the House and the country, that no danger of war had been unnecessarily incurred by his majesty's ministers. He was not only
33
34
Lord Goderich
said, that, having been a member of the government under which the noble duke had been instructed to sign the protocol at St. Petersburgh, and having also been a party to the treaty of London, he felt it due to his own character to say that he subscribed entirely to all that had fallen from his noble friend who had spoken last. Whenever the time should arrive for discussing the course of policy in which he had had a share, he should be prepared to express his sentiments with the same fearlessness with which he now addressed their lordships; and he concurred with his noble friend in believing, that it would not be difficult to prove, that there was nothing in that policy, or in the particular transaction growing out of it, inconsistent with the honour of the country or its best interests. He entirely concurred in all that had been, said respecting the conduct of sir Edward Codrington. In his opinion he had exercised a sound discretion. He was placed in circumstances of no ordinary difficulty, and he had discharged his duty with consummate skill and courage. He was prepared to support the gallant admiral, not only on the principle that it was the duty of a government to support those who executed their orders, but from a deliberate conviction that he was justified, under the circumstances, in the course which he had taken, and that in taking that course he had neither tarnished his own previously acquired fame, nor sullied the honour and glory of his country.
Earl Dudley
said, that his noble friend at the head of the government had stated, that the foreign policy which had been
35
The Address was agreed to
nem. diss.
The usual sessional orders were voted, and the earl of Shaftesbury was appointed chairman of committees.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, January 29.
STATE OF THE LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION.]
Mr. Brougham
gave notice that, on the 7th of February, he would submit to the House a motion, touching the state of the Law of this Country, and its Administration in the Courts of Justice, with a view to such Reforms in the same as time may have rendered necessary, and experience may have shewn to be expedient.
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
gave notice, that on the 12th of February he would move for certain returns connected with the Court of Chancery, preparatory to a general motion relative to the Delays and Abuses in that Court.
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH.]
The Speaker acquainted the House, that the House had been in the House of Lords, to hear the Speech of the Lords Commissioners, of which, to prevent mistakes, he had obtained a copy. After he had read it to the House,
The Hon. Cecil Jenkinson
said: —In rising, Sir, on the present occasion, to move, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, I must observe, in the outset, that no degree of confidence in my own powers has placed me in this situation: on the contrary, there is no man mere diffident of himself, and with reason, than I am. I am not, indeed, a young member, but I have troubled the House very seldom upon any subject pf discussion that has come before it. Having mentioned this circumstance, may add, that, as long as a person—to whom I can hardly allude without an emotion which deprives me of the little power I have pf expressing myself—as long as that person, I mean my noble brother, was not
36
37
38
39
40
41
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty—to return his Majesty our humble thanks for the gracious Speech which his Majesty has directed to be delivered by the Lords Commissioners.
"To assure his Majesty, that we feel the greatest satisfaction in learning that his Majesty continues to receive from all foreign princes and states, assurances of their desire to maintain the relations of amity with this country; and that the great powers of Europe participate in the earnest wish of his Majesty, to cultivate a good understanding upon all points which may conduce to the preservation of peace.
"To express to his Majesty our deep regret that the state of affairs in the East of Europe should have been the subject of great concern to his Majesty; and that a contest should have been so long carried on between the Ottoman Porte and the inhabitants of the Greek Provinces and Islands, which has been marked on each side by excesses revolting to humanity.
"To assure his Majesty, that our regret is increased by learning, that in the progress of that contest, the rights of neutral states, and the laws which regulate the intercourse of civilized nations, have been repeatedly violated, and the peaceful commerce of his Majesty's subjects has been exposed to frequent interruption, and to depredations, too often aggravated by acts of violence and atrocity.
"To assure his Majesty, that we participate in the deep anxiety felt by his Majesty, to terminate the calamities, and avert the dangers, inseparable from hostilities, which constitute the only exception to the general tranquillity of Europe.
42
"Humbly to thank his Majesty for the I communication which he has made to us, that his Majesty having been earnestly entreated by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, with a view to effect a reconciliation between them and the Ottoman Porte, had concerted measures for that purpose in the first instance with the emperor of Russia, and subsequently with his Imperial Majesty and the king of France.
"And also for the directions which his Majesty has been pleased to give, that there should be laid before us copies of a Protocol, signed at St. Petersburgh by the Plenipotentiaries of his Majesty and of his Imperial Majesty the emperor of Russia, on the 4th of April, 1826, and of the Treaty entered into between his Majesty and the Courts of the Tuileries and of St. Petersburgh, on the 6th of July, 1827.
"To thank his Majesty, for having informed us, that in the course of the measures adopted with a view to carry into effect the object of the Treaty, a collision, wholly unexpected by his Majesty, took place in the Port of Navarin, between the fleets of the contracting powers and that of the Ottoman Porte.
"To assure his Majesty, that we participate in the regret expressed by his Majesty, notwithstanding the valour displayed by the combined fleet, that a conflict should have occurred with the naval force of an ancient ally, and that we rejoice to learn that his Majesty still entertains a confident hope that this untoward event will not be followed by further hostilities, and will not impede that amicable adjustment of the existing differences between the Porte and the Greeks, to which it is so manifestly their common interest to accede.
"To express to his Majesty our sincere satisfaction in learning that it is his Majesty's determination in maintaining the national faith, by adhering to the engagements into which his Majesty has entered, never to lose sight of the great objects to which all his Majesty's efforts have been directed—the termination of the contest between the hostile parties—the permanent settlement of their future relations to each other—and the maintenance of the repose of Europe upon the basis on which it has rested since the last general Treaty of Peace.
"To assure his Majesty that we are highly gratified by learning that the purposes for which his Majesty, upon the requisition of the Court of Lisbon, detached
43
"To thank his Majesty for having directed to be laid before us copies of the Treaties of Amity and Commerce which his Majesty has concluded with the emperor of Brazil, and with the United States of Mexico.
"To return our acknowledgments to his Majesty, for having ordered the Estimates for the current year to be laid before us, and for the assurance that they have been prepared with every regard to economy consistent with the exigency of the Public Service.
"To assure his Majesty, that we will, in pursuance of his Majesty's recommendation, institute an early inquiry into the state of the Revenue and Expenditure of the country.
"To express to his Majesty our satisfaction in learning that, notwithstanding the diminution which has taken place in some branches of the Revenue, the total amount of receipt during the last year has not disappointed the expectations which were entertained at the commencement of it, and that a considerable increase has taken place in the export of the principal articles of British manufacture.
"To assure his Majesty, that this improvement of our foreign trade is peculiarly gratifying to us, on account of its having led to a more general employment of the population, and because it is a satisfactory indication of the continued abatement of those commercial difficulties which recently affected so severely the national industry.
"To return to his Majesty our grateful acknowledgments for the confidence which he has been pleased to express in our continued desire to improve the condition of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, and to recognize the paternal goodness of his Majesty in recommending to our care, as the first object of his Majesty's solicitude, the prosperity and happiness of his people."
Mr. Robert Grant
said:—I rise, Sir, for the purpose of seconding the Address. I know not whether I am expected to notice all the topics treated of in the Speech from the Throne, but I certainly do not feel it necessary at this time, point by point, to go over them. There are, indeed, some, to
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Brougham
said, he agreed most entirely in one of the observations of his hon. and learned friend who had just seconded the Address, and the propriety of which must indeed receive a general and unqualified assent; namely, that circumstances rendered the present time most inconvenient for the discussion of the several important matters referred to in the Speech from the Throne. At the same time, he must, on his own part, as well as on that of the constitutional authority of the House, assert the unquestionable right of every member to discuss, if it so pleased him, every part of the Speech which had been read from the chair, just as if the whole of his majesty's ministers were at that moment in their seats in parliament. But, while he asserted such a right he assented to the manifest inexpediency of the present time for entertaining that discussion, because it would not be quite consistent with perfect fairness and candour, to enter at once upon the consideration of so great a variety of topics, in the absence of those who were bound to explain and defend them. He owned, however, at the same time, his wish, that his hon. and learned friend, the seconder, as well as the hon. mover of the Address, had suggested to their own minds the propriety of following themselves the advice which they had recommended to others. It was a little inconsistent that their own conduct should be an exception to their own admonition;
50
ex parte,
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, he hoped that the noble Secretary at War would not suffer the House to separate without giving the House some explanation with respect to the change of ministry, and the course which the new administration meant to pursue. He had hoped that the principles advocated by the great man now no more would have continued to be the principles of the government. He should like to know how these changes had been brought about, how the union of Whig and Tory had been put an end to by the appointment of the duke of Wellington, which had filled the country with astonishment. Was it in Great Britain that such difficulty could be found in forming a ministry? Could not individuals be found of sufficient talents and integrity to govern the country? Could not individuals be discovered who would agree with each other in carrying on the business of the
59
Mr. Bankes
said, he felt it impossible not to, notice some of the topics that were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It appeared to him that there was an almost unqualified regret, throughout the country, at the disastrous affair of Navarino—an affair which had created dismay and astonishment. Those who had agreed to the treaty were placed in a dilemma from which they could not extricate themselves; seeing that the necessary consequence of that treaty, which he considered to be impolitic and unjust, was the deplorable event to which he had alluded. There would, he knew, arrive other opportunities for arguing this point; but as it farmed so prominent a part of his majesty's Speech, and as that Speech seemed, in some manner, to countenance that transaction, he could not suffer the topic to be passed by in silence. The hon. and learned gentleman had spoken of the foreign policy which this government ought to adopt. Was it, then, British policy to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. Was it not contrary to the law of nations to do so? And had they not, by the treaty into which they had entered, violated that law? The hon. and learned gentleman maintained that this was a contest for religion and liberty. It was no such thing. The treaty was founded on a false pretence; and they were next told that the intention was to put down piracy. But, was it ne-
60
Lord Althorp
said, he agreed with his hon. and learned friend, as far as he was informed of the circumstances, that the battle of Navarino was a necessary consequence of the treaty of London. He agreed, also, most fully, in the protest of his hon. and learned friend against those
61
Lord Palmerston
agreed, that it would be inexpedient to enter at present into many subjects which had been referred to in the course of the evening; but there
62
63
64
65
Mr. Brougham
said, in explanation, that the noble lord had endeavoured to make it appear that he had spoken lightly of the military reputation of the duke of Wellington. Now, he asked every member, whether the words which he had used, did
66
Lord John Russell
said, he would take that opportunity of entering his protest against the kind of declamation in which the noble Secretary at War had indulged when speaking of the duke of Wellington. He remembered very well when that noble duke last year proposed a clause in the Corn-bill, which was considered highly injurious to the commercial interests of the country, it was said, "how can gentlemen possibly make an objection to this clause, when they consider that this very day is the 18th of June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo?" Now, he felt great thanks were due to the duke for having gained that battle, but, nevertheless, the clause in the Corn-bill was a very injurious one to the country; and he protested against the practice hereafter, that, whenever the duke should propose any very objectionable measure, or make any financial blunder, as a prime minister, that the House should be met with a reference to his military services. The duke of Wellington having placed himself in a civil capacity, must submit to be judged of in that capacity. It was hardly necessary for him to say, that in all that the duke of Wellington might hereafter do, his past services, if not openly referred to, would not be the less remembered. But he could not help thinking, that those very habits of command which had been most befitting the noble duke in his military station, and
67
68
Mr. Calcraft
said, that he also was desirous, like his noble friend, of seeing, what measures the administration intended to propose before he venture4 to pronounce condemnation. He would go, further, and say, that from the introduction into it of many of his friends, whom he supported in the late administration, he had a favourable impression of the course which they intended to pursue; and he trusted he should be able to give them his support. He concurred in what had fallen from the noble lord who preceded him, in what he had said respecting the gallant admiral who had fought the battle of Navarin. But, the object of the treaty was the maintenance of peace, and a good understanding with Turkey; this action, therefore, must certainly be acknowledged to be an untoward circumstance in that point of view, and he confessed he thought it was very natural and proper that it should be spoken of in the speech from the throne, as it had been. With regard to the office of commander-in-chief, he was happy to hear that it had been resigned by the noble duke who now occupied the first office in the state. With respect to Portugal, he perfectly agreed in what had fallen from the noble lord who spoke last. Our troops were returning home, after having performed the service which they were sent on, to the advantage of Portugal and the honour of England. This country had no other course to take than that she had taken: the alternative of honour or disgrace was open to her; she had taken the path of honour, and every one must rejoice at the result.
Lord Normanby
said, he had entered the House without the slightest intention of saying a word on the present occasion, and would certainly have adhered to his resolution but for what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. For his part, he could only say, that he had no confidence in the present government: he had no confidence in the composition of the ministry, and could not give them his support. He could not address the House, for the first time since the death of the late lamented premier, without expressing his deep regret at the loss which the country had experienced. A remnant of that right hon. gentleman's friends were left, and he should have expected much from them, were it not for the connections which they had lately formed.
The Address was then agreed to.
69
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, January 31.
BREACH OF PRIVILGE—ARREST OF A
The Lord Chancellor
stated, that he had a complaint to make to their lordships of a breach of their privileges, which had been committed by the arrest, by a sheriff's officer, of lord Hawarden, an Irish peer. He would therefore move, that lord Hawarden be called in, that he might state the circumstances to their lordships. —Ordered.
ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.]
Lord Clifden
asked the noble duke at the head of the government, whether it was intended, during the session, to introduce a bill for the repeal of the existing-penal laws affecting the Roman Catholics?
The Duke of Wellington
answered, that government had no intention of bringing forward any such measure.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, January 31.
ADDRESS OF THE KING'S SPEECH.]
Mr. Jenkinson
brought up the report of the Address on the King's Speech.
Mr. Brownlow
said, that, previous to the report being read, he wished to express the feelings which influenced his conduct on the present occasion. Fie should support the Address, subject to the explanation which had been offered by the noble Secretary at War, regarding the objectionable portion of the King's Speech —an explanation, without which he would not consent to the Address, and unaccompanied by which the Speech from the throne would be received, throughout the
70
71
72
73
Lord Morpeth
said, he perfectly agreed in the sentiments expressed with regard to
74
Sir G. Warrender
bore testimony to the great merits of sir Edward Codrington. He said, it could not but be matter of congratulation with the friends of that gallant officer, that it was unanimously agreed that he had acted with zeal for the honour of his country, and that whatever differences of opinion might exist as to the policy of the measure, all were ready to bear testimony to his exalted merits. Differences of opinion certainly existed as to the political part of the transaction; but by none was sir E. Codrington's conduct impugned. He regretted the language which had been employed by ministers in speaking of the battle of Navarino, and was glad to have heard the explanation of the noble Secretary at War.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, it was not his intention to apply himself to the topics adverted to in the Address. He rose for the purpose of asking the noble Secretary at. War— the only knight of king Arthur's round table in the field—whether it was the intention of ministers to propose a vote of thanks to sir E. Codrington? and next, whether it was their intention to lay on the table of the House the documents connected with the battle of Navarino, and
75
Mr. Duncombe
rose to bear his testimony to the merits of sir E. Codrington. Whatever might be thought of the circumstances under which the battle of Navarino had been fought, there was but one opinion, as to the bravery, gallantry, and skill, displayed on that occasion. He did not think that the expression used in the Speech from the Throne was intended to impute any censure to those who had signed the treaty of the 6th of July. If it was intended to convey such a meaning, one of those ministers, who now formed a part of the present administration, would never have given his consent to the use of it. He was confident that sir E. Codrington had acted according to the spirit and letter of his instructions; but he could not but think that the battle of Navarino was an untoward event.
Mr. Spring Rice
wished to put a question to the noble Secretary at War. He thought the omission of all mention of Ireland was a proof that ministers were blind to the condition of that country, unless their silence might be explained by motives not now before the House. Three years had elapsed since a message was brought down from the Throne, calling the attention of parliament to the existence of an association in Ireland, said to be pregnant with danger to the constitution, and to the connection between the two countries. The measure introduced as a remedy, had met with the most decided opposition, but, at the same time, with the most anxious attention. In a single se'nnight, it was discussed for five successive nights. That bill expired in the present session, and he wished to know whether it was the intention of government to propose its renewal? From the absence of all notice of the subject, he inferred that it was not their intention; and although he could not applaud their consistency, he could highly praise their wisdom. It might be in the recollection of gentlemen, that on the occasion of the intro-
76
Lord Palmerston
said, that before he answered the questions which had been put to him, he hoped the House would allow him to explain the meaning of a certain term in the Speech from the Throne which was still misunderstood. Nobody would be more sorry than he should, to be understood as meaning to say, that blame was imputable to the gallant admiral whose name had been so often alluded to. What he meant to have said, was, that the epithet "untoward event" was not intended to imply the slightest censure on that gallant officer. That epithet had been employed, because the collision between the fleets was unexpected. Whatever merit attached to the military movement itself, there could be no doubt that such a conflict must have had a tendency to interrupt the negotiations which were pending, to produce an alteration in the civil disposition of the Porte, and oppose considerable obstacles to the adjustment of the differences which were under discussion. It was impossible, he thought, to deny, that, in that sense of the word, the battle of Navasino was an "untoward event." But, as far as it related to the character of the country, and to the fame of its arms, no human being could suppose that the epithet "untoward" was applied in that sense. In no fair construction of the passage did it imply any censure on the gallant admiral who commanded on that day.
77
78
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that, as it was not the intention of government to propose a vote of thanks to admiral Codrington, he now gave notice, that on the 14th of February he would himself introduce such a motion. As to precedent, there was one in point, which it was strange the present administration should have overlooked. He meant that of the vote of thanks to sir Arthur Wellesley, the present prime minister, for his share in the victory at Copenhagen—a state which we were, at the time, in friendly alliance.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he did not find fault with the use of the term "untoward" in the king's Speech; especially after the explanation which had been given. He thought the government were justified in their application of the term. He would not, at that moment, question the policy which had led to the battle of Navarino: the time would arrive when the principle of the treaty of London must be discussed. If it were approved of, then they ought to do the admiral justice who had enforced it. He was most anxious to have the whole conduct of that gallant officer inquired into. There was a great dictinction to be drawn between not censuring an officer and praising him. Caution with respect to the latter, might be justifiable until the treaty should be dis-
79
Lord Normanby
said, that of all the governments he had ever seen, the present was the one which held out the least chance of a favourable consideration of the Catholic claims. A majority in the cabinet afforded no security, when he recollected of what individuals it was composed. Of the noble lord's colleagues friendly to those claims, one of them had not long ago declared that he considered the question not to be of so much importance now as he had formerly attached to it: another noble lord in the cabinet, it was understood, thought the question had better be deferred: while a third noble lord had quitted office last year, only, as it would seem, because he was afraid that too many of his colleagues would be of his own opinion. What was there to balance against this great majority The noble duke at the head of the government was decidedly adverse to any further concessions to the Catholics; and for the first time, since the days of Mr. Perceval, the leader in the House of Commons was also opposed to the Catholic claims. To these facts he could not shut his eyes; nor could he forget what that right hon. gentleman had openly stated in his place last session; namely, that he had quitted office because he could not retain it under Mr. Canning, without giving his support to an administration too friendly to the Catholic question. The right hon. gentleman's return to office was therefore, a great obstacle to the favourable adjustment of that question. That was his only objection to the right hon. gentleman's return to office. There was a report, that it was intended to grant a portion of the Catholic claims. He should be delighted to find it true. Come from whom it might, any
80
Mr. M. A. Taylor
perfectly agreed that the battle of Navarino was an "untoward event." He considered it a most unfortunate event for this country. He did not deny the talent and skill with which the gallant admiral had fought the battle; but he did question the policy of the instructions under which he had acted. Unless he heard a satisfactory explanation of the grounds of the treaty, it should never have his support. He trusted that tranquillity would be restored with the Porte. The consequences would otherwise be serious. Look at the situation in which we had placed our old ally. Look at the situation in which we had placed Russia and France. View the long-continued policy of the Russian government; and then let the country judge whether the battle of Navarino was not an "untoward event." He was satisfied that this was the general opinion. He was in London when the news of the battle arrived, and he had heard the most anxious fears expressed as to the probable consequences. God grant they might not happen! Was there a man in his majesty's government who did not shudder with horror when the news reached him? In no point of view could he approve of the treaty, or of its results.
Lord Euston
expressed his approbation of the conduct of the gallant admiral in the battle of Navarino, and lamented that government did not intend to originate a vote of thanks to him, for his skill and valour on that occasion.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that while he was ready to admit the inconvenience of going into discussions of this kind at present, he could not help observing, that so far from thinking that the battle of Navarino ought to be described as an "untoward event," he considered it in the highest degree creditable to the character of the country, and that it had raised it in the estimation of the civilized world. He had hoped, that those who had the manliness to have projected the enterprise, would have had the vigour to maintain their position. He was sorry to see them sink beneath the execution of their own conception, and die, as it were, of diffidence, after others had expressed so much satisfaction at what they had done. For his own part, he should when the proper time came, be prepared to defend the policy and the wisdom of every measure connected with
81
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
deprecated discussion at that moment upon questions which must hereafter be debated in a regular form. He would only make a passing allusion to the omission of Ireland in the Speech from the Throne. If he could believe by this omission, that the new government intended to cast aside the consideration of the state of Ireland, he could assure his hon. friend, that he had taken his seat next him, and called for an inquiry into the state of that country. Surely when his hon. friend knew that the government of Ireland was intrusted to such hands as had been alluded to, he could not doubt the desire of the administration to do justice to his country. When the government had only been in office a few days, it was too much to expect that they should be prepared with all those details; unless, indeed, it could be shown, that their predecessors in office had left them matured in their bureaus ready for use. He could not see the necessity for introducing Ireland in the Speech from the Throne, unless circumstances of a peculiar nature demanded a notice of that kind. It had been done when the state of that, country required measures of special rigour; but, happily, such was not now the case. Besides, when it was borne in mind, that the government of that country was confided
82
83
The report was brought up, and agreed to.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
Lord John Russell
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to exclude the borough of Penryn from sending members to serve in parliament, and to enable the town of Manchester, with certain townships adjoining, to send two burgesses to serve in parliament." It was his intention, hi the proper stage of the bill, to move that the franchise be granted to occupiers of houses assessed at 20
l
Mr. Fergusson
thought, that evidence should be produced to show clearly that the elective franchise ought to be taken from the burgesses. Last session it was considered, that the evidence produced was not sufficient to substantiate a charge of bribery.
Mr. Manning
hoped the noble lord would give sufficient time, before the second reading, to have the subject thoroughly examined.
Lord J. Russell
was willing to give any time that might be deemed necessary for the defence of the burgesses. He, however, would not only not bring forward any fresh evidence, but would oppose any motion for that purpose. The former decision of the House was, he conceived, sufficient.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. Tennyson
rose for the purpose of re-introducing a bill which the House had adopted, and read a second time, at the close of the last session, for disfranchising the borough of East Retford, and giving representation to Birmingham. He was aware that some gentlemen thought evidence should be produced at the bar, in addition to that taken before the Retford Election committee, on which the House had proceeded last year. He knew also, that other gentlemen entertained different views from himself, as to the destination of the franchise, if it should be removed from East Retford. He had
84
Mr. George Bankes
said, that the circumstances of this case were of a very peculiar nature. The committee which sat to consider the merits of the election for East Retford commenced their labours in the month of May last, and terminated them at the end of that month; and, by virtue of the power of suspending the writ, which the House possessed, that borough had since remained unrepresented. It was acknowledged that the Writ was suspended; that the gentlemen who had set up for the borough were unseated, writ for bribery, but for treating; which was a very inferior offence. Now, if that were, the only offence against those who seated them, and, if no charge of bribery were substantiated against those gentlemen, it was clear that there could have been no suspension of the writ. But the committee made a special report with respect to bribery having been committed on former occasions, and also with reference to its having been expected on this, by those who concurred in electing the then members. No bribery was either brought home to the members or to the electors. The members were, however, unseated by the suspension of the writ, and the consequence was, that there was no person in the House connected with the borough, or interested in investigating the business. He knew how inefficient an advocate he should prove, if he offered to take up the cause
85
86
Mr. Batley
agreed, generally, with what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had spoken last; but he would go a point further, and would say, that he did not see the justice of disfranchising a borough, merely because it could be proved that some forty or fifty of the voters had given their votes with an expectation of being-bribed for so doing. The members who had been returned had been acquitted of bribery, and that was a material point.
Mr. Tennyson
replied. He assured his hon. friend (Mr. G. Bankes) of his anxiety to bring the subject under consideration to an early conclusion; not only on account of the important interests involved, but of the desire which he felt, in common with every gentleman who had the conduct of a public bill, to be speedily relieved from his labours. He would not then enter upon any reply to the numerous observations of his hon. friend, as a more fit opportunity would occur for the discussions to which they would lead, but, in consequence of what had fallen from both the hon. members who had spoken, he felt it right to remind the House, that the ground on which the House allowed him to proceed with this bill in the last session was—not any specific bribery at the last election for East Retford—but the systematic corruption which had prevailed there for a series of elections past, and as far back as the memory of man extended, which rendered the electors totally unfit to be further trusted with the franchise. Of this corruption he repeated, that, if the House was not satisfied already, he was prepared with proofs so ample and conclusive, that he expected its unanimous concurrence with regard to the disfranchisement of East Retford.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PROTOCOL AND TREATY FOR THE
Lord Palmerston
presented, by command, the following Protocol and Treaty—
87
PROTOCOL relative to the Affairs of Greece.
Signed at St. Petersburgh,
His Britannic Majesty having been requested by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, in order to obtain their reconciliation with the Ottoman Porte; having, in consequence, offered his Mediation to that Power, and being desirous of concerting the measures of his Government, upon this subject, with his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias; and his Imperial Majesty, on the other hand, being equally animated by the desire of putting an end to the contest of which Greece and the Archipelago are the theatre, by an arrangement, which shall be consistent with the principles of religion, justice, and humanity;
The Undersigned have agreed:
1. That the arrangement to be proposed to the Porte, if that Government should accept the proffered Mediation, should have for its object, to place the Greeks to wards the Ottoman Porte, in the relation hereafter mentioned:
Greece should be a dependency of that Empire, and the Greeks should pay to the Porte an annual tribute, the amount of which should be permanently fixed by common consent. They should be exclusively governed by Authorities, to be chosen and named by themselves, but in the nomination of which Authorities the Porte should have a certain influence.
In this state, the Greeks should enjoy a complete liberty of conscience, entire freedom of commerce, and should, exclusively, conduct their own internal government.
In order to effect a complete separation between individuals of the two nations, and to prevent the collisions which must be the necessary consequences of a contest of such duration, the Greeks should purchase the property of Turks, whether situated on the Continent of Greece, or in the Islands.
2. In case the principle of a Mediation between Turks and Greeks should have been admitted, in consequence of the steps taken, with that view, by his Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, his Imperial Majesty would exert, in every case, his influence to forward the object of that Mediation. The mode in which, and the time at which, his Imperial Majesty should take part in the ulterior nego-
88
3. If the Mediation offered by his Britannic Majesty should not have been accepted by the Porte, and whatever may be the nature of the relations between his Imperial Majesty and the Turkish government, his Britannic Majesty and his Imperial Majesty will still consider the terms of the arrangement specified in No. 1 of this Protocol, as the basis of any reconciliation to be effected by their intervention, whether in concert or separately, between the Porte and the Greeks; and they will avail themselves of every favour able opportunity to exert their influence with both Parties, in order to effect their reconciliation on the above-mentioned basis.
4.That his Britannic Majesty and his Imperial Majesty should reserve to them selves to adopt, hereafter, the measures necessary for the settlement of the details of the arrangement in question, as well as the limits of the Territory, and the names of the Islands of the Archipelago to which it shall be applicable, and which it shall be proposed to the Porte to comprise under the denomination of Greece.
5. That, moreover, his Britannic Majesty and his Imperial Majesty will not seek, in this arrangement, any increase of Territory, nor any exclusive influence, nor advantage in commerce for their Subjects, which shall not be equally attainable by all other Nations.
6. That his Britannic Majesty and his Imperial Majesty, being desirous that their Allies should become parties to the definitive arrangements of which this Protocol contains the outline, will communicate this Instrument, confidentially, to the Courts of Vienna, Paris, and Berlin, and will propose to them that they should, in concert with the Emperor of Russia, guarantee the treaty by which the reconciliation of Turks and Greeks shall be effected, as his Britannic Majesty cannot guarantee such a Treaty. (Signed)
WELLINGTON.
NESSELRODE.
LIEVEN.
St. Petersburgh, April
March
TREATY FOR THE PACIFICATION OF GREECE, between his Majesty, the Most Christian King, and the Emperor of all the Russias.
Signed London.
89
In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.—His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his Majesty the King of France and Navarre, and his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, penetrated with the necessity of putting an end to the sanguinary struggle, which, while it abandons the Greek Provinces and the Islands of the Archipelago to all the disorders of anarchy, daily causes fresh impediments to the commerce of the States of Europe, and gives opportunity for acts of piracy which not only expose the Subjects of the High Contracting Parties to grievous losses, but also render necessary measures which are burthensome for their observation and suppression; —
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his Majesty the King of France and Navarre, having moreover received from the Greeks an earnest invitation to interpose their mediation with the Ottoman Porte; and, together with his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, being animated with the desire of putting a stop to the effusion of blood, and of preventing the evils of every kind which the continuance of such a state of affairs may produce;
They have resolved to combine their efforts, and to regulate the operation thereof, by a formal Treaty, for the object of reestablishing peace between the contending Parties, by means of an arrangement called for, no less by sentiments of humanity, than by interests for the tranquillity of Europe.
For these purposes, they have named Their Plenipotentiaries to discuss, to conclude, and sign, the said Treaty, that is to say:—
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Right Honourable John William Viscount Dudley, a Peer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a Member of his said Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and his Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: —
His Majesty the King of France and Navarre, the Prince Jules, Count de Polignac, a Peer of France, Knight of the Orders of his Most Christian Majesty, Maréchal-de-Camp of his Forces, Grand Cross of the Order of St. Maurice of Sardinia, &c. &c. and his Ambassador at London: —
And his Majesty the Emperor of all the
90
Who, after having communicated to each other their Full Powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following Articles:—
Art. 1. The Contracting Powers shall offer their Mediation to the Ottoman Porte, with the view of effecting a reconciliation between It and the Greeks.
This offer of Mediation shall be made to that Power immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty, by means of a joint declaration, signed by Plenipotentiaries of the Allied Courts at Constantinople; and, at the same time, a demand for an immediate Armistice shall be made to the Two Contending Parties, as a preliminary and indispensable condition to the opening of any negotiation.
2. The arrangement to be proposed to the Ottoman Porte shall rest upon the following bases: —
The Greeks shall hold under the Sultan as under a Lord paramount; and, in consequence thereof, they shall pay to the Ottoman empire an annual tribute, the amount of which shall be fixed, once for all, by common agreement. They shall be governed by Authorities whom they shall choose and appoint themselves, but in the nomination of whom the Porte shall have a defined right.
In order to effect a complete separation betwen the individuals of the two Nations, and to prevent the collisions which would be the inevitable consequence of so protracted a struggle, the Greeks shall become possessors of all Turkish Property situated either upon the Continent, or in the Islands of Greece, on condition of indemnifying the former proprietors, either by an annual sum to be added to the tribute which they shall pay to the Porte, or by some other arrangement of the same nature.
3. The details of this arrangement, as well as the limits of the territory upon the Continent, and the designation of the Islands of the Archipelago to which it shall be applicable, shall be settled by a nego-
91
4. The Contracting Powers engage to pursue the salutary work of the pacification, of Greece, upon the bases laid down in the preceding Articles, and to furnish, without the least delay, their Representatives at Constantinople with all the Instructions which are required for the execution of the Treaty which they now sign.
5. The Contracting Powers will not peek, in these arrangements, any augmentation of territory, any exclusive influence, or any commercial advantage for their Subjects, which those of every other Nation may not equally obtain.
6. The arrangements for reconciliation and peace which shall be definitively agreed upon between the Contending Parties, shall be guaranteed by those of the Signing Powers who may judge it expedient or possible to contract that obligation. The operation and the effects of such guarantee shall become the subject of future stipulation between the High Powers.
7. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in two months, or sooner if possible. In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seals of their Arms. Done at London, the Sixth day of July, in the Year of our Lord, 1827.
(L. S.) DUDLEY.
(L. S.) THE PRINCE DE POLIGNAC.
(L. S.) LIEVEN.
Additional Article.—In case the Ottoman Porte should not, within the space of one month, accept the mediation which is to be proposed to It, the High Contracting Parties agree upon the following measures: —
1. It shall be declared to the Porte, by Their Representatives at Constantinople, that the inconveniencies and evils described in the patent Treaty as inseparable from the state of things which has, for six years, existed in the East, and the termination of which, by the means at the command of the Sublime Ottoman Porte, appears to be still distant, impose upon the High Contracting Parties the necessity of taking immediate measures for forming a connection with the Greeks.
It is understood that this shall be effected by establishing commercial rela-
92
2. If, within the said term of one month, the Porte does not accept the armistice proposed in the first article of the patent Treaty, or if the Greeks refuse to carry it into execution, the high contracting powers shall declare to either of the contending parties which may be disposed to continue hostilities, or to both of them, if necessary, that the said high powers intend to exert all the means which circumstances may suggest to their prudence, for the purpose of obtaining the immediate effects of the armistice of which they desire the execution, by preventing, as far as possible, all collision between the contending parties; and in consequence, immediately after the above mentioned declaration, the high powers will, jointly, exert all their efforts to accomplish the object of such armistice, without, however, taking any part in the hostilities between the two contending parties.
Immediately after the signature of the present additional article, the high contracting powers will, consequently, transmit to the admirals commanding their respective squadrons in the Levant, conditional instructions in conformity to the arrangements above declared.
3. Finally, if, contrary to all expectation, these measures do not prove sufficient to procure the adoption of the propositions of the high contracting parties by the Ottoman Porte; or if, on the other hand, the Greeks decline the conditions stipulated in their favour, by the Treaty of this date, the high contracting powers will, nevertheless, continue to pursue the work of pacification, on the bases upon which they have agreed; and, in consequence, they authorise, from the present moment, their representatives at London, to discuss and determine the future measures which it may become necessary to employ.
The present additional article shall have the same force and validity as if it were inserted, word for word, in the Treaty of this day. It shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at the same time as those of the said Treaty.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and
93
Done at London, the Sixth day of July, in the year of our Lord 1827.
(L. S.) DUDLEY.
(L. S.) THE PRINCE DE POUGNAC.
(L. S.) LIEVEN.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, February 1.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he wished to offer a few words on the subject connected with the Roman Catholics of Ireland. As a friend to them and to their cause, it was impossible for him to see without anxiety the public journals teeming with such monstrous resolutions as those which had been submitted to an assembly of persons calling themselves the meeting of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Their lordships would recollect, that a bill had been passed to put down such associations. Notwithstanding that bill, these associations continued to exist, and a resolution had been laid before them of so extraordinary a nature, that it was impossible for him not to allude to it; for if that resolution was actually the resolution of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he, as one of their sincerest friends, would declare, that instead of making him hope that their cause would advance, it would give him reason to wish that it might not. Precisely the same sentiment he had expressed two years ago. He had then said, that if he thought the Catholics of Ireland would, by intimidation or threat, endeavour to carry their object, he would be the first to oppose them. The resolution to which he had alluded was as follows:—"Resolved; that we feel it a duty we owe to the Irish people to declare, that we shall consider every Irish member of parliament an enemy to the freedom, peace, and happiness, of Ireland, who shall support, either directly or indirectly, any administration of which the duke of Wellington, or any individual professing his principles, is the head or contriver; and we call on all counties, cities, towns, and parishes in Ireland, to act upon the spirit of this resolution." Now, he must look upon this resolution as a complete threat; but he believed that the Catholics of Ireland would not approve of it. He was sure that a better spirit prevailed amongst them. If such proceedings, however, were suffered to continue, they would be
94
Lord Clifden
said, that no man was less disposed than he was to countenance such proceedings, but still he thought that some allowance ought to be made for the use of intemperate language. He agreed, that many things which had been said by members of the Catholic association had displeased the friends of their cause; but their lordships ought not to look at a great public question under feelings excited by the intemperate harangues of this man or of that. The king of the Netherlands had entered into an arrangement with the Pope, respecting his Catholic subjects. Why could not we do the same? It was not to be wondered at, if intemperate language should break forth from a people whose hopes had been deferred for seven and twenty years. It was not in human nature to put up with such injustice.
TURKEY AND GREECE.]
Lord Holland
said, that he rose for the purpose of giving notice of a motion. The papers which his noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had brought down the other day, were highly satisfactory as showing a disposition, on the part of his majesty's government, to give every information on the subject to which the papers referred. They nevertheless, appeared to him to be incomplete. He therefore gave notice, that, he intended to move for the production of certain papers on Monday next. His motion would comprise two objects: first, to ascertain the state of the relations between this country and the Ottoman Porte; and next, the nature of the instructions given to the admiral commanding the combined fleet in the Mediterranean.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 1.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]
Lord Palmerston
gave notice, that on Monday he would move, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Hume
asked, whether it was the intention of the noble lord to call upon the House to vote any of the supplies for the current year before, the chancellor of the Exchequer had taken his seat?
95
Lord Palmerston
said, it was his intention to move only for certain supplies out of funds, which were not strictly available without the authority of the House. His object was to prevent the obstruction of the public service from the want of those funds.
Mr. Hume
said, that with regard to any balance which might remain in the Treasury from last year, he had no objection that government should bring it forward to meet the current expenses.
Mr. Maberly
trusted, that when the estimates were brought forward, they would evince a due attention to economy in every department of the state. It would be impossible for the finance committee to make any report until a late period of the session. In the mean time, he would urge upon government the adoption of as severe a system of economy as if that report was before the House.
Mr. Calcraft
supposed that as the new administration had not had time to prepare fresh estimates, they would bring forward those which the late ministry had left behind them. If that was the case, he had no doubt, that a due attention would be paid to economy and retrenchment. He understood it to be merely the noble lord's intention to propose on Monday to render available certain funds, to do which the authority of the House was necessary.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the hon. member had correctly stated the object of his motion.
FINANCE COMMITTEE.]
Mr. E. D. Davenport
wished to know, whether any steps had been taken towards the appointment of the Finance Committee, and whether the noble lord could state the names of its intended members.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was impossible for him to anticipate the names of the members, whom the House, in its wisdom, would nominate upon the committee.
CORN-RENT TITHES.]
Mr. Green
said, he rose to bring in a bill "to enable clergymen and their parishioners to commute for Corn-Rents the Tithes within their respective parishes." The hon. member dwelt upon the beneficial effects which would flow from such a measure. The principle upon which the bill was founded was not a novel one. It had frequently been applied in the instances of private bills; and he wished to extend
96
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 4.
KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.]
Lord Palmerston
presented the King's Answer to the Address of Thanks as follows:—
"I thank you for this loyal and dutiful Address. The assurances of your cordial co-operation, in advancing the welfare and prosperity of my People, are highly satisfactory to me. You may rely upon my unwearied endeavours to maintain the national interests and honour, and to preserve to this country and the world, the inestimable blessings of peace."
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.]
Mr. John Smith
, in presenting a petition from the Unitarian congregation assembling in the New Gravel-pit Meeting House at Hackney, praying for the repeal of these acts, said, he was bound to observe that it was signed by individuals of talent, wealth, and moral excellence, inferior to no class of the community. There was one point connected with the numerous classes of persons, of whom the petitioners formed a branch, on which he was anxious to say a few words. It had been stated in the newspapers and elsewhere, that the Dissenters had coalesced with the Catholics, for the purpose of obtaining, in conjunction, the removal of their mutual disabilities. Now, he was authorised positively to state, that they had done no such thing. A united committee had been appointed by the Dissenters, to whom was intrusted the management of the application to parliament for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. That committee, which, he could say, without fear of contradic-
97
Ordered to lie on the table.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—CHANGE OF
Lord Palmerston
Mr. Liddell
said, that as it was one of the most important rights which a member of that House possessed, to deliver his opinions on such an occasion as the present, he trusted that no apology was necessary, when he stood up to express, in as few words as possible, his sentiments on the situation in which the government was placed, and to declare the grounds on which alone he could give it is humble support. If any such apology were necessary, it was, he conceived, to be found in the fact, that in the last twelve months the country had seen various important changes in the ministry: that during that period there had been no fewer than four different prime ministers. Twelve months had not gone over their heads since the great struggle took place between Mr. Canning and the powerful party by whom he was opposed, and who, though then defeated, had again gained the ascendancy. Many of those who stood by Mr. Canning in that time of trial had ceased to have any connexion with the ministry: a few of them still remained in authority, For himself, he could truly say, that no man was a more ardent admirer, no man a more cordial supporter, of Mr. Canning. It was true that that great man was no more: they no longer had the benefit of his experience and his talents; but it was to be
98
mens divinior
*
*
99
100
The House having resolved itself into the committee, lord Palmerston moved, "That a Supply be granted to his Majesty."
Mr. Hume
hoped that, before any money was asked for on account of the supply, the whole of the estimates for the year would be laid before the House. Nothing could be more disadvantageous than the practice of calling for money, and obtaining it, by dribblets, while the House was in ignorance of what the extent of the demand would be. He should certainly oppose any grant, until all the charges for the year were on the table.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the estimates for the more considerable sources of expense, the army, navy, and ordnance, would be upon the table before any vote was proposed; but some of the less important accounts, it was impossible to have ready until a later period in the session.
Mr. Hume
saw nothing impossible in the case, and thought it absolutely necessary that the miscellaneous estimates should be produced before any money was voted. These last accounts generally amounted to two or three millions. If ever there was a time when it was necessary to adopt a clear mode of proceeding with regard to the finances, the present was that moment.
Mr. Maberly
said, that the miscellaneous estimates had, of late years, arisen to an alarming height. He therefore hoped, that as the country had got a new ministry, every facility would be afforded the House for watching the progress of these expenses. He would oppose every grant, until the whole of the estimates for the year should be known.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the army, navy, and ordnance estimates, being founded upon the cost of existing establishments, were capable of being furnished early. The miscellaneous estimates, as there was more information necessary to calculate them, could not be produced so soon in the session.
Sir. J. Sebright
hoped that the House would vote no money until the whole of the estimates were before them. It was now necessary to look to the expenditure, not only of every million, but of every shilling of the public money. He pressed this point the more, because he understood that large expenses had been recently incurred for which there was no sufficient warrant. He alluded to the
101
Mr. G. Dawson
said, he was satisfied, that there was no disposition to withhold from the House any estimates; and that the whole would be furnished with all possible expedition.
Sir J. Sebright
expressed his satisfaction at the assurances thus given. A new administration was now commencing its operations, and it could not do any thing that would be more satisfactory to the public, than by promoting inquiry into these subjects. He had not risen with any feeling of enmity towards the present administration. It had never been his practice to enter the ranks of opposition to a government; and, on the other hand, he had never ranged himself as a supporter of any, except that of the late Mr. Canning. Then, indeed, he had thought it his duty to support, as far as he could, an administration which he considered likely to be so beneficial to the country. But it did not follow that the new administration should find an opponent in him. Many persons objected to the duke of Wellington as rime minister. So for as that appointment went it had his warmest approbation. One of the objections urged against the noble duke's fitness for that office was, that he had passed a great portion of his life in military service. So far from looking upon that as a disqualifying circumstance, he was of opinion that the noble duke could not have been brought up in a better school. He had always had great objects before him to decide upon, and great interests to consider; and those habits of command would qualify him better for the leader of an administration, than a mere acquaintance with the routine of office. In the noble duke the country would at least find habits of decision; which was a point of first-rate consideration in the character of every minister; and he (sir J. Sebright) doubted not, that
102
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the repairs of Windsor Castle had undoubtedly exceeded the estimate; but that excess had not arisen out of change, in the original plan, but from the state of the general building; which had been found in a condition which could not be foreseen when the estimate was framed. He believed it would be fully proved, that no blame rested upon the commissioners, or upon the architect.
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, it was so much the object of the hon. member for Aberdeen to object to a supply being granted as to have the means of squaring the general expenditure of the country with its income. No doubt it was necessary to support the army and the navy; and there were some extras which it was equally necessary to support; but he hoped the new government would set to work, and take care, while they supported what was right, to lop off what was superfluous and extravagant. He could not agree with the hon. baronet, who was so pleased that they had got a military man to reign over them. He had rather it had been some one else. It was quite a choaker to him. He had no doubt as to the noble duke's decision of character, and that he would be able to keep the cabinet in good order [a laugh]; and he wished his noble relation had had a little of the same sort of spunk. Still he did not feel the military school the best school for a statesman. Nevertheless, if the noble duke laid by his habits of the sword a little he might make a good and a popular minister. As for his not being in the habit of making long speeches, he considered that circumstance a particularly fortunate one; two thirds of that which was called eloquence only tended to blink the question at issue.
The motion was agreed to.
ROMAN CATHOLIC LAND-TAX BILL.]
Mr. George Bankes
said, that he rose to ask leave to bring in a bill, to which he could anticipate no objection. The question had been, brought before the legislature thirty years ago, with the intention of remedying the defect to which his motion now had reference. Last session he had had the honour of introducing a similar bill to the
103
s
104
s
s
105
Mr. Hume
, in seconding the motion, said, he had heard that the payments of the family of only one Catholic gentleman, sir Richard Beddingfield, had amounted, under this double assessment, to 50,000
l
106
Mr. Hurst
said, he had acted in the capacity of a commissioner, and had been enabled to relieve some families who had been assessed for the double tax from the time of king William. Great difficulties at first occurred in throwing the sum upon any other property; but after a laborious investigation, the commissioners discovered lands which had never been taxed at all; and upon them they imposed the burthen from which they relieved those who sought relief under the act. But he apprehended that great difficulties must attend such, experiments elsewhere; and as the whole amount of this double tax was small, he apprehended there could be no objection to grant the relief proposed by the bill.
Mr. Curteis
said, there had been a manifest disposition on the part of the legislature to relieve the Catholics from this double assessment. The manner in which a similar measure was suffered to pass last session, was extremely indecorous. The House was not aware of the extent of the sacrifice which this bill required. If, as he believed, relief was to be had under the act at present existing, and without any sacrifice of revenue, he saw no reason why they should assent to the proposed bill.
Mr. Baring
thought, that, if there was any case in which economical considerations should be disregarded, it was that which involved in its execution an act of positive cruelty and injustice. The House was not only called upon to grant the boon required upon every principle of justice, but in accordance with a principle recognized by a previous act of parliament. They were not now called upon to grant a relief which ought not be withheld; but they were required to carry into effect a measure of relief, the necessity of which has been admitted, and sanctioned by act of parliament. The hon. member for Sussex had said, that those who advised this measure had not looked into the case of the sufferers, and asserted that the act gave relief in every case where the Land-tax exceeded 4
s
107
Mr. G. Dawson
said, that although he opposed what was called Catholic emancipation, yet none of the reasons which influenced him upon that question, had any bearing upon the present. As the justice of the proposed measure appeared to be generally admitted, it would not be necessary for him to say any thing about it; although he thought that the injustice of the present system had been overrated. That injustice could operate only in a few instances. He believed that, by appealing to the commissioners, relief might be obtained; but only by throwing the surcharge upon the Protestants. This operation was doubtless very complicated, from the many statutes upon the subject, and from the Land-tax, in the time of Mr. Pitt, having been made redeemable. The principal sufferer was, undoubtedly, sir R. Beddingfield. On his estate there was a parish where the act might be brought into operation; but, unfortunately, he was the owner of the whole parish, and all the inhabitants were Roman Catholics; so that there could be no apportionment through which relief might reach them. He could see no remedy for the grievance, but an act which would at once relieve the Catholics, burthening the Protestants of the same district. The loss to the revenue, he trusted, would be trifling; but it would be only an act of justice.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
108
BOARD OF WORKS.]
Mr. Bankes
said, he had a motion to submit to the House, through which he hoped to be able to throw some light upon the conduct of the Board of Works. When the office of surveyor-general was first instituted, it was held by sir W. Chambers, but the surveyor-general not being in these times a professional man, he could not exercise that control over the expenditure of his office, which it was the intention of parliament to ensure. Very large sums were lavished upon works the most tasteless and the most inconveniently contrived, that it was possible to imagine, while there seemed to be no other control over the actions of the architect than his own whim or caprice. There were, in fact, three architects whose power in their respective governments was as absolute as that of any Roman praetor in his province. So jealous were these gentlemen of their authority, that for one architect to pass the brook or rivulet which separated his province from that of another, was an infringement upon the rights and an insult to the dignity, of his brother architect, whose province he thus invaded. The government, therefore, instead of having, as was intended, three architects, of whose united abilities they could avail themselves, were limited to one, who never consulted his supposed coadjutors, and who was perfectly absolute in his own district. The consequence was, that gentlemen saw many fine and expensive buildings, but not one, either well adapted to the purpose for which it was intended, or calculated to reflect credit upon the national taste. In order, if possible, to ascertain the reason of this failure, he begged leave to move for "an account of the Salary and Commission granted to each of the three Architects attached to the Office of Works, under Statute of 54 Geo. 3, c. 157, and of the amount of the same, since the appointment of each of them; and also, of any payments or allowances made to each of them during that period, in respect of any of the Royal Palaces, or other public Buildings."
Mr. Hume
said, that the late chancellor of the Exchequer, lord Goderich, had rendered himself responsible for the good taste of all public buildings in future. On him the blame ought to fall, and not upon the surveyor-general, or the architects.
Mr. Bankes
did not intend to cast the slightest blame upon the surveyor-general, who was a highly honourable man. The truth
109
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 5.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Mr. A. Dawson
said, he rose to present several petitions in favour of Catholic Emancipation, to which he wished to draw the particular attention of the House. The petitioners complained that they were, in violation of the Treaty of Limerick loaded with civil disabilities; and they contended for the right to follow the dictates of their consciences, in matters of a religious nature, without thereby incurring any disqualification whatever. In reference to this subject, he begged leave to state, that he, in common with many others, felt considerable surprise and disappointment, in consequence of no notice having been taken in his majesty's Speech of the situation of Ireland, or of those feelings on religious subjects, which not only agitated that country, but had obtained ground in England. It was said by the noble lord opposite, that the omission was of no consequence, as nothing had occurred in Ireland since the last session that called for any mention of that country. But he would state that this was not the fact; for matters of the deepest importance to the welfare and happiness of Ireland had occurred since that period. What could be a more important feature in the history of Ireland than that with one accord, and from one extremity of the island to another, millions of people had assembled on the same day, and at the same hour, for the purpose of respectfully petitioning the legislature for justice? This, it must be admitted, was a most important event: it showed the fixed determination of one portion of our empire to press their claims on the attention of the legislature. If this were a time of war—if this country were threatened with invasion—would not the legislation attend to this call? And, would they now slumber on their posts? Would they now allow ministers to satisfy
110
Mr. G. Lamb
presented a petition of the same nature from the Roman Catholics of Dungarvon. When he last presented a petition on this subject from his constituents, he had expressed a hope that that would be the last time that they would find it necessary to come forward with a similar petition. But he could not now cherish any such expectations; seeing that, since that time, an event had occurred which presented a bulwark against the claims of the Roman Catholics; namely, the appointment of a prime minister who was decidedly hostile to their demands. It was, however, gratifying to him to observe, that the Catholics had never removed their eyes from the great object which they had held so long in view: it was pleasing to contemplate the fact, that they had not slackened their zeal in endeavouring to attain their just rights; and he hoped they would continue to pursue the same course, until they secured those rights which belonged to them, as citizens and subjects of a free state.
Mr. H. V. Stuart
presented a similar petition from the Roman Catholics of Newton Barry. He said, that his constituents, and the Catholics at large, deeply deplored the change that had taken place in his; majesty's councils. He begged leave in at few words to explain what his feelings were with respect to the present ministry. Some there were who thought a ministry ought to be supported, if they enabled the
111
Mr. D. W. Harvey
wished, when any gentleman representing a borough or a county in Ireland rose to present a petition on this subject, that he would enable him to collect, if possible, what he had never yet been able to do with reference to the Catholic question. After describing, with an eloquence peculiarly their own, the distressed situation of their country, those gentlemen always came to this conclusion, that there was no other mode of shedding light on that benighted country, that there was no other way of restoring tranquillity to seven or eight millions of people, except by granting Catholic emancipation. If it were proved that such was really the
112
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he had heretofore cautiously abstained from any discussion on this question, and he should not have been induced to take a part in it now, if it had not been for the extravagant misrepresentation of argument and of reasoning, in the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. If the Irish members could at all participate in the opinions of that hon. gentleman, they would forfeit all claim to the respect of that House. He would not, however, adopt the hon. member's representation of his (Mr. Rice's) feelings and his arguments; and he was sure there was not one of the representatives of Ireland who would not disclaim that representation, if it were necessary. The members for Ireland could speak for themselves; and if they wanted a mouth-piece, they certainly would not select the hon. member for Colchester. There was one point on which he wished to touch, which was not important as proceeding from the hon. member, but which did derive importance from its having been adopted by other individuals. The hon. member said, that if it could be proved to him, that the physical evils which afflicted the people of Ireland would be removed by granting Catholic emancipation, he would be willing to join with the friends of that question,
113
Ordered to lie on the table.
114
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 6.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Major-general
King, in rising to present a petition from the Roman Catholics of a parish in the county of Sligo, said:—Although I differ totally from the petitioners as to their prayer, which is for the removal of; the civil disabilities imposed on them, I feel it to be my duty to state that the petition is properly worded and respectably signed. In moving that it be brought up, as I am one of those members who have been denounced by an illegal association, acting in the name of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, as an enemy to my country, because we give our support to the present government, I am desirous most clearly to state, that I will never be intimidated by any menace from any body of men belonging to any party, from following the line of duty my conscience may point out to me. In the present head of the government I place the utmost confidence. I am convinced the noble duke will be as tenacious of the rights and liberties of his country in the cabinet, as he was of its safety and honour in the field. I feel a degree of pride in recollecting that I was a witness of his exertions in that theatre of glory. It is with gratification I refer to the brilliant period when I was serving under him, and saw with admiration, the zeal and ability which he displayed. I feel convinced that, in the situation in which he is now placed, he will show an equal degree of attention to all the duties which, in peace and tranquillity, are required from him, as the first minister of the country, as he did in carrying into effect the energetic measures by which he insured its safety and independence. I cannot accede to the opinion I have heard stated in this House, that, the distress which exists in Ireland ought to be attributed to the exclusion of the Catholics from political power. I think that to very different causes it should be assigned. It is absurd to suppose that the violation of the Treaty of Limerick, admitting all that the petitioners say on this head to be correct, could have any effect, at the end of a hundred and forty years, in producing the aggravated distresses which afflict that country. Nor do I believe that the admission of the Catholics to political power would have the least tendency to ameliorate the condition of the Irish, or ad-
115
116
Sir John Brydges
said, he was desirous of taking that opportunity of making a few observations. He would, in the first place, state, that he was as much opposed to the measure of Catholic emancipation, as ever. Nay, his opposition was strengthened by all that he had lately witnessed. He alluded particularly to the declaration of the Catholic Association, that every member of parliament Should be considered an enemy to Ireland who supported the present administration. He agreed with the hon. member for Colchester, that emancipation, as it was called, would not tend to the establishment of tranquillity in Ireland. Let the population have employment, and that would have a tendency to fill their pockets and make them satisfied. He was at a loss to divine why all these petitions were presented at this time. He could only account for it by supposing, either that since last session some new circumstances of importance had occurred in Ireland, or that those who advocated the cause of the Catholics derived their principles from the position of the seats they possessed. Last year, after they had obtained office, they made no effort for the Catholics. Now they were out of office, they were beyond measure anxious for the immediate success of the measure. With regard to the present administration, he was glad that the duke of Wellington was at the head of it, and he would give it his utmost support, thoroughly believing that it would uphold the best interests of the country.
Mr. Leycester
expressed his regret, that the command of the army and the situation of First Lord of the Treasury should be united in the same individual. He could not very well imagine how the duke of Wellington could wean himself from his long-acquired military habits and avocations. He did not think that a military life was the best school for rearing up a constitutional minister. What was, or ought to be, the attributes of a constitutional minister? He ought to have a deep
117
118
—" Nos sævior armis
" Pauperies urget miseramque ulciscitur."
Erin.
Sir J. Newport
said, that as the gallant general had gone through, and commented upon, the whole of the petition, he deemed it necessary to offer a few words. He did not quarrel with the panegyric which the gallant general had pronounced on the duke of Wellington: he himself admired, as much as any man, the great military talents of that distinguished personage. But he would ask, did the duke of Wellington's naval renown entitle him to general confidence as a civil minister? Military and political abilities were distinct things, and were very seldom united. An hon. baronet had asked, whether any thing had occurred since last year to make this show of petitions necessary? The fact was, that they grew out of the circumstance of that House not having done that act of justice, without which they would constantly be receiving petitions from Ireland. And God forbid that it should be otherwise! for if the people did not, by petitioning, show that they had confidence in that House, it would be the most fatal day that was ever known for
119
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that his gallant friend who had introduced the petition, had stated, in a plain and manly manner, the reason why he dissented from the prayer of it. The House ought to thank him for the course which he had taken, especially as he was one of the persons denounced by a self-elected and unconstitutional body. That body had gone to such a length as had never been pursued by any other set of persons. The Catholic Association had assumed, contrary to law, all the power and authority of a legislative body. It not only commanded the population of every parish in Ireland, but it also commanded the pockets of that population. The Association had long been in the habit of receiving a weekly sum, called "the Rent." For what that money was collected, and who had the authority of disposing of it, did not clearly appear. But the time, he believed, was not far distant, when those sums of money would be appropriated in a way which that House and the country would not readily submit to. Those who supported the claims of the Catholics in that House, if they had any love for consistency, and for the constitution, ought to take their stand now, and declare, that until this illegal body was put down, and prevented from bullying the empire, they would not press the
120
Mr. Spring Rice
observed, that the hon. member for Somersetshire was undoubtedly one of the most downright, straightforward opponents of Catholic emancipation; so much so, that he would consider the hon. baronet as the embodied spirit of the whole
121
122
123
Mr. Fergusson
said, he had been hitherto silent on the question of Catholic emancipation, and would not now have addressed the House had not a scene been exhibited, which, though he had not much experience as a member of that House, he believed to be rare in the discussion of any question. The House had heard the gallant officer, in presenting the petition, repel the attacks which he conceived directed against him by the Catholic Asso-
124
Ordered to lie on the table.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.]
Mr. W. Smith
presented a petition from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Kilmain, praying for Catholic Emancipation. He begged to embrace that opportunity of disclaiming, on the part of the Dissenters of England, any junction with the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and, at the same time, distinctly to disavow any hostility, on their part, to the claims of the latter. An incautious and unauthorized paragraph had found its way into the newspapers, which had created the supposition now contradicted by him. For himself, he had voted in favour of that question on every occasion; and he should continue to do so. But with respect to the Dissenters, their case had been under consideration, and they had been advised by their friends to stand on a different ground from the Catholics. The position in which the two parties were placed was, in fact,
125
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Denison
presented a similar petition from Clapham. One third of the subscribers thereto were, he said, members of the church of England, and amongst them was a clergyman of that church. The hon. member for Norwich had stated, that the Dissenters were unwilling to make common cause with the Catholics. Whether they were right or wrong in so doing, he would not give an opinion; but he was quite sure that the whole kingdom ought to unite hand and heart, in endeavouring to obtain a repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, and of all penal restrictions upon religious liberty. There could be neither tranquillity in Ireland nor safety to England until the point was carried; and he entirely agreed with the hon. member who had said, that the House should grant it while it would be received as a boon, instead of waiting until it should be extorted from them in a moment of danger.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ARRESTS FOR DEBT ON MESNE PROCESS.]
Mr. Hume
said, that he had, last, session, submitted to the House several motions on the subject of the Law of Arrest. In consequence of the magnitude of the evil which arose to individuals by their being deprived of their liberty for debt, he had then submitted two bills, for the purpose of doing away with arrest altogether, and giving to the creditor a claim on the property of the debtor. He had not founded those bills on any vague or theoretical idea, as had been insinuated, but on the custom and practice that had existed for centuries in Scotland and in other countries; where, so far from any danger or inconvenience having arisen from such a course, it had been found to produce a most beneficial effect. The result had proved, that there was much more of debt recovered in Scotland than in England, from those who were insolvent: he believed
126
127
l
l
l
l
l
l
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 7.
STATE OF THE COURTS OF COMMON LAW.]
Mr. Brougham
rose, and addressed the House as follows:
*
*
128
129
130
131
132
133
ac etiams
*
Triccum in lege
*
† Ibid.
134
135
136
137
Possunt quia posse videntur."
upon
from
138
139
140
Tempus novatur rerum
141
*
*
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
moon
149
150
Nisi Prius
151
152
l
l
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
tertium quid
164
165
l
166
caput lupinum
hostis humani generis
fera nature
167
168
169
170
171
172
free bench
Pays de Coutûme
173
petition de droit
monstrans de droit
fiat
fiat
174
latitat
fiat
petition de droit
175
176
177
certiorari
178
179
quia timet
180
detinue
181
182
*
*
Com
Doe
Clarke,
B. A.
Doe
Tayleure
B, A.
183
184
*
*
v
185
the use of
far too remarkable to have been inserted:—"By this means a statute made upon great consideration, introduced in a solemn and pompous manner, by this strict construction has had no other effect than to add at most three words to a conveyance."—I Atk. 591. The remark nearly in the same words is adopted by Blackstone, who cites lord Hardwicke in confirmation of it.—2 Com. 336.
186
chronic cases
187
188
189
190
*
*
191
Nisi Prius
192
Cour de Conciliation
*
*
193
194
del credere
195
meditatione fugœ
l
pleading
196
special
197
198
*
*
199
quare clausum fregit
200
201
indebitatus assumpsit
non assumpsit
*
care and circumspection
without giving him previous notice
every complaint be accurately and precisely ascertained in writing
pointedly
*
† Sir W. Jones, 240.
‡ 2 Camp. 631.
§ Lord R. 393.
¶ E. G. His giving as an example of assumpsit, an undertaking without consideration.
202
and exactly answered
clearly stating
anxiety to maintain
restore
parental solicitude
pervades
whole
*
*
203
non est factum
solvit ad diem
solvit post diem
204
indebitatus assumpsit
205
206
207
l
l
l
208
Non est factum—
Solvit ad diem—
Solvit ante diem
*
Solvit post diem—
*
solvit ad diem
non constat
209
in banco
Nisi Prius
l
s
l
s
l
s
an undefended action
210
l
s
l
l
l
l
211
in propria persona
212
213
214
215
216
v
l
l
217
218
*
l
l
v
*
219
alio intuitu
220
221
222
223
224
vice versâ
Perrin
Blake
225
*
*
† Goodtitle
v
226
*
vice versâ
*
v
not
e. g
227
vivâ voce
228
*
*
Spencely
de Willet
229
230
nullum tempus
231
232
Nisi Prius
Nisi Prius
233
234
235
236
237
238
*
*
capias ad respondendum
239
240
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
241
*
*
242
243
*
stabilit usum qui tollit abusum
*
† There is certainly a notion of Mr. Justice Doddridge being the author of this excellent book, or at least standing in the same relation to it as that C. B. Gilbert does to Bacon's Ab.; for the works cited in it make it impossible he should have written it all.
244
1. For taking away Fines upon Bills, Declarations, and Original Writs.
2. For taking away Common Recoveries, and the unnecessary Charges of Fines, and to pass and charge Lands entailed as Lands in Fee-simple.
3. For ascertaining of Arbitrary Fines upon Descent and Alienation of Copyholds of Inheritance.
4. For the more speedy recovery of Rents.
5. For the better regulating of Pleaders and their Fees.
6. For the more speedy and easy recovery of Debts and Damages not exceeding the sum of Four Pounds.
7. For the further declaration and prevention of Fraudulent Contracts and Conveyances.
8. Against the Sale of Offices.
9. For the recovery of Debts owing by Corporations.
10. To make Debts assignable.
11. To prevent solicitation of Judges, Bribery, Extortion, Charge of Motions, and for restriction of Pleaders.
12. An Act for all County Registers, Will, and Administrators; and for preventing Inconvenience, Delay, Charge, and Irregularity, in Chancery and Com-
245
13. Acts for settling County Judicatures, Guardians of Orphans, Courts of Appeal, County Treasurers, and Workhouses, with Tables of Fees and Short Forms of declaration.
14. An Act to allow Witnesses to be sworn for prisoners.
*
*
246
247
The Solicitor General
said, that at that late hour the House would little expect of him, that he should follow his hon. and learned friend through the patient, long, and elaborate, detail, into which he had entered. It seemed to him that the House would arrive—if not at as speedy, at least at a more safe conclusion—if it allowed itself time for reflection, by a short adjournment of the present debate. It would be an ill compliment to his hon. and learned friend, if he were to affect to be
248
Mr. Brougham
concurred in the propriety of an adjournment till to-morrow fortnight.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said:—I cannot, Sir, allow the present occasion to pass without offering a few words. I rejoice that the hon. and learned member concurs in the propriety of the proposal for an adjournment; and it will render it unnecessary for me at present to enter into any detailed discussion. Independently of those difficulties, under which, under any circumstances, I must have laboured, from want of professional knowledge and professional habits, I am sure the House will readily believe, that the occupation in which I have been engaged for the last few days, has tended still further to incapacitate me for the task of discussion at present. I can only speak, therefore, rather of the spirit in which the proposition is made, than attempt to follow the hon. and learned gentleman, who has gone through his great subject with such patience and investigation, and such ability of illustration. I fully concur in the opinion, that it would be unwise to arrive now at a precipitate but conclusive vote; and I think the hon. and learned gentleman must himself perceive, that the terms of his motion are so general, that it is impossible from thence to form any precise notion of the nature of the reforms which he would introduce. I do not mean to quarrel with the generality of those terms; but until the explanation of to-night, speculation as their precise object was rather calculated to mislead. Hence an additional reason is afforded for not calling upon the House at present to express any distinct opinion. The hon. and learned gentleman's notice referred to certain reforms in the law, and its administration in the courts, as time had rendered necessary
249
250
251
252
l
253
254
255
l
256
Mr. Wynn
said, that after so long and so laborious a speech as that which the House had just heard, it was but reasonable that time should be given for considering the various topics referred to. His object in rising was merely to enter into a short explanation. With respect to the appeals before the Privy Council, the reason why a greater number were not disposed of was, because there were no agents or parties before the Privy Council, whom they could hear. Now this, he apprehended, arose from the different manner in which appeals from the inferior courts of Judicature to the superior were disposed of in this country and in India. The course pursued in India was in every respect more summary than in this country. In India, the cause was removed altogether from the inferior to the superior court, the whole being embodied in the written pleadings and arguments of counsel, and out of these the court of Appeal made it a practice never to travel, without calling for any fresh lights upon the subject, whether the judgment given was right or wrong. Perhaps the inhabitants of India were a little disappointed that the same course was not pursued here in this country. Indeed he had reason to know that some discontent had been felt upon
257
Mr. Brougham
said, he should be sorry to be understood as wishing to cast any reflections upon the Privy Council. Of the distinguished persons who attended there as professional judges, he was bound to speak in terms of the highest respect; and of the present Master of the Rolls, in particular, he would say, that there never was a man more anxious to do his duty with despatch. So it was before his time; for he had no objection to make against lord Gifford, or sir John Copley; and still less to sir William Grant, one of the greatest judges that this country ever produced. But the difficulty, known only to professional men, was, that you could not get judges and counsel together more than about eight or nine times a year. The Privy Council had no bar of its own. However numerous the appeals might be, they were obliged to await the convenience of the few who practised in the court. Of these, about four attended from the court of Chancery, and the same number from the King's-bench; but when those courts sat, these gentlemen could not attend. There was scarcely any thing done before the Privy Council, except upon holydays, such as the 30th of January, the Purification, or a few such days. Surely this was a state of things which ought not to continue. These appeal causes were of the greatest importance, few of them involving property under from 50 to 60,000
l
258
The debate was then adjourned till the 22nd instant.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 8.
SAVINGS BANKS.]
Mr. Hume
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject of considerable importance. He was anxious to move for certain returns, in continuation of former returns, with a view of showing the enormous expense at which Savings Banks were maintained by the public. He was one of the earliest and most active in promoting them, and therefore he could not be actuated by any hostile view in his present proceeding. He must, however, candidly state, that when he promoted the establishment of Savings Banks he did not expect that they would cost the country half a million sterling for their maintenance. He expected that such institutions would pay their own expense, and that the poor man would, by their means, be enabled to invest his ten, twenty, or fifty pounds, with as much security as the rich. He had never contemplated that they were to receive a larger interest than what the public creditor received. It was high time that the subject should be inquired into. Up to the 5th January 1827, the amount paid by the public was 432,080
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
259
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 11.
STATE OF IRELAND.]
The Earl of Darnley
said, he wished to put a question to the noble duke opposite, with respect to a subject of the greatest importance. He need scarcely add, that he alluded to the State of Ireland. Notwithstanding what had passed on a former occasion, when a question had been put to the noble duke, to know whether it was in the contemplation of ministers to realize a report which had been spread abroad, that though his majesty's government were averse to granting the whole of what the Roman Catholics asked for, it was intended to grant some part,—notwithstanding that the noble duke had answered, that his majesty's government had no intention of adopting any such measure, still he could not suppose but that the noble duke must be convinced, that Ireland was in a very unsatisfactory and alarming state. He, therefore, wished to know if it was the intention of ministers to bring forward any proposition relating to that country? Though he was persuaded, that nothing effectual could be done without granting concessions to the Catholics, still he hoped that something might be done to alleviate the unfortunate condition of Ireland. If the noble duke should state, that there was no intention on the part of the government to bring forward any measure, he should then feel it his duty, in pursuance of the notice which he had given last session, to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the population of Ireland, to see what measures can be adopted for its amelioration.
The Duke of Wellington
said, he felt as much anxiety with regard to the situation of Ireland, as any noble lord present; but he had no intention of bringing forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble earl. There would be measures brought forward in the course of the session, in the other House; but the measures contemplated by his friends and colleagues were not those which the noble earl had in contemplation.
260
TURKEY AND GREECE—BATTELE OF NAVARIN — MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.]
The order of the day being read,
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, it was with great regret that he stated to their lordships that his noble friend (lord Holland) who had given notice of a motion for today was, through indisposition, unable to attend. His noble friend had four motions ready, which he had intended to move that day. All those motions were more or less connected with the question of our relations with Turkey, and the measures taken by the government of this country relative to the affairs of Greece. Two of those motions were such only as tended to illustrate the views of his noble friend respecting the nature of our relations with Turkey. Those questions it was not his intention to touch upon, leaving to his noble friend, on his recovery, to use his own discretion in bringing them forward. The other two which he intended to submit to their lordships, were merely motions for additional papers, to enable their lordships to make a fair estimate of the policy of this country; which he was convinced it was impossible for their lordships to do, relying solely on the papers which had been laid before them. Another object of these motions—no less important than the former—was to obtain additional information, that we might pay the debt which was due to our gallant officers engaged in the battle of Navarin: for although the country was fairly, fully, and perfectly satisfied with their meritorious conduct, from reading the newspapers and the gazette, which communicated the intelligence of that battle, yet their lordships were far from possessing that information which would enable them to know what were the instructions given to the commanders of the combined fleet, or whether those instructions were well or ill carried into execution. He was sure that every noble lord would agree with him when he stated, that there was no object which Englishmen had more at heart, than to give to every gallant officer—and in this instance the officer was one of the best and bravest in the service—the opportunity of clearing up any insinuations which might have been thrown out against his character, and of removing any surmise, that his conduct was not as satisfactory to the existing government as it was to the late administration, to the country at large, and to his Sovereign, who had
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
cestui-que-trust
cestui-que-trust
269
270
Earl Dudley
said, he feared he should disappointment the expectation of his noble friend, when he stated that it was not his intention to follow him through the various topics upon which he had dilated, and through which he had presumed, somewhat too hastily, that it was his duty to follow him. What he had to say would relate chiefly to the demand for the papers which his noble friend had called for. His noble friend had urged, as a principal reason for their production, that they were necessary to the vindication of the gallant admiral who commanded at Navarin and the officers who served under him. His answer to that was, that the character that was not attacked required no defence. Admiral Codrington, so far from having his conduct attacked by his majesty's government, had received distinguished rewards at their hands. He therefore stood in no need of vindication from them. If his conduct had been criticised by those who had no just grounds for judging of it, that was not a reason why his majesty's ministers should make out a defence for him, by the production of papers, which, for grave political reasons, it was inexpedient to produce. Besides, even if there were no objection to the production of these papers, others would be required in illustration of them; for they could only be
271
272
Lord Goderich
said—If, my lords, I feel myself compelled to offer myself to your lordships' notice at this early period of the debate, I have to offer as an apology that the noble earl who has introduced the
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, in explanation, that the noble viscount seemed to think that he had insinuated something like duplicity against him. If a single word had escaped him which could bear such a construction, nothing could be further from his intention. If there was any man whose character was peculiarly above such a suspicion, that man was the noble viscount.
The Earl of Eldon
said, that after the explanation which had been given by the noble Secretary of State, he did not rise for the purpose of entering upon the question to which the motion immediately referred. Although, on the one hand, he could not undertake to recommend to ministers the adoption of the noble earl's motion, on the other hand, he could not sit in his place, and hear it said, by any authority in that House, that the measures of the government with which he had been connected—he meant at the time when the protocol was signed by the noble duke now his majesty's prime minister—were to be looked upon in the same point of view, as regarded the law of nations, as the treaty of July 1827. He would not follow the noble mover in the discussion of the policy of the measures of the protocol, and of the treaty. Nothing, he was sure, could be more repugnant to itself, than that the noble earl should set out by telling their lordships that the production of the papers was indispensable to the discussion of these measures, and that he should afterwards launch out into an ample examination of the propriety of those measures, which he had before said could not be properly discussed in the absence of information. He would, however, trouble
284
285
The Duke of Wellington
said, he did not rise to discuss the principles of the protocol, or of the treaty of July. The time would come when it would be open to their lordships to discuss the policy of those measures fully, and it would be his duty to meet that discussion. It was his firm intention to carry into full and ample execution, according to its spirit, and letter, the treaty to which his majesty was a party. It was his duty to carry that treaty into effect with good faith; and it did not become him to cast any imputation upon it, in the way of comparison with the original measure—the protocol of St. Petersburgh. It was true that the protocol did not carry with it the measures of execution which were attached to the treaty; but it should be recollected, that such measures were under consideration at the time of the protocol, and that they must at some future time be taken into consideration. Although those measures of execution were not the same as were attached to the treaty—although they were not coercive—they were yet such as were calculated to induce the Porte to accept of the proffered mediation. It was not his intention to go into a minute discussion on this subject at the present moment. He would assure the noble mover, that it was his decided intention to carry that treaty into effect, in its spirit as well as in its letter. But he could not help dissenting from a great portion of the speech of the noble lord. He did not admit that it was the right of one country to interfere with the internal regulation of another in all cases. No doubt the political position of countries, in some instances, might justify such interference; but such was not the general rule. Non-interference was the rule: interference the exception. That was the only true and safe policy. He did not mean to say that the interference in the present case was not necessary. He himself had been the means of negotiating the act of interference; but that was an exception to the conduct of this country when her interference had been solicited on the occasion of insurrections in other nations. So far he stated in corroboration of what had been said by his noble friend (lord Dudley) on the subject of the motion. With regard to the instructions, there was no doubt that they were intended
286
287
The Marquis of Clanricarde
said:—My lords, it is with great diffidence that I intrude upon the time and attention of this House; but, notwithstanding what has fallen from the noble earl on the cross-bench upon the subject of explanations, I cannot refrain from seeking to obtain a
288
289
"There is but one other point in your grace's speech which appears to call for any observation from me. Your grace emphatically says, that
your
wholly
any subject,
290
Earl Dudley
said, that in answer to the observations of the noble marquis, he rose to state the two reasons which had formed the grounds of his recent conduct. And first he would allude to those peculiar and personal circumstances which, it was said, ought to have influenced his conduct as an individual; and then to those public and political principles which ought to have influenced his conduct as a minister. On both these heads he should offer a few words. And, first, as to the peculiar grounds arising out of personal attachment, which ought, in the judgment of that noble marquis, to have prevented him from taking office under the present administration. It was stated, that there were certain persons in the present government, who, soon after the formation of the late cabinet, had used angry expressions towards some of the members of that cabinet, and particularly towards its illustrious head; and it was therefore said, that as he had been a member of that cabinet, and had acted under its leader, he ought to have declined taking a situation in the present administration. Now, he would ask their lordships, whether they would sanction the doctrine, that the use of such expressions ought never to be forgotten,—whether they would admit such a plea as the sacred duty of immortalizing hatred, and of sacrificing public grounds of action to the claims of private friendship,—whether, looking back at the history of the country, and of the most distinguished characters who had conducted its councils, they would tell the world that, in point of prudence, of duty, and of private feeling, public men were bound to cherish for ever the sentiments of political opposition which they had once had the misfortune to entertain against, each other? He would remind their lordships, that the life of his lamented friend afforded a strong proof in illustration of his opinion upon this particular point. Were there ever feelings of greater bitterness;—feelings which displayed themselves not merely in the shape of personal ill will, but of direct quarrel
291
292
293
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that although he had sufficient motives in what had already passed that evening before their lordships to determine him upon undergoing the painful task of asking their lordships' attention to circumstances purely personal to himself, still he deemed it most respectful to the House, to the importance of the question which had been moved by his noble friend, and to the great political considerations with which that question was connected, to ask the attention of their lordships on that evening to a short detail of facts, which it would have been his bounden duty, at some time or other, to submit to their lordships. He should do this the more willingly, because, though he was under the necessity of adverting to several considerations personal to himself, he should certainly take no part in those views of a personal nature, which had been lately brought forward by the noble earl at the head of the foreign department, and by the noble marquis who preceded him, respecting the circumstances which had led the noble earl to leave that government of which he and the noble earl formed a part, and to join that of which the noble earl now was a constituent member.
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
Lord Ellenborough
said, that whenever his majesty's ministers feel themselves at liberty to lay upon the table of the House all the papers, from which alone a full knowledge of all the circumstances which had taken place could be derived, he should be as ready as the noble marquis himself to express his opinion upon them to the House. He would assure him, that whatever his opinion might have been, previous to his joining the present administration, on the subject alluded to, it had remained unaltered, and no man had presumed to question him on the subject. The noble marquis had considered it as a proof of inconsistency on his part, that he (lord E.) who had disapproved of the expedition to Portugal should have now approved of the expressions made use of in his majesty's Speech. That expedition was sent out to Portugal in fulfilment of our treaty, and its object was to preserve the peace of Portugal; but, admitting that he had disapproved of that expedition, surely there was no reason why he should be dissatisfied with the announcement in his majesty's Speech of the probability of the troops being soon withdrawn. The noble marquis, however, was wrong both in his facts and his reasonings. He had never disapproved of the expedition to Portugal. How could he disapprove of the honourable performance of a treaty? But he did disapprove of calling that expedition "a master stroke of policy," because that could not have been a master stroke of policy, in which there was no choice left, and which executed only the conditions of a treaty. If, however, he had disapproved of the expedition, how much more warmly must he approve of that part of his majesty's Speech in which it was announced that that expedition was at an end? Then as to the foreign policy of Mr. Canning; he had been asked, how he would act on that policy with his present colleagues? But the fact was, that he had never heard any man attempt to, explain what the principles of Mr. Canning's foreign policy were, as contradistinguished from those of his predecessor. He very well remembered that
303
304
Lord Wharncliffe
said, the noble baron had stated, that he considered Mr. Canning to have been a dangerous minister, but that he would support a government founded upon his principles. Now, must not the noble lord himself be a dangerous minister, if he acted upon such principles? They had been publicly told, that the reason why the friends of Mr. Canning had joined the present government was, that they had received a pledge that the policy of the last government would be followed in every respect. It was not enough to tell the country, that the treaty of the 6th of July was to be carried into execution. He would appeal to the House, whether Mr. Canning was not at the head of a party acting upon more liberal principles than any other; and admiring, as he did, Mr. Canning, he could not believe that the policy of the present administration was, to follow the footsteps of Mr. Canning. They were told that his commercial policy was to be followed; that the corn bill introduced last session was to be reconsidered; but where did the noble Secretary of State look for support for that measure? Did he not see sitting by his side those who defeated that bill? He was convinced that these pledges were not worth a farthing. He should wait to see what the measures of the present government would be before he would give it his support. He hoped that they would be such as he could approve of; but, as to their being conducted upon the principles of Mr. Canning's policy, that was a
305
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that after what had been said, he would not press his motion.—It was accordingly withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 11.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.]
Mr. Sheriff Stable
presented, at the bar, a Petition from the Corporation of London praying for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that in a very large assembly of the Common Council, the majority of whom were members of the established church, he was happy to say the petition had passed with only two or three dissenting voices.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, the petition had been carried by a very considerable majority in the common council, a body consisting of two hundred and sixty persons, two hundred and forty of whom were annually elected. The petition, therefore, spoke the sentiments of that body, and, through them, of the citizens of London. Nothing could more clearly show the "march of the mind," as it was called, than that, in 1790, a similar measure when put forward in the common council, had scarcely a hand held up in favour of it: on the contrary strong resolutions were passed, thanking those members who had voted against the repeal of those obnoxious acts; but now, after the lapse of thirty-seven years, only three or four hands were held up against the petition. He trusted that the illustrious individual at the head of the ministry, and who had been so long at the head of the army, would take a liberal view of this question. He must be well acquainted with the inconvenience which resulted to officers who were compelled, on their arrival in this country, to take the oaths under these acts; and who, if they did not, were liable to be informed against, by any common informer.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
hoped, that the prayer of the petition would be complied with. It was a folly to be passing, from year to year, an Indemnity act. The law as it now stood occasioned great inconvenience to members of the established church. The Dissenters could not, from conscientious scruples, fill certain offices. The consequence was, that they must be
306
Mr. Fergusson
concurred entirely in the liberal sentiments which had fallen from the hon. member. For himself, he was prepared to say, that no religious creed ought to disable men from filling any situation, military or civil. At the same time, it was right to guard against alarming the prejudices of those who thought that the Dissenters could not be relieved unless the Catholics were relieved also. He had shown by the vote he had given, that he was favourable to granting the claims of the Catholics, but at the same time he was glad to see the two questions separated. He thought that the questions ought to be perfectly distinct. He was himself a Dissenter from the church of England, but only because he professed the established religion of Scotland, the land in which he was born. He thought it a monstrous thing, while there were no tests imposed upon persons of the church of England in Scotland, that he, a Scotchman, should be required to undergo any tests in England. If he had an opportunity, when the question came before the House, he would state his reasons why he did not think this brand of ignominy ought to be continued on him, merely because he happened to be born in a different faith from others.
Mr. John Martin
complained, that the Corporation of London, while they thus prayed for relief to a certain portion of their citizens, were themselves guilty of intolerance and oppression. He then alluded to some proceedings towards certain butchers in Whitechapel, who had been refused their freedom, on the authority of a bye-law, because they professed the Jewish religion.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, there certainly did exist such a law. It was an
307
Mr. Hume
said, there were two classes of persons in the city of London, the one remarkable for just and liberal conduct, the other for conduct directly the reverse. The gaols bore testimony to the illiberality of courts of Aldermen, who had set on foot prosecutions which government, greatly to its credit, had generally discountenanced. He verily believed, that if the law allowed them to revert to the fire and the faggot, the court of Aldermen would take advantage of it.
Ordered to lie on the table.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
Sir G. Cockburn,
in moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, said that, it was his intention to ask for a vote of seamen for six months, and not for the whole year. He had felt it his duty to take this course, because a Finance Committee was about to be appointed, and because it was the course which had been adopted, under similar circumstances, in 1817.
Mr. Maberly
said, that as the course adopted in 1817 had been alluded to, he rose to object to that course being so essentially deviated from in the present instance. He was aware that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had given notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the finances of the country, but then, in 1817, no supplies were voted for ten days after the message of the Prince Regent had been sent down to the House. A very different course, however, seemed now about to be adopted. When the House was last year promised, that such a committee should be appointed, every measure of finance was postponed, because the House was convinced that Mr. Canning desired earnestly to have the financial affairs of the country thoroughly investigated. The right hon. Secretary opposite must, however, see that the House could not give that confidence to him, which it had reposed in the right hon. gentleman now no more. That right hon. gentleman had acceded to the wishes of the House; but the right hon. Secretary opposite, who had so long been a member of his majesty's government, had never yet acceded to the importunities which had been urged. Be-
308
Mr. Peel
said, he certainly had no right to complain of the observations of the hon. gentleman. The ground he had taken was a perfectly fair parliamentary ground; but he entreated the hon. member to hear him, and he thought he would see that his objections were not so strong as he appeared to think them. The estimate was founded upon the number of men which it was thought necessary to maintain for the service of the country. It was the province of the sovereign to state that number to the House: and the only vote that the House would be called upon to pass would be, for the wages and victuals of these men, not for the whole year, but for six months; in order that, if the committee of finance found it necessary to make any alteration in this part of the expenditure, they might do so the more easily. Now, in this the precedent of 1817 had been their guide. In 1817, the vote had been asked for a few days later than it was now, because, to defer it, would be to inconvenience the public service. As to the precedent of 1817, it had been followed in every respect, with the exception that the names of the persons were not known. The hon. member had stated, that he could not have confidence in him, because he had long been a member of government, and had never brought forward any motion of this kind. This, however, was inaccurate. It so happened, that he was a member of the government in 1817, and that he also was a member of that finance committee; from which it
309
Sir John Sebright
said, that his opposition was, and should be, given to measures, and not to men. If it could be shown to him, that the public service would be impeded by the refusal of the present vote, he would support it; but no such case had yet been made out. He trusted that the government would proceed voluntarily to measures of economy and retrenchment; but if it did not take that course, it would be the duty of the House to enforce it. He repeated that he was not desirous to oppose the present ministry, especially since it contained one right hon. gentleman peculiarly calculated to take an extended view of the national finances; but for twenty years past the public money had been voted away, session after session, with a facility which he must characterize as indecent. For himself, he could see no possible danger to the public service in taking the present vote only for the term of three months.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
wished to know, whether the present ministers, on coming into their places, had found any plans of economy matured by their predecessors? The late Mr. Canning, in giving notice of the finance committee, had stated, that ministers would apply themselves diligently to the reduction of the public expenditure. Under these circumstances, he was desirous of knowing whether any progress had been made towards the reduction of the public burthens by the predecessors of the present ministry? The frequent recurrence of struggles for ascendancy, of defeats, and of changes, tended greatly to weaken the confidence of the country in the government, and distracted the attention of ministers from a business to which their whole attention should be devoted. He was unwilling to obstruct any necessary supply; yet he thought that ministers ought to explain to the House their intentions.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that as he was not
310
Mr. Hume
said, that the charges of the country were going on, year after year, increasing. He would not, therefore, consent to vote a single shilling until the estimates were regularly before the House. He should be glad to hear whether the recent government had devoted any of its attention to the subject of economy. He did not object to the present ministry; nor would he oppose them, while they took a course likely to be beneficial to the country; but he did insist, that it was criminal to grant them any vote, until they declared what the expenditure of the whole year would be likely to require. There could be no difficulty, if ministers meant fairly, in their doing this. The right hon. Secretary opposite told the House, that it was the province of the sovereign
311
The House having resolved itself into the committee, sir G. Cockburn moved, "That 30,000 seamen, including 9,000 marines be granted for the service of the navy, for six months."
Mr. Hume
opposed the grant, and declared that the legislature was going on, year after year, in a course of disgracefully wasteful expenditure, exceeding the income of the country, and making up the deficiency by the issue of Exchequer-bills. In 1792, the whole expenditure of the establishments of the country had been a little more than 5,000,000
l.
l.
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, he could not allow this first vote to pass without making a few remarks. He did not so much object to the particular vote now before the committee, as to the fact, that they had not a full statement before them of the whole of the estimates. Great expectations were held out from the appointment of the finance committee. He hoped they would be realised; but he could not conceal his fears that this committee would be used, as former committees had been; that it would be made the 'scape-goat for the proposition of fresh taxes, which the ministry would not dare to propose on their own responsibility. He owned he had had great hopes that the right hon. gentleman, whose loss he, in common with the country, so sincerely deplored, would have been enabled to meet the financial difficulties of the country. Those difficulties could not now be concealed; yet at present he saw
312
l.,
l.,
l.
Mr. John Wood
complained of the want of clearness in the accounts laid before the House. He thought that any two bankers' clerks well acquainted with business, could put them in a shape in which they could be understood. At present, they were nearly unintelligible.
Mr. Maberly
said, that the amount of the sinking fund was now fixed at 5,000,000
l.
313
l.,
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, the hon. gentleman was correct in what he said respecting the Sinking-fund being payable out of the consolidated fund, whether there was or was not an excess of income. As to the army and navy pensions, the last instalment would be paid in July next, and it would be for the finance committee to consider that as well as the other branches of our expenditure. He thought there was nothing extraordinary in the vote now asked for; as it was usual to give ministers credit for a vote of this kind on their own responsibility. The increase of our naval force this year was not a subject for the consideration of a finance committee; and therefore no delay of the present vote could be necessary on that account. The question of the policy of that increase might be entered into at present, or at any future period; but the finance committee could not enter into the subject of the number of men which might be necessary. That was a part of its duty which, he was convinced, the House would not delegate to it. The amount of force necessary would be proposed by government, and the House would deal with it as it thought fit; but the finance committee would have nothing to do with it, though it might inquire as to the amount of expense by which such force could be maintained. As to the vote before the committee, he would only add, that whenever the subject of the treaty which had been referred to should come before the House, he should be ready to defend its policy, and to contend that it was not an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent state, but that it was called for by circumstances which could be met in no other way.
314
After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the motion 48, Against it 15. Majority 33.
List of the Minority.
Dawson, Alex.
Robinson, G. R.
Gordon, R.
Stuart, John
Guest, J. T.
Waithman, ald.
Harvey, D. W.
Wilbraham, George
Hume, J.
Wood, Alderman
Maberly, colonel
Wood, John.
Martin, John
TELLER.
Monck, J. B.
Maberly, John.
On the next resolution, "That 1,579,000
l.
Mr. Hume
complained of this attempt to vote money without notice having been given. In the notices of the day it was stated that a supply of seamen would be moved, but nothing was said about their wages or victuals. There was a considerable amount of unappropriated balances in the Exchequer, which the government might make use of without calling on that House for further sums, until the promised financial explanation had been given.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he was lost in astonishment at what had fallen from the hon. member. If he had not so often heard his voice in committees of supply, he should have supposed that it was some extremely young member who had entertained a notion, that, because there was a balance in the Exchequer, it was at the disposal of government. Did the hon. member know so little of the history of the constitution—did he so little understand the character of a committee of supply—as to suppose that, were there millions in the Exchequer, the government could touch a single shilling without a grant from parliament? The hon. member did not know the A, B, C of the progress of supply if he did not know the truth of this. If the hon. member had found out the secret of providing wages and victuals without money, he had indeed made a most brilliant discovery.
Mr. Hume
said, that if he had not yet learnt his A, B, C, he would endeavour to study his letters. He maintained, however, that the right hon. gentleman was wrong in the position which he took. The committee had only received notice that a vote of seamen would be moved for, and now they were called upon to grant money for their support, which was decidedly contrary to the practice of parliament.
Mr. Huskisson
undertook to say, that
315
Mr. Croker
said, that the vote had been framed in the same manner as at present for the last nineteen years.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, it was hard upon his hon. friend to tell him that he did not know his A, B, C. He was sure his hon. friend did know his letters—he meant so far as regarded taxation; for he knew nothing of his hon. friend's grammatical learning.
Mr. Hume
said, he was not to be put down by such observations as had been addressed to him that night. If personalities were resorted to, he could retaliate. He still thought the motion improper.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. member had certainly misunderstood what had fallen from his right hon. friend, if he supposed that he meant any thing personally offensive to him. He had merely stated, that the hon. member seemed to be unacquainted with the A, B, C, of the process of a committee of supply. There was nothing in that observation which ought to give the hon. member uneasiness.
After a desultory conversation, the resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 12.
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, he rose to renew his entreaty to the House, that they would again take into their earnest consideration the present state of the Court of Chancery. He could assure them that in any statement he might have to make, he did not intend to exaggerate the existing evil. Although he believed that the motion could not be objected to by any individual, still he thought it was only fair to the House and to the country to state, not, however, at any length, his view of the subject, and thus to place before the House the real evils of this court and to point out the
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
Non meus hic sermo.
328
Bis dat, qui cito dat.
329
330
" Nulli negabimus, nulli differemus, nulli vendemus justitiam vel rectum.
331
332
The Solicitor-General
said, he saw no possible objection to the motion. Indeed, without the most detailed information it would be impossible to give any correct opinion upon the matter.
Mr. Fergusson
thought, the public were much indebted to his hon. friend, the member for Durham, for his persevering efforts to call the attention of parliament to the defects and abuses of the court of Chancery, with a view to their remedy; but he confessed, that he was not prepared to give his assent, from any thing he had heard either upon that or a former occasion, to the main project of his hon. friend, and which he held forth as a cure for the evils of which he complained; namely, the separation of the jurisdiction in bankruptcy, from the great seal. From the vast importance of the cases decided in bankruptcy, involving the most, difficult questions of law and equity, and on which interest of the greatest magnitude to the commercial world depended, he (Mr. F.) was convinced, that they never would be satisfied with the decision, in such cases of any but the highest authority; and although in this department of bankruptcy as well as others, the lord Chancel
333
334
335
336
337
Mr. Secretary Peel
was of opinion, that, it was desirable to postpone any discussion of the question, until the papers moved for by the hon. and learned gentleman had been produced. So far was the lord Chancellor from having abandoned the principle of the bill which he had introduced into that House, that it was his intention to issue forty or fifty orders founded on the recommendations of the commission. In his (Mr. Peel's) opinion, it was better to look forward to future amelioration, than to revive the discussions to which the report of the commission had given rise. He certainly, however, could not think that the composition of that commission had been objectionable, because there were persons belonging to it, who were unconnected with the court of Chancery. Had it been otherwise, he was persuaded that an objection would have been made to the constitution of the commission, and that, the usefulness of having persons upon it who were embarrassed by no professional prepossessions would have been warmly urged. There was one matter of great importance in the hon. gentle-
338
Mr. G. Bankes
denied that the business of the court of Chancery was increasing, at the present moment, in the degree which had been represented. He protested, too, against, the separation of the bankruptcy business from the Chancellor's jurisdiction. The questions arising in bankruptcy were so nice, and of so much importance, that they required that the attention of the first judge in the country should be directed to them.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
, in reply, said that his statements as to the business of the Court had been taken from the papers of the judges themselves. His observations as to the present lord Chancellor were not intended in the slightest degree to impugn that learned lord's professional character; but the fact, was, that he was not an equity lawyer; and that there had been fewer appeals in his time, because people saw no advantage in appealing from the Vice-chancellor or the Master of the Rolls, who were highly conversant with equity practice, to a judge. As to the observations of the right hon. Secretary, he had been assured by lord Eldon himself that that learn
339
The motion was agreed to.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
On the order of the day for bringing up the Report of the Committee of Supply,
Mr. Hume
expressed his determination to oppose the motion. He thought that the House ought not to have been called upon to vote any money, until ministers had made a general statement of the scale at which the whole of the establishments of the country were to be maintained, He would not be deterred from condemning what he conceived to be the profligate waste of the public money, because the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had stated last night, that the same course had been pursued for nineteen years. Ministers required thirty thousand seamen for the present year, which was precisely the amount voted last year. From this he thought he had a right to infer that they did not intend to reduce the establishments at all. Yet it was only last session that a minister, who was now unfortunately unable to keep the pledge which he made, declared that our finances were in such a precarious state as to render the most rigid economy absolutely necessary. The existing state of the world was not such as to require the maintenance of a large naval force. The piracies in the West Indies and in South America, which had been urged as a plea for increasing our navy, had been completely put down. The Turkish fleet, too, had been destroyed. On what pretext, then, was the present establishment required? After repeating the observations which he made in the committee last night, the hon. member concluded by moving, that the report be brought up on this day week.
Mr. Croker
observed, that the statement with which the hon. member commenced his speech might be taken as a tolerably fair specimen of the correctness of the statements with which he was in the habit of indulging the House. Referring to something which had passed in the committee last night, the hon. member had said that he would not be deterred from criticising the scale of public expense and the waste of public money, because he (Mr. Croker) had told him, that the same course had been pursued for nineteen years. That was the statement which the hon.
340
l.
l.
>coute qui coute.
341
Mr. Bernal
was of opinion that some expressions which had fallen from the right hon. member for Liverpool last night required explanation. The right hon. gentleman had distinctly stated, that the projected finance committee had nothing to do with the amount of the civil and military establishments; that it was not within the scope of any finance-committee, to touch upon those delicate topics. If this was the case, what was the committee to do? and what was the House to do with its report when made? What was the meaning of taking the vote of seamen for six months only, if it was not in anticipation of some effect to be produced by the report of the committee? If, however, that committee was to be restricted in its operations—if it was only to report that our finances were in a delicate situation, he would call it a splendid humbug on the country. For his own part, he could not see any thing unconstitutional in the committee determining the amount of our military as well as our civil establishments. If it had not that object, what was the use of postponing the other grants until it was formed? Unless some redaction was contemplated, he could not see why the amount of all the grants for the service of the year should not be stated at once. It would not do to approach our financial difficulties gently. They ought to be treated in a bold manner. The wound should be probed to the bottom. No temporary applications would be sufficient. If the intended finance committee was not appointed for such object, he cared not a straw for its appointment. He hoped the right hon. gentleman opposite would give the House some explanation on this point.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that after the appeal which had been made to him, he could not remain silent. He would admit that the estimates, as laid before the House, were those which had been prepared by lord Godcrich's administration. It was asked, whether he was prepared to pledge himself to those resolutions? He would answer, that they were, he believed, made up with reference to the present wants of the
342
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that he had pretty much the same expectation as to any great good being to be done by the finance committee as had been expressed by the hon. member for Rochester; but he thought the hon. member for Aberdeen could not possibly bring forward any plan of economy less likely to be popular, than any thing materially crippling the British navy; particularly, as he was informed, by a very high naval authority, that the ships were now sent to sea so extremely under-manned, that in case of any sudden collision some very awkward accidents might be expected.
Mr. Monck
said, that the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty had not given a satisfactory answer to the statements of his hon. friend. It did appear, that since 1817, our naval force had been increased from nineteen thousand to thirty thousand men. A thousand men had been for the purpose of suppressing the piracies in the West Indies; then came other additions, in consequence of the Burmese war, the protection of our commerce in South America, and the affairs of the Mediterranean. Now, if all these causes were in operation together, he could easily understand the necessity for keeping up our naval force to its proposed amount; but as most of those causes had ceased to exist, why should the larger force be continued? There were two things to be considered with respect to our naval force: first, what was the amount, necessary to be kept up; and next, what were the resources of the country to bear the expense? As to the first, he could not see why the same necessity for protecting her commerce would not apply to America. She had a commerce to protect as well as England, and yet her naval force bore no proportion to that which we kept up. Then, as to the means for keeping this force up, he thought, the country could not afford it; and he had no doubt, that if such extravagant establishments were maintained, it would lead, at no very distant period, to some dreadful explosion, in which the credit of the country must suffer. Under all the circumstances of
343
Sir Byam Martin
said, that great public inconvenience would follow if any delay took place in bringing up the report, as the funds were required for the public service.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that was no reason why the House should not do its duty. Why had not parliament been summoned to meet in November, if there was a necessity for having these votes so soon? As to the vote before the House, I he would not concur in it, until a statement of the whole services of the year were laid before them. The only effectual control which the House had over the administration of the country was to withhold the supplies, and he would do so; until the accounts he had mentioned were supplied. He would not consent to the vote on the credit of ministers, or in anticipation of what might be done by the finance committee; for in the labours of that committee he professed he had no confidence.
Mr. G. Robinson
said, he expected much benefit to the country from the labours of the finance committee, but he hoped that they would not be restricted from inquiring into the extent of our civil establishments. With respect to the present ministry, he highly approved of the members who composed it, and he should be glad if their measures were such as he could support.
Mr. Peel
said, the hon. member was mistaken in supposing that such an opinion had fallen from his right hon. friend, as that the finance committee would be restricted from inquiring into the civil establishments of the country. In the course of their labours, they would be allowed as much scope as any other finance committee that had ever been appointed.
Mr. K. Douglas
said, it was impossible to refuse the present vote, without greatly injuring the public service. The increase in our naval force was necessary for the due protection of our commerce in every part of the world. If England did not maintain her superiority at sea, she could not maintain her proper rank amongst nations.
Mr. C. P. Thompson
said, that the representation made of the words which had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for
344
345
346
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that he would leave the House to judge whether the hon. gentleman had any right to infer from any thing that he had said that night, that any difference of opinion existed between himself and the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies on the subject of the finance committee. All he had done that night was to deny that his right hon. colleague had asserted that the finance committee had nothing to do with the extent of our civil establishments. Having said thus much, he trusted he should not be considered as acting disrespectfully to the House, when he declared his intention of postponing till Friday next, any explanation respecting the finance committee. Thus much he would state now, that no limitation would be imposed upon its powers which had not been imposed on the finance committees which were appointed in 1786, 1797, and 1817.
Mr. Maberly
said, he recollected extremely well, that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had stated distinctly that the finance committee was to have nothing to do with the extent of our naval and military establishments, but that it was to confine itself entirely to an inquiry into the amount and appropriation of the money votes. He was satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Secretary had just given the House. If the committee of finance were to have the same powers which had been conferred upon former committees, he should be satisfied. One thing was of importance—the names which the right hon. gentleman would submit to the House on Friday night. He should judge
347
Mr. Warburton
could not agree with the hon. member, that the House or the country would be satisfied with the pledge which the names of the committee afforded. He should look to the powers proposed to be given to the committee not to the names of its members.
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that as they had been told that the committee was to have the same powers as were intrusted to former committees of finance, he would refer the House to the resolution tinder which the finance committee of 1817 had sat. Reference had been made to the finance committees appointed in 1786 and in 1797. Now he would accept with pleasure the pledge of the right hon. Secretary if he were allowed to refer to the powers granted to the finance committee in 1817, but not if he were called upon to adhere to those granted to the two earlier committees. For he found, by the journals, that very different powers had been given in the two cases. The resolution which appointed the earlier committees excluded from their inquiries all subjects of first-rate importance: whilst the resolution which appointed the finance committee of 1817 embraced every object to which inquiry should be directed. He thanked the right hon. Secretary for the explanation which he had just given, and contended that his hon. friend near him had gained by it the full object for which they had been arguing. He thought the present discussion had not been most properly brought on; for not an hour ought to have been lost in warning the country, if it had really been stated from authority, that the finance committee was not to have: the right to inquire into the extent of I our establishments, civil and military. That committee must be fairly appointed ' and honestly conducted, and must proceed right onwards in its duty, to merit the confidence of the country. If it did
348
Mr. Hume
declared his intention to oppose this vote in every stage, until some pledge was given that the expenditure should be examined into, and should be reduced as much as possible. He Compared the opposition, which some hon. gentlemen on the Treasury bench made to him, to the charges which the wolf brought against the lamb, describing himself as the lamb, which the wolf, at all events, was determined to make out to be guilty; for they first accused him of overstating the expenditure, and when beaten on that point, they declared in general terms, that he knew nothing about the matter he was talking of. The hon. member then went into statements which shewed that for many years the force of the navy had been near twenty thousand men, and that, at the present moment, it was thirty thousand men, including the royal marines. The American Fleet, destined to protect their commerce, amounted to twenty-eight ships, while ours amounted to one hundred and forty sail. He recommended that we should follow the example of the Americans, who were preparing for war, not as we were, by continuing an enormous expenditure, but by keeping their expenses within ten millions of dollars per annum, and by paying off in peace the debt they contracted in war, which was now reduced to sixty-four millions of dollars. He repeated, that the American navy consisted but of twenty-eight ships, of which one, the Delaware, was a line of battle ship; four were forty-four gun frigates of the first class, and two of the second class; nine sloops of war of the first class, and eight of the second class and four row boats attached to the sloops. The whole cost of this navy was 670,000
l.
349
"That it is desirable, before this House vote any part of the naval and military establishments for the year, that the extent of these establishments, and the estimates for them, should be laid before this House, together with a statement of the ways and means by which these estimates and the permanent expenses of the country are to be provided for; particularly as the expenditure of the country, for the two past years, has considerably exceeded the total income, and which yearly excess of expenditure has been provided for by an issue of Exchequer-bills, and consequent increase of the unfunded debt of the country.
"That the best interests of the country require that its resources should be renovated and strengthened by retrenchment and economy in time of peace; whereas the amount of interest-charge of the funded and unfunded debt has been increasing yearly for the last three years. That
In the year 182.5 the charge was
£28,060,288
1826
28,076,958
1827
28,239,848
"That the total expenditure in the year 1792, for the support of his majesty's civil list; for the charges on the consolidated fund; for the expense of the navy, the army, the ordnance, the militia, the miscellaneous services, and appropriated duties, did not amount to five millions and a half in that year; whilst the expenditure for the navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous services (and exclusive of two millions for the civil list and other charges on the consolidated fund), was—
In 1825
£17,211,920
In 1826
19,344,418
In 1827
19,069,061"
"That it is the duty of this House, in the present state of the finances of the Country, before voting thirty thousand seamen and marines for the service of the navy for the ensuing six months, to take into their consideration what peculiar circumstances of the country can warrant the vote for so large a number, when it appears that sixteen thousand seamen and marines were by parliament deemed sufficient for the naval Service of the country in the year 1792, and nineteen thousand for the service of the year 1817."
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that under the
350
The House divided on Mr. Hume's amendment Ayes 8, Noes 52.
List of the Minority.
Dawson, A.
Wood, alderman
Maberly, John
Wood, John.
Marshall, W.
TELLERS.
Monck, J. B.
Palmer, C. F.
Hume, J.
Waithman, alderman
Warburton, H.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 14.
CATHOLIC CLAIMS—TREATY OF LIMERICK.]
Lord Clifden
presented a petition from the Catholics of two parishes in Wexford, praying for relief from the existing disabilities. The petitioners complained of the gross breach of the Treaty of Limerick; and he would say that there could not be found a treaty under which the one country gained move, or which had been more unjustly violated by the other. If ever there was a clear and explicit treaty it was that; it ever there was a treaty most shamefully violated it was that. An hon. member of the other House had given notice of motion on the subject; and it was his intention to do the same on an early occasion. In his opinion the day must soon arrive when all tests with regard to religion would be abolished; for never could any thing be more unwise. He hoped that the Dissenters would be successful in their appeal to the other House; but if they were not, then they would unite with the Catholics, and their lordships would have to sing in a very different key.
GAME LAWS.]
The Marquis of Salisbury
rose to move the second reading of the Sale-of-Game bill. He should not have thought it necessary to say another word, had he not understood that it was the intention of his noble friend to move as an amendment, that a committee might be appointed to take into consideration
351
Lord Wharncliffe
thought that the bill so far from advancing, would retard any improvement in the Game-laws. He was sure that a bill for the mere purpose of allowing the sale of game—leaving the other evils of the system untouched—was, as a first measure, the worst that could be adopted. For six years he had been endeavouring to bring about an alteration in the Game-laws, without success. Three years he had tried to effect his object in the House of Commons, and at the end
352
l.
353
354
355
The Earl of Falmouth
said, he had opposed the bill brought in by the noble baron last session, because that bill had for its object not merely the prevention and diminution of crime by making game saleable, but the further object of giving new rights to every owner of a field or garden—rights which he had never purchased or inherited, and prejudicial to their habits of industry and usual occupations. With respect to a Committee of Inquiry, he thought no good could result from such a course as the subject had been repeatedly discussed by parliament. As to the present bill, he saw no reason to change his opinion since last session. He could not think that the making of game saleable would prevent or diminish crime. To him it appeared, that the opening of a market for game held out more temptation to poachers, and made detection more difficult. But, as it was believed by many persons, that the making game saleable would prevent or materially diminish the crime of poaching, the present bill, perhaps, would be the safest way to put that argument to the test of experiment. He should not, therefore, oppose the second reading.
The Duke of Richmond
perfectly agreed with lord Wharncliffe as to the expediency of a complete alteration in the Game-laws. Game was not preserved by law, but by armed force. On this subject, he was a great reformer. He would repeal the whole of those laws, and substitute a summary act in their stead.
The Earl of Carnarvon
thought if a Committee of Inquiry was appointed, its first measure would be, to put an end to the prohibition of the sale of game. He had never heard any alteration in the Game-laws proposed, which did not contain the principle of the sale of game. The only objection to the present bill was, that though it gave the right to sell game, it did not give it so extensively as the noble lord near him wished. But that noble lord was wrong in stating, that the bill would only give that right to great land-owners. It went much-further. It gave the right of selling game to any man possessing land to the amount of 100
l.
356
357
d.
d.
s.
Lord Teynham
said, he should vote with great pleasure for the second reading of the bill.
The Marquis of Londonderry
was of
358
Earl Darnley
said, he had declared, many years ago, his opinion in favour of a bill upon the principle of that now offered for a second reading, on the ground, that the law, as it stood, was perpetually violated. He therefore should support the motion without deciding whether the measure might not need modification in the committee. After all that had been so ably stated—he was satisfied that justice could not be done without a thorough investigation. That the Game-laws were absurd and anomalous, and ought to be revised, no man would deny. In reference to the state of the peasantry of England, and to the operation which a repeal of the Game-laws might have in producing non-residence, he wished to call the attention of their lordships to the almost hopeless condition of the people of Ireland. Whoever had looked into the subject must know, that the increased facility of communication between the two countries, and the deplorable want of employment in Ireland, had induced a number of Irish labourers to visit this country, and the evil was every year augmented.
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, it was the object of his bill to put down the warfare that was going on in the country between the poachers and gamekeepers, who were as regularly opposed to each other as any two factions in times of civil war. This state of things was, no doubt, partly owing to the total want of employment among the lower orders. It was his intention to propose a bill which would give the overseers of parishes who might choose to adopt the plan which he should have to propose, the means of affording employment to the poor.
Lord Clifden
said, he should be glad to support the proposition of the noble lord, if he thought it would prevent the civil war which was going on between the poachers and gamekeepers. It was worth their lordships attention to try to prevent such a state of things.
359
The House then divided, For the second reading 26, Against it 24; Majority 2; Lord Wharncliffe then moved, "That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the laws relating to Game and to report their opinion thereon to the House.—Agreed to."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 14.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS—PETITION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS FOR REPEAL OF.]
Mr. J. Smith
said, he held in his hand a petition, to which he must beg to call the attention of the House. It was from the Catholic body in Ireland, in favour of the claims of the Protestant Dissenters of England. He was authorized to assure the House, that the individuals who had signed this petition, being three thousand in number, comprised within themselves nearly all the wealth, character, and respectability of Ireland. He confessed that, though he was aware of the liberal spirit which pervaded the Catholics of Ireland, he could not help feeling a little surprised at the truly generous manner in which they expressed themselves in this petition. The hon. member, after reading several parts of the petition, insisted upon the right of every man to worship God in whatever way he pleased. That sentiment was well expressed in the petition; it had been gaining ground every day; he was glad of it, and he regretted that its progress had been so slow, for the denial of it had caused torrents of blood and tears to flow. He had had occasion to state in that House, on presenting a petition to the same effect as this, that the Dissenters petitioned for themselves; that they were totally independent of the Catholics. The Dissenters presented their own case, in their own name. The present petition, he was also bound to say, did not originate in any league between the Catholics and the Protestant Dissenters it proceeded from the Catholics alone. It was the spontaneous assistance of the Catholics to the cause of the Protestant Dissenters, in whose disabilities they sympathized.
Mr. A. Dawson
said, the petition plainly showed, that whatever prejudices the Catholic church might once have entertained, they were now very rapidly abating, or rather they were totally extinct. The petitioners said, they rejoiced that the Pro-
360
Ordered to lie on the table.
VOTE OF THANKS TO SIR E. CODRINGTON—BATTLE OF NAVARIN.]
Mr. Hobhouse
rose, and addressed the House as follows:—
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
"St. Petersburgh, Nov. 8.,
(Signed)
"NICHOLAS."
374
375
376
377
Killed.
Wounded.
The English
79
197
The French
43
144
The Russian
53
137
Total
175
478
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
Sir F. Burdett
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bankes
addressed the House, in a tone of voice nearly inaudible, he said, he thought that, until the House were in possession of all the instructions sent out to sir E. Codrington, they could not be competent to come to a rational decision as to the battle. By agreeing to the motion, the House would not only be doing honour to the gallant admiral, but would also sanction the treaty that had been alluded to; which, in his opinion, they ought not to do. The hon. mover had expressed a hope, that government would carry that treaty into effect. Did he mean that government was to carry it into effect by a war? The British admiral had no right to demand an armistice. That, however, he did do, and threatened, that if it was not agreed to, ulterior measures would be resorted to. What measures were referred to, might be imagined from the sanguinary and disastrous victory of Navarino. He regretted the manner in which our old ally had been treated: and he had a right to call Turkey our "old ally," for a treaty was framed between this country and Turkey in 1675, which recited other previously existing relations between them. He feared that England would have cause
388
Mr. Huskisson
declared himself disappointed with the speech of the hon member who spoke last. He was at all times unwilling to address the House unnecessarily, and he had therefore fondly anticipated, that the result of the hon. member's speech would be the giving of a conclusive argument against the motion, and that it would not be necessary for him to trespass on their patience. But he was sorry to say that he had not heard from the hon. member one word which appeared to him to bear upon the question before the House. The hon. member had been pleased, in a manner not, he thought, altogether consistent with the usual courtesy of parliamentary proceedings, to enter into a discussion upon the merits of our intercourse with France and Russia, and the different steps taken at different periods, with a view to the pacification of Greece. Now, he really thought, that after the House had been told by the ministers of the Crown the reasons which precluded them—very reluctantly—from giving to the House the information which could alone enable parliament to come to a just conclusion on the subject, it would have been more fair and consistent to have adhered to the line very properly chalked out by the hon. member for Westminster—to have waved the consideration of the policy of the treaty, and to have confined his attention strictly to the motion which, he could not avoid saying, had been so indiscreetly brought before them. His hon. friend had said, that the object of the treaty, as he read it, was totally different from that of the protocol signed at St. Petersburgh in April, 1826. Now, he utterly denied that position. It was necessary to look both to the treaty and the protocol for the objects of the parties to them, and the motives which influenced the proceedings they had adopted. In both documents the objects which the contracting parties professed to have in view, and which they pledged themselves to effect, was the reconciliation of the Porte with Greece, and the pacification of the Levant. That was the object which was brought prominently forward.—His hon. friend had talked of fraud, conspiracy, trick, and violence; but he certainly could not have
389
390
391
Mr. Hobhouse.
—" I did not say upon all points, but upon most."
Mr. Huskisson
.—I can only say, that if the hon. member has that knowledge, his knowledge far exceeds mine. I do not mean by this to say, that there is any thing deficient in the explanation of the transaction, which has been sent home by the gallant admiral who commands in the Mediterranean. But I do say this, that no report has come to my knowledge, or,
392
Mr. Hobhouse
,—The right hon. gentleman is labouring under a gross mistake. I did not utter the sentiment he has attributed to me. I did not speak positively but hypothetically. I said—if ministers act so and so towards sir E. Codrington, people will say so and so of them, and the conclusions to which future historians will come, will be, that the better passions were absorbed by domestic jealousies.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he was happy to hear the explanation of the hon. member. He asserted, however, that there never had existed on the part of any cabinet which had been formed since the battle of Navarino, the smallest intention to propose the thanks of parliament to the officers and men who were engaged in that affair. He would tell the hon. member the reason why such an intention could not enter into the mind of any prudent and sensible minister. It was this:—we voted the thanks of parliament for triumphs over our enemies—we voted them to mark our satisfaction, that in a conflict which we had foreseen and directed, with a power against which we had declared war, the skill and gallantry and zeal of our officers had triumphed over the skill and gallantry and zeal of our enemies, and that they had maintained, by that skill, gallantry, and zeal, the ancient superiority of our country above all others. But, could any reasonable man think of passing a similar vote on the present occasion, unless a precedent were quoted in justifica-
393
394
de facto,
395
396
397
398
399
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that it had been so seldom his good fortune, during his parliamentary career, to coincide in opinion with the hon. member for Dorsetshire, that he embraced this opportunity of publicly declaring, that he did coincide, for once, with that hon. member. He entirely agreed with him in deploring the silence which was imposed upon hon. members, relative to this great question, by the alleged situation of the negotiations at Constantinople, and by the state of parties in the two Houses of parliament. He lamented the circumstances which prevented those who approved of the treaty of the 6th of July—among whom he was proud to rank himself—from stating the reasons on which their approbation was grounded. He agreed with the hon. member for Westminster—who had delivered a speech, admirable in its kind, and which, so far from being ill-advised, or indiscreet, appeared to him to be a model of discretion—that, with respect to the Treaty of London, there could be no medium: it was either one of the grossest infractions of the law of nations, or one of the most just, wise, generous, and disinterested compacts that ever was formed. After the general rumour that was abroad, that several persons had concurred in condemning the policy of that treaty, he could not refrain from entering his protest against being supposed to concur in their opinions. He believed the treaty of the 6th of July to be a just, a wise, a generous, and a disinterested compact. He
400
onus
401
402
de facto.
403
bellum imperfectum;
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that differing so entirely as he did from the views entertained upon this subject by the hon. mover and the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, respecting either the principles upon which this motion was founded, or the impression to be apprehended from giving to it a qualified negative—differing so far from them in opinion upon these points, yet he cordially concurred in the propriety of the right hon. gentleman's concluding recommendation, as the best mode of disposing of such a motion, with delicacy to the gallant individuals to whom it referred, and proper consideration for all the circumstances of the case. In rising to address the House on this occasion, he could assure them, that he wished most studiously to avoid every expression which could, in the slightest degree, tend to interpose any obstacle to the carrying of that recommendation into effect. Had he been called upon to argue this question in detail, he assured the hon. gentleman opposite, that he should have been disposed steadily to adhere to that prudent and judicious course which they had described; namely, of considering this subject abstractedly from the question of the policy or justice of the treaty itself. It was not, he knew, expedient to mix up together subjects which were so disconnected; and he admitted that it was better to consider how far this vote could be asked for, consistently with the usage of parliament, or whether a refusal of it could be supposed to imply a withdrawal of praise from the gallant admiral who had so bravely commanded at Navarino. He was sure his hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire,
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
Sir F. Burdett
said, that, after the liberal speech which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, he had very little to say; and he had no doubt that it would be the means of prompting his hon. colleague, who, he was sure, felt the same candour that the right hon. gentleman had expressed, to come to the conclusion which would be most satisfactory to the House, and to his gallant friends, whose characters he had so ably vindicated. It appeared to be admitted on all hands, that sir E. Codrington had performed the service on which he had been engaged, and under whatever circumstances it might have been imposed upon him, in a way that redounded highly to his character—in a way too, he might add, which was calculated, in a very eminent degree, to exalt the naval character of the country and to reflect honour on himself. It was not, however, his intention to take up the time of the House, by repeating those panegyrics which had already been bestowed
421
422
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that after the attention which the House had already paid to what he had to say on the subject, he would not take up their time in reply. There was only one term in the right hon. gentleman's speech with which he had to quarrel, and it was that in which he charged him with not having shown his discretion in bringing forward this motion. If there was nothing else to prove the discretion of his having done so, he thought that the mere fact of its having elicited the general praise that it had done with respect to the conduct of sir E. Codring-ton, was sufficient evidence; and he thought that the gallant admiral might himself dwell with satisfaction on what had taken place in the House that night. It had been said, that there would have been no objection to the motion, if we had been at war, and these words certainly proved to him, that what had likewise been observed that night—that the gallant admiral stood as high for valour and discretion as any man in his majesty's service—was strictly true. Under these circumstances, and believing that the conduct of the gallant admiral needed no further explanation, he should consent to the withdrawing of the motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 15.
FINANCE COMMITTEE.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—In rising on the present occasion, Sir, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, I shall take the liberty in the first place, to move the reading of that passage in his majesty's most gracious speech, at the commencement of the session, in which he recommends us to inquire into the state of the public Income and Expenditure.
"We are commanded by his Majesty to recommend to your early attention, an inquiry into the state of the revenue and expenditure of the country.
"His Majesty is assured, that it will be satisfactory to you to learn, that, notwithstanding the diminution which has taken place in some branches of the Revenue
423
Mr. Secretary Peel
resumed.—Sir, I have moved that that part of his Majesty's Speech which refers to the state of the income and expenditure of the country should be read, not merely in compliance with the general usage which has prevailed upon the occasion of similar motions, but in order that I may introduce the proposition which I am about to make, under the highest auspices and claim for it the sanction and the recommendation of the first authority in the land. The proposition for the appointment of a finance committee is not a novel proposition. At various periods of the history of this country, committees have been appointed at the recommendation of the Crown, for the purpose of examining into the expenditure and the income of the country; and for the purpose also of submitting to this House their sentiments as to the possibility of establishing a more effectual control over that expenditure, and of making such reductions in its amount as may be deemed compatible with existing circumstances.
424
425
426
427
l.
l.
l.
l.
In January 1815 to
£.28,278,000
1823 to
24,419,000
1827 to
25,500,000
428
In January 1815
£.30,488,000
1823
28,596,000
1827
28,381,000
l.
l.
In Jan.1815 it amounted to.
£.44,544,000
1823 to
42,209,000
1827 to
34,770,000
In January 1815
£.33,679,000
1823
30,027,000
1827
29,254,000
l.
l.
429
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
430
l.
1823
£.47,692,000
1824
49,527,000
1825
48,061,000
1826
49,585,000
1827
49,719,000
1823
£.18,477,000
1824
20,461,000
1825
20,000,000
1826
21,509,000
1827
21,529,000
431
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Income
£.284,149,000
Expenditure
263,005,000
21,144,000
l.
l.
l.
432
For 1826, was
£.49,625,000
For 1827
49,581,000
l.
l.
l.
For 1826
£.49,513,000
1827
49,487,000
433
For the Army
£6,586,000
Army Extraordinaries; including under that head, 450,000
l.
l.
810,000
Militia
292,000
Commissariat
372,000
Navy
5,995,000
Ordnance
1,574,000
Miscellaneous
1,946,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Less than those of 1825, by
£6,140
1826, by
365,843
1827, by
1,168,260
434
l.
l.
435
436
437
438
439
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the State of the Public Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom, and to consider and report to the House, what further regulations and checks it may be proper, in their opinion, to adopt, for establishing an effectual control upon all charges incurred in the receipt, custody, and application, of the Public Money; and what further measures can be adopted for reducing any part of the Public Expenditure without detriment to the Public Service."
Mr. Hume
said, that he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the motion, but he wished to put it to the right hon. gentleman, whether he could be able to carry the proposed objects into effect by the aid of one committee? He was anxious also to learn, whether the committee was to inquire into the state of the Crown lands, the hereditary revenues, and other matters upon which inquiry had been often promised, but never entered into? He was desirous at the outset to make this inquiry; for, as nearly as he could gather, the words of the present motion were the same as those for the appointment of a select committee in 1817; and yet that committee had inquired into very few of the objects for which they had been appointed. It also appeared, that none of the committees appointed had gone into all the subjects which it was said would be submitted to them; although some of them had sat for several years, and had presented ten or twelve reports. If the proposed committee were to be so long occupied, was it to have those several matters submitted to its con-
440
441
l.
l.
l.
442
l.
l.
443
444
l.
l.
l.
445
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
446
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
[Right Hon. Henry Goulburn] was of opinion, that the proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen, for appointing eleven or twelve separate committees instead of one, would be productive of no advantage. There would be, in the committee about to be appointed, ample opportunities of examining into the manner in which the public accounts were kept, and of amending the system wherever it might be found faulty. The hon. member had greatly exaggerated the defects of that system, when he had alluded to the marking of a stick in the Exchequer. That practice was a relic of barbarism, and had long since been discontinued. But, though he objected to the hon. member's proposition generally, he would assure him, that if there should be any particular branch of the expenditure, such, for instance, as that of the colonies, which the committee should think they could not adequately inquire into, he had no objection to delegate that particular subject to a separate committee. When he stated that, he conceivd he gave the best pledge of the spirit and intentions with which he should go into the committee. He should go into the committee with the full determination of accurately investigating, and of properly deciding upon, the several topics which would be brought under his notice; and he felt a strong conviction, that the labours of the committee would tend to reduce the public burthens, and to place the finances of the country in a materially improved condition.
447
Mr. Baring
expressed his surprise, that so few ministers of the Crown were appointed members of the committee. The omission of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies struck him as most extraordinary.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the reason why more ministers were not in the list was, that the duties they had to perform occupied so much of their time, that it was impossible they could give any efficient attendance upon the committee. He had pressed his right hon. colleague to be a member of the committee; but he had refused upon the grounds just stated. He had been also desirous that the committee should have benefitted by the valuable assistance of the learned member opposite (Mr. Brougham); but the learned member had declined on account of his numerous professional avocations.
Mr. Baring
expressed a hope that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies would re-consider the determination to which he had come. Without meaning any disrespect to the members composing the committee, he might say, that the aggregate amount of their financial knowledge, bore no proportion to that possessed by the right hon. gentleman; and that if they were deprived of his services, he should consider it a very serious disadvantage to the country.
Mr. Brougham
begged to add his entreaties to those of his hon. friend, that the name of the right hon. Secretary might be included in the list. He was especially anxious to give expression to what was the deliberate opinion of the House; namely, that the assistance of the right hon. gentleman was of the utmost value. He trusted that nothing had happened lately, and that nothing could happen, to make such an omission necessary; for nothing could remove the rooted conviction of the House, in favour of the proposition of his
448
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, he considered it necessary to say a few words, after the manner in which he had been appealed to by the hon. member for Callington, seconded, as that appeal was, by the hon. and learned gentleman. He certainly had, in the first communication with his right hon. colleague, on the subject of becoming a member of the committee, declined the proposition on account of the numerous official avocations which pressed upon him, and occupied nearly the whole of his time. Having, however, for a long series of years devoted the whole of his time to the public service, so far as his health and strength would permit, he was now willing, if it were in accordance with the feelings of the House, to attend the committee occasionally, and give so much of his assistance to it, as his health would allow. On this, as on all other occasions, the House might command his best services.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson's
name was accordingly added, by Mr. Peel, to the list of the committee. After which, the House adjourned.
449
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 18.
Corporation and Test Acts.]
Numerous petitions were presented for the repeal of the said acts. On presenting petitions from North Shields and from Braunton,
Mr. Liddell
said, he would take occasion to observe that he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition, more especially in that part of it which referred to the practice of requiring sacramental tests. He regretted that it would be impossible for him to attend in his place when the motion, of which notice had been given by a noble lord, would come before the House; consequently, he should not be able to give the proposition for the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts that support, to which he considered it entitled, and which it should otherwise receive at his hands.—He would therefore avail himself of the present opportunity, of expressing in a few words, his opinions upon the subject, and the reasons which induced him to entertain them. He was aware, that in so doing, he might be accused of pursuing an irregular course; but he thought that every individual having the honour of a seat in that House, in such a case, was bound to consult the dictates of his own feelings, and more particularly when he represented a large body of people. It had been said, that the law in question constituted a bulwark of the church; but he was of a different opinion; and as a warm friend and sincere admirer of the discipline and doctrines of the church of England, he was decidedly opposed to these Tests, and thought it most desirable to repeal them.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Ministerial Explanations.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved the order of the day, for going into a Committee of Supply,
Lord Normanby
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—If, Sir, I avail myself of the opportunity, on a motion which is usually one of form, but which, on some occasions, is resorted to as the constitutional one for purposes of important communication—if I have recourse to such an extraordinary proceeding on this occasion, I can assure you, Sir, and the House, that it is with the most unfeigned reluctance that I adopt it; and I trust that ray excuse for
450
451
452
453
454
455
non sequitur
decide,
resign.
456
Mr. Huskisson
here intimated, across the table, that he had neither sanctioned nor corrected any report of his Speech at Liverpool.
Lord Normanby
.—The only purpose for which I refer to this, report is, to notice
457
"Notwithstanding, however, these unfavourable contingencies which were observable in the beginning of December, it was my anxious wish to see the administration continued by the same men and on the same principles. I wished to have upheld the government in its then state; and, so dear were the principles it espoused to my own feelings, that I would rather have fallen in the attempt to reconstruct its organization, than have withheld my poor services, or have kept back on such an occasion."
"It so happened, that the duke of Wellington, after consulting only with one individual, Mr. Peel, who possessed talents and integrity for the public service, I believe came next to myself. I will not disguise from my constituents, that when this communication was made to me, it was in most general terms. I was, in fact, merely asked if I felt any individual objection, or laboured under any particular motive or influence, to preclude me from taking any part in the ministry which the duke of Wellington was commanded to form. To an application so general I could only give a general reply. I could only state, that I was not precluded by party, or party connexions, to forego any attention to what I believed, in my own mind and judgment, to be due to the interests of my country; and that, provided the new administration were formed upon the principles which I had espoused, and which I thought indispensable to the welfare of the community, and provided also, I could see a pledge for the guarantee of the due operation of my principles, I was not deprived by any pledge of party, or engagement with others, from participating in their promotion. That was the general answer I gave to the general application I received."
458
"I was under no feeling of obligation to consult others on such an occasion provided the stipulation for the principles which I advocated was complete, and my personal honour uncommitted."
"Could I then, when my own great measures, or those of the men with whom I had acted, were conceded, refuse my concurrence, without a compromise, to the offer which had been made me? I did not look to the right or to the left, I prepared for the best I could accomplish, and think I acted judiciously."
"Is it to be supposed that the right hon. gentleman, to whom I understand the noble earl to allude, ever used such expressions as are ascribed to him at the Liverpool election. If I had entered into any such wholesale bargain, I should have tarnished the right hon. gentleman's fame as much as I should have disgraced my own. But if I gave a guarantee to my right hon. friend, what have I done for the other members of the government? Is there nobody else in the government but my right hon. friend? Every minister surely forms a part of it. Every one of them is equally at liberty to state his opinions upon every subject he may choose to propose for the consideration of government. I appeal to my noble friends, whether they ever belonged to a cabinet, in which questions were discussed more freely?"
459
"It is much more probable, though I have not thought it worth my while to ask for any explanation on the subject, that my right hon. friend stated, not that he had concluded any wholesale bargain with me, but that the men of whom the government is now composed are in themselves a guarantee to the public that their measures will be such as will be conducive to his majesty's honour and interests, and to the happiness of the people. That is what the right hon. gentleman said, if I am not mistaken; and not that I had given him any guarantee for the principles of the government."
460
461
462
463
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
rose, and spoke to the following effect: — Sir, whatever may be the motives which actuate the noble lord on any occasion, I am perfectly persuaded that they will be found to do him honour; and that, in the exercise of his public duty, he will be invariably guided by the purest and most laudable considerations. For myself, I feel deeply indebted to the noble lord for the step which he has this evening taken, and still more so for the manner in which he has taken it. Ever since my return from Liverpool, I have been, day after day, led to expect that an opportunity would be afforded me of submitting to the House an explanation of my conduct. What have been the circumstances which changed the intention of those who had expressed their determination to elicit that explanation, it is not for me to say. I am most grateful to the noble lord for giving me this occasion. The contrast exhibited between the manly and straight-forward course which the noble lord has pursued, and the proceedings in this House on Friday last—followed up, as those proceedings were, by an attempt out of doors, to convert them into the means of injury to my character —will not speedily be effaced from my recollection. At the same time, Sir, while I most sincerely rejoice at having
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
Lord Normanby
observed, that the right hon. gentleman had misunderstood him, if he supposed he meant to cast any blame upon him for his conduct in that particular.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
proceeded.—The noble lord certainly said, that I made a gratuitous explanation to my constituents, and the same remark, I am sorry to say, has been made, with something of a sneer, in another place. Notwithstanding the unfeigned respect I entertain for the great constitutional learning of the distinguished individual to whom I now allude, I must confess that I retain upon this point much of what seems now-a-days to be considered absolute prejudice. It appears to me, however it may to others, that when a member of this House accepts office under the Crown, and consequently vacates his seat, and when, his seat being so vacated, he offers himself again to his constituents, and solicits their confidence, or rather a renewal of their confidence, and of the trust which they before reposed in him, it is very natural, and quite in accordance with the theory and practice of the British constitution, to make such a statement as his constituents not only have a right to demand, but as they are almost exercising a duty in demanding, when they entertain any feelings of suspicion or jealousy. The doctrines of the school which would oppose such explanations between a member and his constituents, are not yet popular in Liver
477
478
479
480
481
"Sir; on reading my Morning Chronicle this evening, it appears to me that the London reporters must have greatly misunderstood an important part of your last speech at the hustings, on the occasion of your re-election. As I stood close to you on that occasion, and attentively remarked what you said, as it was my duty to do, in the circumstances in which I was placed, I have a distinct recollection, that when you spoke of guarantees, you said you found them in the composition of the cabinet, and especially in the introduction of lord Dudley, Mr. Grant, and one more, whom I do not at this instant call to mind. Of personal guarantees, as demanded from, and given by, the duke of Wellington, you did not say one word. Accordingly, my reply to what you said was, that I doubted whether, in the composition of the cabinet, you would find sufficient support for your liberal views. Perhaps, before you receive this, you will have run the gauntlet in the House of Commons. Should it arrive in time, however, I think it but right to put it at your disposal. Ministers have sufficient to answer for, without being inconvenienced by the errors of the gentlemen of the press.
"Your's, &c. W. SHEPHERD."
"P.S. — I take it for granted Mr. Brougham will have some comments to make on the transaction; but that, on this point, he may not proceed on wrong grounds, I wish you to communicate the contents of this letter to him."
Mr. Brougham
,.—It is quite unnecessary. I accept the right hon. gentleman's personal guarantee [a laugh].
482
Mr. Secretary Huskisson.
—I trust, Sir, I shall hear no more after this evening of a subject in relation to which I have been clearly misrepresented. Having stated thus much on the subject of a mistaken word, and the uses that have been made of it, I am ready to own fairly, that with respect to political principles, and the measures growing out of them, from the very first, I have been under great apprehension that we (his majesty's existing government) are very likely to differ among ourselves. Gentlemen talk of the measures and principles connected with our foreign and domestic policy; but these matters are not urfrequently made the subjects of much loose and vague declamation. I acknowledge that there are certain measures and principles, in relation to which it is necessary—absolutely necessary—to have an understanding, or it is impossible for a cabinet to agree: but it appears to me, that if a fair and distinct understanding subsist between the members of a government, as to general principles, that is sufficient. Sir, I do not know what people mean by talking of the principles of our domestic and foreign policy, except in so far as the application of principles relates to measures to be adopted, in regard to foreign and domestic affairs. Of the principles we never lose sight; but their application must mainly, if it does not entirely, depend on the nature of particular circumstances and events. If I may be allowed to illustrate the point by a reference to subjects which I introduced in the course of my speech at Liverpool, I will say, that the expedition to Portugal in the last year, and our recent interference in the affairs of Greece, form parts of our foreign policy during the last eighteen months; and grow not so much out of any general system, as they proceed from the effect of necessity operating under particular circumstances. With respect to measures of domestic policy, I will take the question of the silk trade. In reference to that branch of our manufacture, I thought it desirable to assimilate its condition to the condition of the other great branches of our trade. That was the application of a general principle to a particular case; but the hon. gentlemen, late members for Lincoln and Coventry (Mr. Williams and Mr. Ellice) but not now in the House, opposed the application of a principle (from which, I believe, they were not averse in the main) in this particular
483
"It cannot, of course, be forgotten, that I was a member of lord Liverpoool's cabinet, and that, in being so, I was a party to the greater part of the measures upon which it proposed to conduct the business of the present administration; that I concurred in those measures, and that, equally with others I share their full responsibility. How, thon. could I, with the least show of consistency— the slightest regard for character—depart from the maintenance and prosecution of measures to which I already stand pledged."
484
485
486
487
Mr. Herries
said:—I rise, Sir, with the most unfeigned embarrassment, and with the most unqualified sense of the difficulty of the task, to address the House. I have no intention of entering into so large an explanation as that into which my right hon. friend has entered, for circumstances do not call upon me to do so; but I feel myself bound to obey the call which the House has made upon me, and to offer an explanation on some part of my public conduct which appears to some individuals to be compromised in certain important transactions which have recently taken place. Under ordinary circumstances I should certainly feel inclined to except to such a call; but as it involves consequences most important to my character, both as a public man and a private individual, I am inclined to depart from the rule which I would lay down for the general guidance of public men, and to offer an explanation, which, after all, is an explanation which affects two private individuals rather than the public at large. I hold, that to make lightly such disclosures as I am now imperatively called upon to make, is a most pernicious practice to which public men ought not to submit; inasmuch as appeals to the public can never be made by public men, without their suffering a diminution of respect in the minds of the people of the country. I think it necessary to say thus much as a justification for myself in making a statement which bears a relation to certain recent transactions in the cabinet. Such statements, in addition to their tendency to lower, in the general estimation, those who make them, are productive of this further evil, that they have a tendency to sow among those between whom concord, harmony, and union should prevail, if the business of the public is to be faithfully and efficaciously discharged, sentiments of discord and disunion, and to perpetuate in their breasts feelings of mistrust and jealousy, which are as injurious to the public, as they are painful to the individuals who entertain them.
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
"21st Dec, 1827.
"My dear Goderich;—It is now full time that some further steps should be taken with respect to the committee of finance.
"It would, I believe, naturally be my duty to bring that subject under the consideration of the Cabinet; but after what has passed (and I advert to it with much pain), I feel that it is not at present in my hands. I must, therefore, learn from you, as head of the government, what is the course intended to be pursued for the formation of this committee, and the regulation of its proceedings.
"What has hitherto been done in this matter has taken place without consultation or communication with me, although it would seem to belong principally to my department of the public business. A negotiation has been carried on, and completed by Mr. Tierney, with your sanction and that of Mr. Huskisson, for the nomination of the chairman of the committee. The government is, I presume, fully committed to the individual fixed upon for the purpose, and to the noble House, of which he is a member; and this proceeding, as I am given to understand, has been adopted with a view, in a great measure,
496
"Whether this be a proper view of the subject, and whether, if it be so, you could yet proceed upon such a principle, you are best able to judge. I do not feel that I could act in it upon any other. In order, therefore, to relieve you from any difficulty, as connected with my situation, respecting the course which you may deem it expedient to pursue, I beg to assure you, that if by putting my office into other hands you can more satisfactorily execute this difficult measure, you may command my most ready and cheerful resignation of it. I place it (and I beg it to be understood as being done in the most friendly manner) entirely at your disposal."
Now, I ask, was there any thing in this letter calculated to defeat the object of the committee—to embarrass the proceedings of the government—or to push matters to that extreme which defied all possibility of arrangement? It was competent to the noble lord to deny any thing which I had assumed as fact, if the noble lord had reason to believe that I was mistaken. It was competent to the noble lord to object to any principle which I had laid down, if the noble lord was prepared to contend that such principle was erroneous. Nothing can be more obvious than this—if the principle was not sound, I might, I ought, to have been told so; and the other principle, whatever it might be, to which a preference was given in the cabinet, dis-
497
"My dear Herries;—I received your letter of the 21st, and I agree with you, that the time is at hand when it will become necessary to consider the direction of the Finance Committee in all its bearings, with a view to the public good, and the satisfaction of all parties. When Mr. Huskisson returns to town, this matter must be brought to a final issue. I owe it, however, to myself to say, that you have greatly misconceived the degree in which I was a party to the nomination of lord Althorp to fill the chair of that committee. I thought I had sufficiently explained to you verbally, that I conceived the communication to be nothing more than casual, and I regret that it was made. When Mr. Tierney suggested to me the appointment of lord Althorp, I said it was a proposition that ought to be well considered; but, from my regard for the individual, and my old friendship towards him, I was disposed towards it. The matter ended here. When Mr. Tierney afterwards mentioned the circumstance again, I said, that if the members of the House of Commons inclined to his nomination, I should not object; but that it could not be acted on without a consultation with the government. When I subsequently understood from Mr. Huskisson, that a sort of communication had been made to lord Althorp on the subject, my first inquiry was, as to whether you had been spoken to on the subject, and to my great surprise, I was given to understand you never had. I then thought it right to state, that you were a party to whom direct reference should be made. With respect to the latter part of your letter, in which you place your office in my hands, I cannot conceive that you have made out a case to justify you in so proceeding; but I hope that you will take no steps until an opportunity has been given for bringing the whole matter under full consideration."
498
499
"Jan. 7, 1828.
"My Dear Goderich:— I have as you requested in your last letter (and as I promised in my answer that I would), carefully reconsidered the subject of my letter of the 21st of December. I regret to be compelled to state, that the reconsideration. so bestowed upon it has not con
500
501
502
503
504
505
Mr. Tierney
said, he felt it necessary to observe in answer to what had fallen from his right hon. friend, who had alluded to him as wishing formally to originate a debate of this kind, that he had harboured no such intention, that he had felt no desire to bring a charge against any one. But, knowing that explanations would be called for, and feeling anxious to be present when the subject was brought forward, he merely asked his right hon. friend on what day he would take his seat, as it would be inconvenient for him to attend on the Friday, as he was about to go to Brighton. This he told his right hon. friend; but as to originating any debate, he had not the least idea of doing so.—He should now state a very few facts to the House, facts with which he was intimately connected. The matter had been brought to such a pitch by the two right hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, I that it might appear malicious in him if he did not come forward. Part of what they had advanced was accurately stated; but their statement was not altogether accurate. It was perfectly true that, early in the month of November, he did suggest to his noble friend, lord Goderich, the propriety of nominating another noble friend, lord Althorp, to the situation of chairman in the Finance Committee. He had taken this step solely for the purpose of strengthening the government; for he thought it a matter of great importance that, in an inquiry of so extensive a nature, they should avail themselves of the assistance of one of the most respectable and intelligent noblemen in the kingdom. Now, when the right hon. gentleman, who spoke last, said, that he should have selected for that situation a person who was not of any party, he begged leave to observe, that he had done so; for the noble lord had never given in his adhesion to the late government; he had never declared that he would support it; all he had said was, that, if the measures proposed by that government met his views, then he would afford it his assistance. The answer of lord Goderich to this suggestion was, that he thought most highly of lord Althorp; that in the early part of his life, he was in habits of intimacy with that nobleman, and that nothing would
506
507
Mr. Huskisson.
—I cordially concurred in it.
Mr. Herries
denied that he had used the word cordially.
Mr. Tierney
said he would leave out the cordiality. He then produced a list of members of that House taken from all sides, and including seventy-five or seventy-six names, from which he told his right hon. friend, he might, if convenient, form the select committee of finance. To show that his feeling with respect to the appointment of the committee was not narrow or contracted, he begged to observe, that there was not the name of a single member of the committee which had been formed, that was not to be found in his list. That conversation occupied but a short time; perhaps half an hour. He then left town for Brighton; and, such was the conviction on his mind that no difference of opinion existed, that if, on the road, he had been questioned by any political friend, he would have said, "Every thing is settled; for I have with me the premier and the chancellor of the Exchequer." It was not till the 1st of December that he received the letter which had been alluded to by his right hon. friend; but that letter did not even mention the name of the chancellor of the Exchequer, much less did it advert to his views or feelings. It came entirely from his right hon. friend, as a suggestion of his own. He there stated, that it would prove inconvenient, if lists of those who were intended to be placed on the committee were shown about; and he expressed a wish that no notice of the list should be taken to lord Althorp himself. He was desirous that the matter should not be noticed until they were nearer the meeting of parliament. That letter gave him no information whatever, as to the sentiments entertained by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last. Although it subsequently appeared to have been written in consequence of information
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
Mr. Herries
, in explanation, said, he thought it right in reply to that part of the right hon. gentleman's observation, which related to a conversation on the 29th of December, in the cabinet room, to state, that he then supposed the right hon. gentleman to be acquainted with what had passed; and that his address to him had appeared as extraordinary to him, as his had to the right hon. gentleman. He added, that in using the words "I know," with reference to the intention of making the difference between him and the right hon. Secretary for the colonies the means of dissolving the government, he meant to say, that he drew the positive conclusion from the circumstance that it must be so.
Colonel Wood
said, that, with all the reluctance which he felt at intruding himself upon the notice of the House, he felt it his duty to say one word upon this question. The noble lord in the course of his opening speech that night, having unnecessarily and invidiously contrasted the foreign policy of Mr. Canning with that of his noble predecessor, he hoped the House would excuse him if he set him right upon that subject. It did not seem to him to be necessary to Mr. Canning's reputation to contrast his policy with that of his predecessor, and in the way in which the subject had been introduced, injustice was done to both. The noble lord had said, that he had heard with surprise that Mr. Canning found the line of foreign' policy already marked out, in a note accidentally discovered in some portfolio, and which never would have come to light;
517
Mr. Stanley
said:—After the explanations already given by the three right hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House —competent as they, from their immediate connection with the events to which these explanations referred, were — the House would doubtless regard it as unseasonable, if not impertinent, if I were to make any comments upon the dissolution of the late cabinet. If, on the breaking up of that government, there were any plots, intrigues, machinations, or counter-machinations— if by any combination of circumstances results were developed unexpected and inconsecutive—if, upon any occasion, dissensions of two right hon. gentlemen who now sit together in the same cabinet were or were not made a means of excluding certain right hon. and noble friends of mine from office—if, in fine, any thing had happened in these transactions beyond the plain and straight-forward course which is already known to the public, and the world at large, my subordinate situation in the government exempts me from any knowledge or responsibility for them. My duty, therefore, upon this occasion, lies within a small compass, and I think I shall have complied with all that the House can expect of me when I state—and that I shall do as concisely as I possibly can—the reasons why, with reference to the change of principles of the government, I have been compelled—reluctantly I acknowledge—
518
519
520
—"Cut placet impares
Formas atque animos sub juga ahenea
Sævo mittere cum joco."
521
à, priori
522
523
"laudatores temporis acti,"
524
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he did not rise to obtrude his opinions, but he had been accidentally placed in a situation of responsibility, from which he would not shrink. The noble lord at the head of the late administration had sent for him that morning, requesting some conversation on the subject about to be discussed in the House of Commons this evening. Lord Goderich had subsequently written a letter to him, which, for his own justification, he would take the liberty of reading:—
"February 18,1828.
"In reference to the conversation I had with you this morning, on the subject of what may pass in the House of Commons to-night, I venture to rely on your kind and friendly feelings towards me, in case any thing should be said which may seem to require explanation on my part, and which, in consequence of my communication with you, you may have it in your power to explain. I certainly have no desire that any unnecessary explanation should be given, and should be particularly sorry to impose such a task upon you, or in any degree to fetter your opinion on the general question; but you may be enabled to render me an essential service, and I trust you may do it, if necessary, without compromising yourself or any one else."
525
"January 4, 1828.
"My dear Herries—The more I reflect upon this unfortunate question respecting the finance committee, the more I am convinced that the view which you have taken up is founded on a misconception, both of the circumstances which took place at the end of November, and of the consequences that would result from placing lord Althorp in the chair of that committee. I am quite convinced that there was no intention whatever of treating you with disrespect, or of exposing you to the embarrassment of not being in your proper place, in all that relates to a matter so closely connected with your department. It is certainly unfortunate, then, that any thing whatever was said to lord Althorp, before it was settled that something should be said; but it by no means follows from that circumstance, that the government ought to be placed in jeopardy, if it can be avoided, especially at a moment so peculiarly inconvenient to the king's service, and to the public interest, as the present must necessarily be. Now, as to the appointment itself, I must say, that it appears to me that you greatly over-rate the objections and difficulties." [He would not read the noble lord's argument, as he did not think it necessary to the purpose for which he produced this letter]—" I
526
527
Lord Althorp
said, that as his name had been so repeatedly brought forward in the present discussion, he should feel himself guilty of disrespect to the House, if he did not state shortly the very little part which he had personally had in the transaction principally in question. But before he entered into that explanation he begged to assure the right hon. the master of the Mint, that he had never, for one moment, conceived that that right hon. gentleman was influenced by any personal grounds in objecting to his nomination as chairman of the finance committee. He was quite satisfied that the right hon. gentleman had not acted from any impulse of which he had a right to complain. The right hon. gentleman and his right hon. friend had stated
528
529
530
Sir G. Warrender
said, he could not feel himself at liberty to place any confidence in a government, which contained among its leading members, men so strongly pledged to oppose Catholic emancipation, as his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home Department. He recollected very well that the right hon. gentleman stated, that his principal ground for refusing to remain in office under the late Mr. Canning, was his advocacy of that question, as the head of the government; and he recollected equally well, that the right hon. gentleman declared, that if that question was acceded to by any government of which he was a member, he should feel bound to retire instantly from office. If, then, the right hon. gentleman held those opinions, must it not be supposed that they were, in some measure, the tenure of office, and that the opinions of the head of the government would influence all the members of that government? He had held office for sixteen years under lord Liverpool, and yet there was no opinion entertained of the Catholic question, by the members of that cabinet, which could lead to such an effect upon those connected with the government. Was it not plain, however, that the declared opinions of the head of a government, that he held his office by-hostility to the Catholic claims, must affect the subordinate members of that government; and that all its supporters would either have the zeal of their opposition strengthened, or their warmth in the cause of emancipation weakened, by the declaration that resistance to the claims of the Catholics was one of the principles of the government? Upon these grounds, and from no disrespect to his right hon. friend, whose talents and abilities he knew and appreciated, he could not support the government, and must look at all its movements with a distrustful eye. With regard to the question which had been agitated that night, he certainly must say, that, admiring as he did the genius and talent, and cherishing the memory, of Mr. Canning, he did look upon the construction of the new government with very mixed feelings. Some of those feelings arose from the opposition— the personal opposition—which had been offered to that great man's government last year; and the others originated in the suspicion, that there might have been some of
531
Lord Milton
said, that if he could agree with the hon. member opposite, respecting the conversation which had taken place that night—if he could see nothing in the present debate but the gratification of an idle curiosity, he would admit that the House had spent a great many hours to very little purpose. But, when he considered the disclosures which had been made; and when he reflected that it was of the last importance, that the characters of men employed in high official situations should be rightly and thoroughly understood, he could not regret the time that had been bestowed on the inquiry. With respect to what had been stated by the right hon. the master of the Mint, he was free to confess, that that right hon. gentleman, in many parts of his speech, had made out a good case for himself. But, at the same time, the right hon. gentleman must give him leave to express his fears,
532
533
Lord Morpeth
said, he had no wish to
534
535
536
Lord Palmerston
said, that his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, having appealed to him to confirm the correctness of some parts of the statement which he had made, he had great pleasure in doing so. Of some of the facts he was, as his right hon. friend had truly said, cognizant; and, in respect of these, he was able to bear his most willing testimony. Much discussion had arisen in respect of the principles upon which his noble friend in another House, his right hon. friend near him, and himself, had consented to join the present administration. It had been attempted to be shewn, that they could not have been justified in so joining the new government, unless they had previously obtained sufficient assurance and guarantee, as to the nature of the measures in which they might be called on to concur; and his right hon. friend, in particular, had been accused of abandoning one party in order to join another hostile to his own views of foreign and commercial policy. Now, looking either to their own situation, or to the character of those members of the government with whom they had to deal, it must surely be manifest to the House, that no such stipulations as those suggested that evening, could have been, for one moment, proposed or entertained. But, as had been already observed by his right hon. friend, he and his noble and right hon. friend felt it to be their duty to the public, to parliament, and to themselves, to ascertain, by the most direct and explicit means, what were the opinions and views of the individuals whom they were so invited to join, before they agreed to become constituent members of the government about to be formed. When application, for example, was first made to him, the only answer he could give to a proposal, general in its nature, was, that he should wish, in the first instance, to
537
538
Mr. Littleton
rose to exculpate his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, from the blame of not having before given an explanation, and professed himself ready, to take that blame on himself—if blame attached to any person. On the return of his right hon. friend to town, he conveyed to him his belief, that it was the intention' of the gentlemen opposite, to put some questions to him on the Monday following. On Monday his right hon. friend attended in his place, when it was understood that those gentlemen meant to postpone putting their questions till the motion for a Committee of Supply on Wednesday. It was notorious, not only that his right hon. friend did attend in his place that evening, but that he was ready to give every information, and was anxious he should be called on to give it; but when the time came for appointing the Committee of Supply, the intention of questioning his right hon. friend was postponed till the appointment of the Committee of Finance on Friday. His right hon. friend came down to the House that night with the intention of
539
540
Mr. T. Duncombe
commenced by alluding to a passage in one of the letters read by Mr. Herries, and addressed to lord Goderich, in which that right hon. gentleman expressed a hope, that his lordship's administration would stand, and that the country would not be deprived of the services of their mutual friend. Now, he wished to know who that mutual friend was?
Mr. Herries.
— "Mr. Huskisson, of course."
Mr. Duncombe
then wished to know, how it came to pass, that the right hon. gentleman should have informed the House, that it was for the first time that night he had ever heard of the resignation, or intended resignation, of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, although allusion was manifestly made to the circumstance in several places in those letters? The noble lord, lately at the head of the administration, had, in another place, given what was called a very fair account of the early stage of the disorder which had proved fatal to the cabinet; but he should have explained why the head
541
542
"At whose soft nod the streams of honour flow, Whose smiles all place and patronage bestow."
543
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he did not rise to offer any thing in explanation of the causes of the dissolution of the late administration. Of those causes he knew absolutely nothing; and he was never aware of the existence of the correspondence which had been laid before them that night until he had heard it read. Knowing nothing, then, of those causes beyond what every gentleman knew who read the public papers, no consideration on earth should induce him to enter upon a discussion of them, or to pronounce any opinion. upon them. He could not proceed further without noticing one or two expressions in the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, as to the mysterious, incorporeal, and incomprehensible, being of which he had spoken. He did not know where it existed. He had, for some years, been in the service of his majesty, and he never was aware that any of the measures of the government had been thwarted by this incomprehensible being, nor had he ever found that the other more substantial personage had interfered, in the way stated by the hon. gentleman, with the financial affairs of the country. As he was perfectly ignorant of the existence of any species of influence like that alluded to by the hon. member, he could not afford him any information upon that point.—He was not aware that there was any explanation required by that House from him, regarding the circumstances attendant upon his return to the office which he had the honour to fill. He was ready to answer any question which might be put to him respecting the circumstances and reasons which had induced him to join the present administration. He was willing to state every thing that was material, and should any omission be pointed out to him, he would gladly supply it. Upon the night of the 9th of January, while then residing in Sussex, he received at midnight a letter from his grace the duke of Wellington, stating, that he had been commissioned by his majesty to form a new ministry, and requesting that he would, without delay, return to London, as his grace was anxious to confer with him in the first instance, upon the subject. He left the place where he was residing that night, and arrived in London early on the following morning. He waited
544
545
546
"My dear Lord Chancellor,—To prevent any misconception, allow me to commit to writing the substance of what I stated to you this morning. I must candidly say, that I wish to see the present government resting on the same footing as it did before lord Liverpool's misfortune. As regards myself, I am content with my situation, and wish for no change; and, with the single exception of the difference of opinion respecting the Catholic question, I am ready to act with them in every other matter. I can assure you, that I esteem and respect them, and should consider it a great misfortune for his majesty to be deprived of the services of any of them, particularly of the services of Mr. Canning. I can say with the greatest truth, that with the single exception of the Catholic question, my opinions are in accordance with theirs."
547
548
549
de facto
" laudator temporis acti,"
Mr. T. Duncombe
said, "No." He had merely said that which was the fact; namely, that the right hon. gentleman had declared he never would act with those
550
Mr. Secretary Peel
continued. He would not moot the point with the hon. gentleman; for the principle was that which he desired to go upon. Was there never to be an end of the desire to make every transient hostility interminable? The noble lord at the head of the Foreign Affairs had treated this dangerous and unreasonable desire as it deserved, when he had spoken of the praise which was due to Mr. Canning, for having forgotten his personal difference with the late marquis of Londonderry, the instant that the country seemed likely to be assisted by their union. For himself, he could only say, that if it was a point of honour to recollect one's own quarrels, or the quarrels of one's friends, he thought it an act incomparably more noble, to forget those animosities when the public interest would be served by burying them in oblivion. He hoped, therefore, most sincerely, that there would be an end of these demands for explanation, and of explanation itself, as of every other circumstance which could tend to impede that cordial union for the promotion of the public welfare, which he was sure, if it was permitted to do so, would distinguish the conduct of the present ministry. If government was allowed to take its course, as much unanimity and as much exertion would mark the administration of the duke of Wellington, as had distinguished any ministry that had ever existed in the country; certainly as much as could belong to any ministry capable of being formed in the existing state of parties. He trusted that what had been done already, since the business of the session had commenced, had evinced at least a disposition, from which no evil to the country would be expected. As far as he was concerned, his object should be to do that which he had recommended; namely, to forget all differences which had existed, and to ask only, how far the expectations of the public from the government as it stood was likely to be realized. He had never sought to be recalled to office. His being replaced in it was neither of his asking nor of his particular desire: but, since he was in office, he would steadily perform that which he believed to be his duty: he would execute the trust which, in taking place, he had contracted with the Crown and with the nation; especially aiming to promote the union of the minis-
551
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
rose to explain. He said, he trusted that his peculiar situation would excuse his intrusion upon the House for a few moments. The declaration of the hon. member opposite, as to what he had heard of his pledge not to join the opponents of Mr. Canning—those words of his which the hon. member had converted into a pledge, and which he could only have heard by some scandalous violation of private confidence—had been so much talked of and so grossly misrepresented, that he would state what they really were. He had never uttered any thing like the words that were imputed to him; namely, "that he would never again take office with those who had persecuted Mr. Canning to the death"—to the death, or to destruction; for it mattered little what the precise expression was which was thus sought to be put into his mouth. What he had said was this—when he returned to England in August, he had used the expression, that "his wounds were too
552
Mr. Brougham
said, that at so late an hour he should not be suspected of intending to trespass long upon the patience of the House. Indeed, the subject in debate was one upon which an immense deal of what was needless had already been said, and upon which it might have been sufficient, by taking up the question at the right point, to have said very little. The right hon. gentleman, the late chancellor of the Exchequer, had explained to the House every thing but the short facts which it was desirous to have explained. As to the few material points which had, been suggested by the noble opener of the
553
554
Mr. Herries
said, the hon. and learned, gentleman was in error. He had used no such terms, nor any like them. He had not spoken of any cabal.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he himself did not recollect the word "cabal.:" it had been recollected for him by an hon.
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
The Committee of Supply was then postponed till Wednesday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, February 19.
CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
, on presenting a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Londonderry, praying for the repeal of the Laws against them, said, he had heard,
563
On the motion of adjournment,
Lord Goderich
rose, and said:—It is with great pain, I can assure your lordships, I feel myself under the necessity of again calling your lordships' attention to a personal subject, with reference to the topic on which I addressed your lordships in the course of last week. In what I then threw out, I was anxious not to say any thing that might offend the feelings, or affect the character, of any individual. My object was to justify my own conduct and not to complain of, or to make out a case against, others. I had no wish to reflect on any individuals, or say any thing but to state the whole truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth. How, my lords, could I state, for I had no motives to state, what was not absolutely necessary to make your lordships acquainted with the truth? If the observations to which I allude had only re-
564
565
The Earl of Carlisle
said, he thought it his duty, having been connected with the
566
567
568
The Earl of Morley
said, that reference having been made, by his noble friend who had just sat down, to the principles and ministry of the great statesman whose loss was so generally lamented, he was desirous of offering a few observations to the House. He was the more anxious to do so, as he was in that House certainly the first adherent of that right hon. gentleman; and further, because it had appeared, from a former debate, that some difference of opinion existed amongst those who had been connected with Mr. Canning, as to the line of conduct which it was, under existing circumstances, most accordant with their honour and consistency to adopt. Various theories had, at different times, been maintained, as to the support which those selected by the Crown to conduct its affairs were, upon general grounds, entitled to claim from their lordships, and the other branch of the legislature. Some appeared to think, that the measures of the executive government ought to be received with confidence, whilst others contended that watchfulness and distrust should mark the conduct of Parliament. Without entering into such disquisitions, he felt confident that he expressed the general sentiment of the country when he said, that at no time were the wants of a fixed and settled government more urgent—at no time were the dangers and inconveniences likely to arise from further changes more imminent.
à, priori,
569
570
571
The House then adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 19.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.]
Mr. Hume
, in presenting three petitions from the county of Cavan, praying for Catholic Emancipation, took occasion to enlarge upon the folly of continuing the distinctions which arise from religious opinions.
Sir John Brydges
condemned the practice indulged in by hon. gentlemen, of haranguing upon the subject of every petition they presented to the House.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he had seen many useful measures carried, and many injurious acts got rid of, by means of the harangues of which the hon. member complained.
Mr. Wallace
addressed the House for the first time. He said it was desirable that the fullest information should be given on every subject connected with the distresses of Ireland, and the manifold evils which grew out of those distresses. Things could not go on in the way in which they now were in Ireland; and every occasion should be taken both "in season and out of season," of expatiating on the wrongs of that country, and the urgent necessity of redressing them. He could not, therefore, concur in the observation of the hon. baronet, that these petitions should be presented in silence.
572
STAMP DUTY ON RECEIPTS.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from Brechin, complaining of the Two-penny Stamp Duty, which brought an inconsiderable revenue, was unequal in its operation, and attended with vexatious litigation. The petitioners also complained of the legacy duty, which was attended in its operation with great inequality and hardship. When a poor person died—a person, for instance, who might not have more than 20
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Bright
concurred in opinion, that these small duties on stamps were unproductive to the revenue, and extremely vexatious on the poorer classes. He considered them more vexatious in their operation than the Salt-tax. One of the hardships was, that the Stamp-office hired informers, to discover those who infringed the Statute.
Mr. Sykes
said, that the law upon this subject was extremely oppressive to the population of the town which he represented. He thought it a severe hardship that the Stamp-office should advertize for informers in the manner which they notoriously did. He hoped the legislature would direct its attention to the subject, in reference to which he had some petitions to present.
Mr. Baring
said, that informers were
573
Ordered to lie on the table.
IRISH SUB-LETTING ACT.]
Mr. Villiers Stuart
presented a petition from Waterford against the Sub-letting Act. He thought it might be amended although it was grounded on a right principle.
Mr. Brownlow
panegyrized the Landlord and Tenant bill, which, he contended, was calculated to produce great benefit to Ireland. One great benefit which would arise from it was, that it would prevent that under-letting of small portions of land, which had been found so injurious.
Sir H. Parnell
also defended the Landlord and Tenant bill, and was ready to avow the share he had taken in its formation. He hoped the House would at length take the real state of Ireland into its consideration, and by getting rid of nostrums, adopt some sound principle of internal management, by which the industry of the country would be fairly stimulated.
Mr. J. Grattan
was not opposed to the principle of the Landlord and Tenant bill, but he thought time ought to be given to the people of Ireland to become acquainted with the nature of its operation. With respect to emigration, he for one should oppose himself to the raising of a loan of a million, as had been recommended, for the purpose of sending eighty thousand of the Irish people to Canada. Remedies of a different nature ought to be provided for the evils existing in that unhappy country.
Mr. G. Moore
thought it would be too much to say that the misery to which Ireland was reduced by the existence of her large unemployed population, was to be traced to this act. The House ought to take into their consideration the best means of redressing the evils under which that population suffered for want of employment: and they would then be conferring a real benefit on Ireland.
General Hart
thought that the super-
574
Mr. Wallace
was of opinion, that several provisions of the act were very objectionable. It seemed to him that it must have been passed without the legislature having given due consideration to the state of that country. He would not set up the opinion of any man, however well informed, against a proof of practical inconvenience; and it seemed to him that the practical inconveniences resulting from this act were numerous.
Mr. L. Foster
said, he differed from the learned gentleman respecting the inconveniences to be suffered from this act, and must put a different construction upon its clauses.
Mr. W. Lamb
said, there never was an act for which there had been so unanimous and long-continued a call as for some measure of this nature. Let hon. gentlemen read all the volumes written on the condition of Ireland, statistical and political; let them read all the various, able, and elaborate, speeches delivered on the condition of that country; let them read all the ample minutes of inquiry made before committees of both Houses, and they would find that the attention of parliament had been most peculiarly directed to the consideration of this practice of sub-letting, and of minutely sub-dividing, land. There could be no doubt it had originated chiefly in the circumstances of the country; and its abuses had been greatly aggravated, by the causes which had been adverted to. Nor could it be doubted that it was one of the great sources of the miseries of the unemployed population of that country. Still, it must be admitted, that great and sudden changes could not be safely made in matters deeply affecting the mass of the people. It was impossible to bring them over suddenly to changes in their laws, however pernicious in their principle or results. Any attempt to interfere with those feelings and habits, would necessarily be attended with considerable murmuring and discontent. He should be most happy in taking an opportunity of fully considering the subject. If it was possible to make any modification of the provisions of this act perfectly consistent with its main principle and object, it would be the duty of parliament to do so.
Ordered to lie on the table.
575
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.]
Mr. Robert Gordon
rose, in pursuance of the instructions of the Committee, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Law for the Regulation of Lunatic Asylums. At the latter end of the last session, he had obtained a committee to inquire into the state of the Lunatic Asylums in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. That committee had been attended very diligently by the members, and the result of the evidence was such as fully justified him in every assertion he had made in moving for it. He would venture to repeat what he had before said on this subject; namely, that in the present state of the law, an individual possessing a great income might, with much more ease than the House could suppose, be imprisoned on the false pretence of insanity, at the instance of some person acting from malicious or interested motives. Whoever had read the report of the committee would see it perfectly established in evidence, that there was a great deal too much facility in granting certificates to the keepers of Lunatic Asylums. The only provision of the law against the false imprisonment of any individual, under the plea of insanity, was, that the keeper of a lunatic hospital could not receive any person as a lunatic into his establishment, without an accompanying certificate, signed by a physician, surgeon, or apothecary; and he begged the House to observe, that the term apothecary was, in this act, interpreted to mean merely a seller of drugs; so that any dealer in drugs had the right of signing a certificate, consigning any person to imprisonment whom he deemed to be insane. Nay, the very apprentice of this man, as soon as his indentures had expired, might, by his signature to a certificate, consign any person, under the pretence of insanity, to all the miseries of the mad-house. This certificate was granted previously to the person being received into this shocking receptacle of deranged humanity; so that it might sometimes happen, that this ignorant practitioner would see a person labouring under the delirium of a fever, or the hallucination occasioned by opium, and grant a certificate under which the unfortunate sufferer might, for months afterwards, remain immured amidst the horrors of a mad-house. There could be no doubt that it was the business of the legislature to prevent, as far as possible,
576
577
578
579
580
581
habeas corpus.
582
583
Lord Ashley
seconded the motion; but his lordship spoke in so low a tone, that he was nearly inaudible in the gallery.
584
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he did not think that the hon. gentleman had done justice to the feelings of the House, when he had supposed that his motion would be treated with the slightest inattention; for he was sure that it must not only be impressed with the importance of the question, but also feel grateful to the hon. gentleman for having taken it up; especially as he must have devoted his time to it from a feeling of pure philanthropy; and he thought that a more important subject could not have been chosen, though it was not one calculated for display. During the summer, he had paid some attention to the report that had been made by the committee; and though he had not himself taken any part in the present bill, he trusted that the hon. gentleman would introduce it on such a principle that it would execute itself; for, unless that should be the case, there would be danger that, in the course of fifteen or twenty years, when the public attention was no longer excited, the same abuses as those now complained of would creep in. There could not be a question, that unless the asylums for pauper lunatics were well conducted, they would be a curse rather than a blessing; and that it would be infinitely better to have none at all, than such as would only offer temptations to send unfortunate creatures to them. There were cases in which the patient was merely somewhat troublesome, and it was much better that such as these should be abroad; it being preferable to leave them in the custody of their relations, than to lock them up in mad-houses. That mildness of treatment might produce the best effects was to be seen from the manner in which the house in St. George's fields was conducted. Patients had been removed thither, after being chained to the wall for nine years at the other place, and brought to quiet and tranquillity by the pursuing of a milder course. Unless, therefore, these asylums were well regulated, they were the greatest curses that could exist. But he wished to suggest to the hon. gentleman, that there might be danger in the
585
Mr. R. Gordon
said, he proposed that they should be appointed annually.
Mr. Peel
was afraid that the old members would be sure to be re-appointed, unless it was positively enacted that new physicians and visitors should be appointed twice a year.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that when he was younger he had paid much attention to this subject, and had visited all the madhouses round London, by which he had been eye-witness of the great abuses practised. He was therefore rejoiced at the prospect of alteration. He trusted that no house, however respectable, would be exempted from the operation of the bill; and that those which stood highest in reputation, would forego any privilege, in order that the act might be completely carried into effect.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, it was the object of his bill to place the matter entirely under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 21.
CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.]
Mr. Portman
rose to inquire, whether it was the intention of the Treasury to take any steps I for inquiring into the complaints of the Maltsters?
Mr. Herries
said, that his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, would be better able to speak upon the subject than he was; but he knew that his right hon. friend meant to lose no time in entering into personal communication with the parties, upon the matters in which they thought themselves aggrieved.—While he was upon his legs he might as well take the opportunity of removing one or two erroneous impressions which had gone abroad, as to part of the statement which he had made on a former evening. He was aware that in doing this he was a little out of order; but where the personal feelings of a member were concerned, it was the cus-
586
587
Mr. T. Duncombe
said, that his only excuse for intruding upon the House was, the speech which had just been made by the right hon. gentleman; and he confessed, so far from taking it as an explanation, that he had never heard any address from an hon. member that surprised him more. If his senses, on a preceding evening, had not entirely failed him, he had heard the right hon. gentleman say, that it was then, for the first time, that he had heard of the resignation of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. Nay, the right hon. gentleman had repeated the expression: he had used it twice. This was not only his impression, but that of several other members around him; and he was astonished to find the right hon. gentleman, three days afterwards, giving the statement a totally different construction. He expected, after this, that the right hon. gentleman would next explain away the well-remembered words which he had uttered—" I know it." One expression was just as clear as the other. With respect to the whole statement, indeed, of the right hon. gentleman, he came to the same conclusion. He believed that the right hon. gentleman's object was to mystify the late transactions, so that they should be beyond all mortal understanding; and, if such was his intent, he had completely succeeded. If any thing like explanation was meant by the right hon. gentleman's speeches, he protested that he considered them as a most exemplary failure.
588
Mr. Herries
said, that perhaps the House would allow him to re-state a fact, which he apprehended the hon. member had not distinctly heard. He had stated, on a preceding evening, not that which the hon. member imputed to him, but that he had heard, on that night, for the first time, that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had resigned on the 29th of December: and he had added a complaint, that he had not been informed of that fact, until the 5th of January. Two morning papers, which had reported his speech upon that evening, distinctly confirmed his present representation of that which he had said. He desired to repeat that representation; and if the hon. member still doubted its accuracy, he might refer to the reports which he had alluded to; but which it was not possible for him, in his own justification, to produce.
Lord Milton
thought that the House was bound to take the fact to be as the right hon. gentleman had stated it. There could be no doubt but that he must be best able to decide that which he himself had said, independent of the authority alluded to. But he would put that question entirely aside; for that which the right hon. gentleman had just stated to the House seemed to him to be full of most important matter. The right hon. gentleman, on a preceding evening, had imputed a design—an intention—he did not know whether the right hon. gentleman had used the word" plot," but certainly he said a design, and an intention—to break up the ministry, and that his own threatened resignation had only been made a pretence for dissolving it. The right hon. gentleman had added, "I know it." Now, he would not have referred to that declaration, if the right hon. gentleman had not expressly, on the present evening, repeated to the House, by implication, that he was cognizant of that fact. If the right hon. gentleman was so—if he knew that a design had existed, and knew the parties who were concerned in it,—he had that to state as to which all the explanations hitherto given to the House were not worth common attention —were but as dust in the balance. All that had been stated was nothing—it was valueless and inefficient—as compared with the knowledge which the hon. gentleman, told the House he had behind. If he did know of this design, he must know the grounds of it, the objects of it, and the parties concerned in it; and on these heads
589
Mr. Brougham
said, he had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman was prepared to answer the inquiries of his noble friend. Indeed, it was impossible that he should avoid doing so. But he wished to put one other question to the right hon. gentleman, without which his answer would neither be complete nor satisfactory to the House. If the right hon. gentleman had not, on a preceding evening, come forward with a gratuitous explanation of the charges which he thought affected his character as a public man and as a minister, he should have had no title to ask the right hon. gentleman the question which he was about to put. But, as he had come forward, uncalled upon, to reply to a charge not suggested in the House—a charge that he had gone and consulted with some one out of the cabinet, and out of the circle of the administration—as he had denied that charge, with an explicitness which had scarcely, even in the walls of that House, been exceeded,—that being the case, he wished to know of the right hon. gentleman, whether he rightly understood him to have said, "as he hoped to be saved," and "upon his sacred honour as a gentleman," there was no foundation whatever for the charges and insinuations which had been brought against him elsewhere, that he had gone forth from the cabinet, in the course of the struggles of the ministry, and made a communication in a certain other quarter—the highest quarter in the state: assuming the right hon. gentleman to have said this, since it was not contradicted,—that he most solemnly denied having consulted any party out of the circle of the cabinet on the imputed occasion—did the right hon. gentleman mean also to say, that no party out of the cabinet had ever consulted him? He wished to know, whether the right hon. gentleman's denial went to the fact of any individual having consulted with him, as well as of his having consulted with any individual?
Mr. Herries
said, that he did not think the hon. and learned gentleman had a right to put that last question. He doubted whether it ought to be asked: at least, he thought it would more properly have been omitted. All he would say was this, that he entirely abided by his explanations already given. He would enter
590
Mr. Brougham
observed, that he had claimed no right to ask any question. He had put his inquiry, he thought, in a way calculated to disarm all personal feeling. He had distinctly said, that he should not have thought of putting any question, except for the explanation which the right hon. gentleman had volunteered. If the right hon. gentleman intended to abide in silence now, it would have been infinitely better, for his own sake, if he had never explained at all.
Mr. Wynn
said, that if he had been silent upon a former night, it had only been because he felt that he could add nothing to that which had been stated by others. He had personally been a stranger to the cause which led to the dissolution of the late administration until the 9th of January: but, after all that had passed, he must say, that he thought further explanation from the right hon. gentleman necessary. With respect to the allegation made by the right hon. gentleman, he knew not upon what ground it rested; and until he had further proofs of the existence of a design to break up the government, he must say, with all deference to the right hon. gentleman, that he could not give credit to it. From that which he knew of those with whom he had been united in office, and from his personal knowledge of the noble lord at the head of the late government, he did most entirely believe, that if there were grounds for the insinuations of the right hon. gentleman, as to intention or design—of those intentions or designs, the noble lord and his colleagues in the ministry, from beginning to end, had been entirely ignorant.
Mr. Sturges Bourne
said, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from his right hon. friend. The circumstances which he had stated were those which, as far as his own knowledge extended, had led to the dissolution of the late administration. Nothing, indeed, could have come more unexpectedly upon him than the dissolution of the administration. Nothing could have more excited his astonishment, except, indeed, the explanation given on a former night by the right hon. gentleman. The animadversions made by the right hon. gentleman on the noble lord at the head of the late administration, coming from the quarter which they did, had in-
591
Sir J. Yorke
said, that having read the explanations of a former night, and listened to those given on the present, the members of the late administration did appear to him to have been the greatest set of children that ever matters of importance were intrusted to. If that was the way in which the government of the country could be conducted, he fully agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that it would be an excellent plan to have no government at all. It would be a great saving in salaries and emoluments; and the nation would get on as well by itself as with such a cabinet as the House had heard the history of. Here was a government broken up, and half the members connected with it not acquainted with the fact, until the dissolution was resolved on, and even concluded; and the king sending for the noble duke who was to form a pew one, and plainly telling him—" You must form a new ministry, for these fellows have at last done their own business; but if they could have kept from cutting their own throats, I assure you I would have Stood by them." He was very sorry to hear so lame an explanation from the right hon. Master of the Mint. It was very poor, poor indeed—very round-about, and full of reference to dates and hours, all which seemed to reasonable people very unimportant. He thought that, after what had fallen two evenings since from a noble lord in another place, the right hon. gentleman would have made a better statement to the House. As the account stood, it did appear that the right hon. gentleman had been the means of breaking up the last government, by his jealousy and squabbles; and if that was his general character, the sooner the duke of Wellington turned him out of the present cabinet the better.
Sir J. Macdonald
said, he was much
592
Mr. Herries
said, that after the observations of the hon. baronet, he would offer a few words to the House; but not at all in departure from his already expressed determination—that of entering into no disclosures not absolutely necessary to his own exculpation. An hon. and learned gentleman, who had termed his explanation on a former evening voluntary and gratuitous, knew well that he had been
593
594
Mr. Wynn
begged to repeat in the most distinct and unequivocal terms, his belief that the resignation of the right hon. gentleman was the cause of the dissolution of the late ministry. He knew of no other cause whatever. Whether the government could continue to stand, would have depended on the share of the confidence of parliament which it might possess; but that it was intended to meet parliament and to stand the contest on that occasion, he was convinced. Now, he begged to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, eight and forty hours before he had sent in his resignation, he had not in the cabinet, promised to co-operate in the support of lord Goderich's government to the utmost of his power? He asked him whether he had said or intimated any thing on that occasion, which could give the slightest reason to suppose that he had at that time any intention to resign? He begged to ask the right hon. gentleman whether at that time he had any intention of writing the letter tendering his resignation? If he had, he most certainly had deceived him— he would not say intentionally, but he had deceived him—for he would most distinctly assert, that it was impossible for any man who heard the promise of the right hon. gentleman on the 19th of December, to believe that it was his intention to resign on the 21st. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that no man who had heard
595
Lord Normanby
said, that the question which he had first introduced to the House had now arrived at that stage in which it could not be taken up beneficially by any person except the right hon. gentleman himself. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he had given an explanation which must be considered satisfactory. How far it tended to clear his character—of course he meant his public character—he would not inquire. Neither would he stop to examine how far a minister of the Crown was justified in throwing out insinuations against his late colleagues in office. On all these points he would leave the right hon. gentleman to the benefit of that opinion which he might very easily gather, from all sides of the House, during the present short discussion. He had risen for the purpose of setting the right hon. gentleman right on one point. Any further question he would not put, for the right hon. gentleman seemed as incapable of understanding any question put to him, as he was of answering it in a way in which it could be understood by others. The
596
Mr. Herries
said, that the noble lord had correctly re-stated the points to which he had called his attention. To those points he conceived that he had already given a reply. He had stated his reasons for the delay which occurred between the 3rd of December and the letter he wrote on the 21st. For that, he thought, he had also satisfactorily accounted. But the noble lord objected, that he had shifted his ground, and stated a reason, at a subsequent interval, different from that which he had mentioned at first; and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) said the same thing, and asked, why he had assumed that the nomination of lord Althorp was completed, when he had been already told that it was only proposed. He would answer, that he had a right to assume that the engagement was concluded; and let it be remembered, that when he read the letter to the House, he stated that he had so
597
598
599
Mr. Brougham
said, that from the feeling manifested by the House, it appeared to him that it was not its wish that this matter should be pressed further, the more particularly as no further explanation could be expected from the right hon. gentleman. There was only one word which he would add on the subject, in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman as to his (Mr. B. 's) not having spoken advisedly, when he stated that the right hon. gentleman had volunteered a gratuitous explanation. He begged to assure him, that he had spoken advisedly on that occasion, and he was borne out in it by his noble friend; for he remembered that the right hon. gentleman had alluded to attacks made upon him in the newspapers, and had culled and selected one point of attack, and had given his answer to it.
Here the conversation dropped.
MODE OF TAKING CITIES AND BOROUGHS POLLS.]
Colonel Davies
rose for leave to bring in a Bill, "for regulating the Mode of taking the Polls in Cities and Boroughs in England." In bringing forward this motion, he was, he said, the organ of a committee appointed to inquire into the abuses which it was proposed by the bill to remedy. The object of the bill was to extend the facilities of voting at present enjoyed by electors; and the mode in which it was proposed to do so, was by increasing the number of places at which polls were taken, and by limiting the duration of those elections. At present every election presented a scene of licentiousness and riot; the contest was always a source of immense expense; and by the stagnation of business, and the interruption of all affairs of trade, the loss was greatly increased. He anticipated no opposition, and should at present confine himself to his motion for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Robinson
said, he was disposed to
600
Lord Lowther
thought it necessary to have a number of booths and polling places in large towns, to avoid the access to the hustings being blocked up by the adverse parties. He should look with jealousy to the progress of the bill, as it appeared to him not to afford sufficient time for bringing up voters from London to distant places.
Mr. Batley
was of opinion, that all the evils complained of under the present system, arose from the too long duration of the time of polling. In the borough which he represented, the election was generally, concluded in one day, and the number of voters polled on the last occasion was one thousand five hundred, including three hundred out-voters.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the existing inconveniences were allowed on all hands. By shortening the period, and lessening the expenses of elections, the House would, he was convinced, be enlarging; and not restraining the elective franchise.
Mr. Fyler
disapproved of increasing the number of polling booths. He disliked to see electors shut up in different pens like so many sheep. He thought they ought rather to assemble in a body, and express their feelings in a united voice.
Mr. Baring
said, that six days, the term proposed in the bill for the duration of the poll, appeared to him insufficient. He thought, likewise, that if the object was, to curtail expense, the having a number of polling places was not the way to effect it; seeing that the candidates would be obliged to have counsel at each place.
Mr. Secretary Peel
suggested to the hon. mover, that the best argument he could bring in aid of his bill would be some instances of the benefit which had resulted from the abridgment of the poll in particular places. In Norwich, he believed, the duration of the poll had been considerably shortened. He threw out this suggestion, seeing that one practical instance would have greater weight than innumerable arguments
à priori.
The Attorney-General
said, that the
601
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.]
Mr. Courtenay
Mr. Hume
said, that great anxiety existed as to the object which the hon. gentleman had in view. An idea prevailed, that it was the intention of the hon. member to take away from friendly societies the power of appointing their treasurers and other officers; which, in the opinion of persons connected with those societies, would destroy the system altogether. He was satisfied that the hon. member had no such intention; but hoped that, to allay the apprehensions of others, he would take that opportunity of stating what his object was.
Mr. Courtenay
said, it might be a sufficient answer to what had fallen from the hon. member, to state that the bill which he proposed to bring in, did not in any degree affect the societies formed otherwise than under the act which he had the honour to introduce in 1819. The new bill would interfere no further in the matter of appointing officers than the former bill did. The existing act required that there should be certain trustees, and that they should appoint the treasurer. The act interfered in no other way with the management of the societies; so far from it, that all clauses in former acts relating to their management were repealed by it. Except in the matter of securities, the societies framed under his act had more direct management of their affairs than those framed under Mr. Rose's act. The act he had introduced was intended to obviate the numerous evils which resulted from miscalculation; for which purpose it provided, that justices should not allow any society to be formed, whose tables of payments and benefits should not have been approved by two competent actuaries. In the execution of this provision, however, a difficulty arose: it was not easy to know who were competent actuaries. To get rid of this obstacle, he would propose, in the bill he was about to introduce, that the rules and tables exhibited at the sessions should be, by the clerk of the peace,
602
Mr. Hume
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS.]
Mr. Potter Macqueen
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for a select committee" to take into consideration the Law of Parochial Settlements." The hon. member said, that after deliberating whether be should embody at once the alterations which he proposed to make in the laws relating to parochial settlement into a distinct bill, or ask for a committee of inquiry, he had thought it his duty to prefer the latter mode; because, if it should be thought that there was too much of novelty in his views, they would be better digested and come with stronger recommendation from the hon. members whom he intended to propose as a committee.—The first objection against the laws relative to parochial settlements was, that they were founded upon ancient habits of serfship, and militated against the liberty of the subject. Under the present system, the unfortunate pauper, on the approach of illness, age, or disability, might, together with his family, be dragged like criminals from one end of the country to the other, that they were finally lodged in some obscure parish, where, according to the opinion of any two magistrates in the vicinity, they had done some act to entitle them to a settlement. This harsh and evil policy had been strongly deprecated by sir William Blackstone and by Mr. Pitt. The former had declared, in his Commentaries that, "notwithstanding the pains which have been taken about the laws of settlement, they still remain very imperfect, and inadequate to the purposes they are designed for: a fate that has generally attended most of our statute laws, where they have not the foundation I of the common law to build on. When the shires, the hundreds, and the tithings, were kept in the same admirable order, that they were disposed in by the great Alfred, there were no persons idle; consequently none but the impotent that needed relief; and the 43rd Statute of I Elizabeth seems entirely founded on the same principle. But when this excellent scheme was neglected and departed from, we cannot but observe with concern, what
603
604
605
Colonel Wood
said, he thought it would be advisable to give the powers of the committee a wider range, as there were many other points, with respect to the Poor Laws, which must necessarily force themselves upon their consideration. In some parts of the country, the rate of wages was so low, that even a single man could with difficulty support himself without parochial aid. It was not his intention to trespass upon the attention of the House on that occasion; but if no other member took the matter up, he should feel it his duty to move, that the committee should have power to embrace the more general question of the Poor-laws.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed. The name of the Attorney-general being included,
The Attorney General
said, he could not promise to give his general attendance at the committee, in consequence of his professional avocations. What assistance he could afford short of such attendance, he was very willing to contribute.
Mr. Macqueen
declared himself satisfied with the occasional assistance of the hon. and learned gentleman.
606
ROMAN CATHOLIC LAND TAX BILL.]
Mr. G. Bankes
Mr. Curteis
wished to state some objections which he felt, not so much towards the principle of the proposed measure, as to some of its details. He thought it would tend to the ultimate success of the bill, if it were to undergo a little more consideration. The bill had been passed last year in the House of Commons, but had been lost in the other House. Upon the former occasion, the late chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "Where there's a will there's a way," an expression, the meaning of which he did not understand at the time, but which he since understood to mean that, although there was a will to pass the measure in the House of Commons, there was a way to get rid of it in the House of Lords; and so it proved. Before it passed, he should like to know, whether it was likely to be productive of serious loss to the country. If the tax, as it at present existed, operated as a hardship upon Roman Catholics in particular, he was the last man to wish for its continuance. But if the Land-tax was felt as a grievance, then the general question had better go before the finance committee. It had always been an impression upon his mind, that the hon. mover of the bill was rather hostile to the Roman Catholics; but he supposed the hon. member introduced this motion as a sort of balsam —that he intended by it to pour oil into the wounds of that body. He disclaimed all hostility to the Roman Catholics. He cared not whether a man came from Canterbury or Rome, and thought that the Roman Catholic ought not to pay a larger amount of taxation than the Protestant. So much for the policy of the bill; it was much more material to consider its justice. There was, in his opinion, no hardship whatever in the existing system; or if any, it fell almost entirely on the inhabitants of the southern counties of England; and they, in his opinion, had a stronger claim to relief than the Roman Catholics.
Mr. Fyler
said, he should be the last man in the world to object to a measure like the present, which was intended to do justice to persons whose rights appeared to have been injured; but, at the same time, as the indulgence which was now sought to be granted to the Catholics must come out of the public purse, he thought it was
607
Mr. Herries
said, he was ready to support the principle of this bill, for the same reasons which had induced him to support it in the last session. But he thought, that instead of debating the principle of the measure, on which he believed they were all agreed, they ought to let the bill go into the next stage, where they might discuss the best mode of obviating the difficulties which were anticipated to its practical operation. He agreed that, to impose a different rate of duty on different classes of the community, on account of the difference in their religious creeds, was a doctrine which no man of common sense, at the present day, would advocate.
The Attorney-General
said, he knew that the statute of William 3rd, being held a very severe measure against the Roman Catholics, had, by collusion and connivance on the part of the early commissioners, never been carried into execution against them. The difficulty, therefore, would be to ascertain the fact, whether the Roman Catholic proprietor had had a double assessment placed upon his land in the time of king William, according to its then real value. He was not satisfied with the nature of the proof which the present bill provided on that point; on the contrary, he thought that the legal advisers of the Crown should have an opportunity of bringing it under revision. There was another provision of the bill with which he was not satisfied. When Mr. Pitt made the Land-tax, perpetual, it followed as a matter of course, that no change could take place in the assessments which were then made, and not appealed against within a given time, An opportunity was then given to the Roman Catholics to get rid of their assessment of 8
s.
608
Mr. Hurst
explained the mode in which the commissioners of Land-tax disposed of appeals against the inequality of the tax in his district. He had no great alarm, as to the sum which the revenue would lose by the passing of this measure; for he knew that there was not, in the extensive county of Sussex, a single Catholic who would have occasion to appeal under it; and he believed that the same was the case in Surrey. He was of opinion that public justice required the bill to be passed, and that the thanks of the country were due to the law officers of the Crown for not meeting it with any unnecessary opposition.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that he did not look upon this measure as a boon to the Catholics, but as an act of tardy justice. When the act was passed, which made the Land-tax perpetual, the inequality with which it pressed upon the Roman Catholics was dwelt upon by Mr. Pitt. He used phrases which showed that he considered it to be owing to the carelessness of Protestants, that an inequality existed among them; and said, that he could not allow that inequality to be urged as a reason for delaying the passing of his bill, which it was well known was an important financial measure. Not a word further was said at that time by the Roman Catholics; for at that time, too, there was no Roman Catholic in the House to advocate their cause. He, who had always opposed the admission of Catholics into parliament, on national grounds, never supposed that it was not a hardship upon them, that they had not individuals in the House to advocate their rights, and therefore he agreed with the Attorney-general, that though it might not be hard to let the Protestants suffer for their neglect, they were bound to show greater indulgence to Roman Catholics. In cases, therefore, where Protestants paid an equal assessment with Catholics, he did not pretend, by this bill, to give any remedy. The law, however, professed to remedy the injustice which
609
l.
l.
l.
l.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 22.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee, to which the Army Estimates were referred,
Lord Palmerston
said, that for the convenience of the House, he would, in proposing the vote, instead of taking half the sum required on each item, or instead of proposing the whole sum on each for six months, take a certain sum on account of the whole. This would be for the convenience of the House, as many of the items involved matters which would pro-
610
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
611
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
612
Colonel Davies
expressed his surprise at the statement made by the noble lord. They had been told over and over again, that the troops employed in some of the colonies were paid
bonâ fide
613
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that, as he had not had an opportunity of addressing the House before it went into the committee, he would avail himself of the present. Looking at the amount of the estimates, notwithstanding what had been stated by the right hon. gentleman on the subject, he despaired of any plan which could be pointed out, until he saw an effectual reformation in the public expenditure. It had been said, that they were now called upon only to vote the men, and that they could afterwards diminish the supply, if they should not approve of what might be done by the Finance Committee. But he considered it the duty of the House, in the first instance, to the down the government to a particular vote; and there would be no doubt but the establishment would be reduced in proportion to that vote. As to the Finance Committee, he had a high respect for many of the names placed on it; but, recollecting that he had never seen any public advantage result from any former Finance Committee, he had no expectations from the present. Such committees were, in general, a delusion on the public. They were appointed only to get over the difficulty of the moment, and were never resorted to, until ministers were driven as it were into a corner by their own extravagance. He wished to know what was intended. This, however, was not to be obtained, until after the Finance Committee should report; and thus the delay which ministers required would be obtained. They were told of a general desire for economy; but when any particular reduction was pointed out, there was always some attempt to evade it. If a reduction of colonial expenditure were mentioned, it was met by talking of the necessity of keeping our possessions in an effective state. Reduc-
614
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
615
616
617
Lord Palmerston
contended, that the present vote would by no means compromise the right of the House hereafter to reduce any of the votes, should the Finance Committee recommend their reduction.
Mr. Maberly
was anxious to put the committee of supply on its guard against sanctioning certain numbers for the army or navy, under the idea that the Finance Committee would correct any extravagance which should hereafter be found to attach to the present vote. He admitted that there were difficulties respecting the ad-
618
Mr. Secretary Peel
admitted that it would not be constitutional for the House to allow its legitimate functions to be usurped by any committee appointed to inquire into the revenues of the country, and that even after such committee should have examined and decided upon details, the House would still have the power of adopting or rejecting such recommendations. He had already explained what he considered to be the nature of the duty which devolved on the Finance Committee: he had stated that it was very difficult to lay down precise rules for their government, because of the confidential political information upon which the administration might be called upon to act; for instance, in such a possible event as the execution of the secret article of the Greek treaty. With respect to the Finance Committee, they were at that moment inquiring into the navy estimates, and had summoned before them one of the lords of the Admiralty and the Secretary. Their purpose was, to ascertain, starting from the point of 1792, why the establishments should continue upon an increasing scale. He thought himself bound to congratulate the worthy alderman upon the ample proof he had afforded of the necessity of establishing this Finance Committee; for at a time when the sole subject before them was the army estimates, he had wandered into references to the dissolution of the late government, and explanations which had arisen out of them. In the Finance Committee these digressions could not take place, and their real business would no doubt, in consequence, be better attended to.
Mr. Calcraft
thought there was a great contradiction in the course pursued by the noble Secretary at War, in calling for a vote of 3,000,000
l.
619
620
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he was opposed to these votes without further explanation; for it was in that House, and not in the Finance Committee, that the necessary information ought to be forthcoming. With the change of men from this time last year, he had looked forward to a change of measures, and yet no serious alteration had taken place. It was not, he knew, for the Treasury, but for the cabinet to decide upon the number of troops to be maintained; still, the incidental payments ought to be clearly defined, and not kept in that state of delusion which now prevailed. He had over and over again impressed upon the noble lord opposite, that the Treasury had to pay a large part of the military expense of the colonies, but this had always been denied; yet in Ceylon, the Cape, and Malta, the thing was now obvious. Why not reduce the military staff, which amounted to 140,000
l.
l.
l.
621
622
623
624
625
Sir J. Macdonald
said, that though he felt inclined to grant the supply which it was now proposed to make to his majesty, he was particularly anxious to guard himself against the supposition, that he agreed to it from any confidence in the present administration. So long as he saw men acting together in apparent concert, between whom an irreconcilable difference had recently existed,—so long as one portion of the administration was sitting calmly by the side of another portion of it, though it had been charged by that other portion with the meanest and basest usage towards its Sovereign, and though those charges were still unrefuted—so long as he saw a spectacle which placed the administration in so shameful and contemptible a light—it was impossible that any vote which he might give should be a vote of confidence in that administration. He must say, that his noble friend had chosen an inconvenient mode of taking the discussion as to the number of men for the service of the year. The committee was not now discussing the amount of the sums to be expended for their support, because it was understood that a more suitable opportunity would arrive for that discussion. It appeared strange, that the committee should be called upon to agree to a vote for ninety thousand men, when the leading member of the administration
626
627
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, he wished to be allowed to explain upon two points. It had been asked why they should vote a given number of men for six months, when the number for the year must be recited in the Mutiny-bill; a recital which would form a conclusion against any subsequent alteration of it? Now, he begged leave to inform the committee, that the Mutiny-bill recited the number of men voted for the year, as a foundation for the code of laws by which the Crown governed the army in time of peace; but nobody ever supposed that by that recital the Crown was bound to keep up the number of men enumerated in it. The Mutiny-bill recited a greater number of men as being employed for the service of the year, than the Crown could ever bring into, or than ever were actually in, the realm. No difficulty, therefore, could occur upon that head; because, if the Crown should be inclined to disband the army entirely, it would not be prevented from doing so by the large number of men recited in the Mutiny-bill as being engaged for the year. It was consequently clear, that even though the House should agree to a vote for a given number of men for the year, and should insert that number in the Mutiny-bill, it would not thereby be prevented from afterwards reducing it to such a number as a committee might think proper to advise. The objection, therefore, that was started upon this ground, could not apply to the vote under discussion. He had been asked, what convenience the service would gain by having the Mutiny-bill passed for the whole year, instead of half a year. If any gentleman would look at the last clause of the Mutiny-bill, he would see that its continuance was limited to different times in different places, according to their distance from England. Now, if they broke all those periods into two, they would render that
628
629
l.
l.
630
l.
l.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he could not understand why, taking a vote for six months, it should be objected to take, at the same time, a Mutiny-bill for six months.
Mr. P. Thomson
expressed an anxiety to have some guarantee from the noble lord, ensuring the House not only that they were not pledged to any specific number of troops by the vote required, but that there was a disposition on the part of government to reduce the number as low as possible. It was too much the habit of government to refer them, upon all questions of economy to the Finance Committee; but they were bound to take care that between the two stools the public did not come to the ground. The Colonial Secretary, and the Secretary at War, seemed to differ as to the functions of that committee. One thought it had nothing to do with the naval and military establishments, the other that it had. All he would say was, that if it had nothing to do with these establishments, he did not see why the noble lord should refer them to that committee. At all events, he hoped that as they were called upon for a vote, they would have an understanding from the noble lord, that there should be a diminution of expense, instead of the increase which they were justified in apprehending. They were told by the noble lord, that there was to be a reduction of five thousand men; but he was sorry to say that such assurances afforded him little consolation. The House would recollect, that they were told of great reductions in the half pay and pension lists before; and they would also recollect how far those promises had been realized. Were the half-pay and the pensions reduced? On the contrary, had
631
Colonel Davies
said, that the noble lord had instanced the case of two regiments now under orders for foreign service, which had passed but six years at home after having served abroad for seventeen. This case was intended to show, that the army did not admit of any reduction. But what would become of the noble lord's argument if it could be shown that such instances grew out of a system new to the army,—the system of dépôt companies; and that they must continue to arise so long as that system was persevered in? Those establishments consisted of eleven thousand four hundred and twenty four rank and file, which were rendered totally inefficient by being scattered about in small detachments, and stationed in places where they were not wanted. The consequence was, that the battalions were frittered down to a small number; and thence arose the necessity of greater and more rapid demands for foreign service. Military men were all agreed, that nothing could be more. injurious to the service. As to the noble lord's plan of reducing by individuals, not by battalions, he would ask, was it necessary to have a hundred and twenty battalions as a nucleus from which to recruit our army in the event of war? The plan adopted during the last war must be admitted to have worked well; and that was to reduce, whenever reductions were made, by battalions. Independently of the testimony of experience in its favour, there was this manifest advantage,—that it
632
Mr. Monck
said, that in the few words he should offer, he would confine himself exclusively to the dead-weight; under which head there were some items that seemed to call for examination. He was aware that in that House the example of America was not likely to find admirers; upon which account he would make no appeal to the system pursued in the American army; but the example of France was not regarded with the same jealousy or repugnance. The government of France was more monarchical, but, happily for her people, less aristocratical than our own. The power of the Crown might be less restrained, but the interests of the people were more consulted. To the practice of the French army he therefore would appeal. The first point he should notice in the regulations of the French army was, that their system admitted of no such thing as the retiring of officers upon full pay. Yet no man could doubt of the efficiency of the French army. Another article in the deadweight, was the pensions granted to officers' widows, which amounted to no less a sum than 143,000
l.
633
l.
Sir H. Vivian
said, that the regiments which were raised at the commencement of the war were at first inefficient, in consequence of the want of skeleton regiments to graft them on; though they quickly became efficient afterwards. He did not hesitate to express his opinion, that if in 1793 a larger and better disciplined force had been sent out to the continent, the war would not have been prolonged, nor the expense incurred have been so excessive. The hon. gentleman who spoke last, did not wish too see the widows who now, held pensions deprived of them; but the country would not, he was sure, wish, either now or at any future time, to see the widows of officers, who had served and bled for their country, deprived of the miserable pittance which the humanity and justice of that country had provided.
Mr. A. Dawson
compared the conduct of parliament in voting away sums without investigating its means of payment, to that of a private gentleman, who proceeded to arrange his establishment, without considering whether he was capable of bearing the expense. He maintained that if a Sinking-fund of five millions was to be kept up, the country could not support its present establishments, and defray the amount of its taxation.
Mr. Hume
said, that the noble lord had greatly mistaken his words, if he supposed that he had complained of his having turned into the right way. For his own part, though he was willing to give the noble lord credit whenever he went right, he was determined never to cease to blame him for having gone wrong so long. The present system ought not to be continued. As it was, every 100,000
l.
634
Mr. Calcraft
said, the hon. member was in error in charging him with inconsistency on the subject of the Sinking fund. He was not an advocate of paying off the debt with a Sinking fund, while there existed no real surplus from which it could be taken. But as the law stood, they must find money to keep it up, as well as every other establishment. He could not but hail the maiden ignorance exhibited by the new lords of the Treasury on this subject as a happy omen. Those three gentlemen stood unpledged to all ancient fallacies, and when the Finance Committee met, they would be ready to give their support to a new and improved system. He was glad that the new lords of the Treasury were not implicated in the support of lord Bexley's delusions. He expected much from the duke of Wellington. He was sincerely impressed with the conviction, that there was no man more likely to make a reform in the expenditure of the country, with the exception of one noble friend of his, than the present head of the government. Objections had been raised to the present as being a military government. That was perfect nonsense. He was sure the duke would not allow his military character to interfere with the discharge of his civil duties.
635
The Committee divided: for the Grant 106. For the Amendment 16. Majority, 90.
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that in calling upon the House to vote the Ordnance Estimates for the current year, he had to state, that no new works had been introduced into them. They were precisely such as had been already sanctioned by the House, and he now merely asked for a vote of credit to meet the expenditure of the Ordnance department for the current year. Whenever the report of the Finance Committee should come under the consideration of the House, all the details of this department would be open for investigation and discussion, and the present vote would not pledge any member to a particular line of conduct then. He now moved, "that a sum not exceeding 783,598
l.
Mr. Hume
did not rise to oppose the vote. If an army of ninety thousand men were to be maintained, he did not see how a further reduction could be effected in the Ordnance. He would reserve to a future period the expression of his sentiments upon this subject.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that for the three or four years during which the duke of Wellington was at the head of this department, he had entered into a minute investigation of its various details, and it was his impression that his grace had made as much reduction in it as the public service would admit of. Now that the noble duke was at the head of all the departments of the state, it was reasonable to conclude that he would enforce a system of economy similar to that which he had established while presiding over the Ordnance.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that since the year 1820, when the Ordnance department was confided to the duke of Wellington, to the year 1827, when he gave it up, a saving had been effected of no less than 230,000
l.
l.
l.
636
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 25.
CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.]
On the motion that the House do adjourn,
The Marquis of Clanricarde
said, he was sorry again to intrude upon their lordships' attention, but as there was no public business immediately about to come under the consideration of the House, he trusted he might be allowed to say a few words with respect to a contradiction, or a partial contradiction, which had been given, in another place, to what he had stated to their lordships on a former occasion. He had then stated, that a declaration had been made by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), whom he conceived to be a particular friend of his lamented relation; and he had asked the noble earl opposite (Dudley), whether he had not heard that declaration, and whether he did not concur in it, and know to whom it referred. The right hon. gentleman had, however, stated at Liverpool, that, as to personal enemies of Mr. Canning, he knew of none. In comparing that statement with the declaration which he had made to their lordships, he had no wish to make it a matter of charge against the right hon. gentleman he alluded to, that he had departed from that declaration: he only asked for an explanation of the obvious contrast which those two statements presented; and he believed he had not been clearly understood by the noble earl opposite, who did not reply to his question, otherwise than by eloquently descanting upon the virtues of forgiveness, and alluding to the conduct of his lamented father-in-law, under circumstances which he could never allow to be similar, in any point, to those in which the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies and the noble earl were intermixed. As, however, he had put his questions only a short time previous to the adjournment of the House, when several noble lords were leaving their places, and when the noise which was made rendered the conversation
637
638
639
Earl Dudley
confessed himself under great difficulty in entering at all into the consideration of the question—if any question had been put at all—which the noble lord, for the second time, had thought fit to bring before their lordships, giving no other notice to any individual whom the question might concern, than such as might be collected from clubs and newspapers. It appeared to him, that the subject which had been brought under their lordships' attention was not of a nature to be discussed in parliament. Parliament ought to judge of public men on public grounds and public declarations; but it was not the province of parliament to inquire whether particular individuals, who had been the friends of Mr. Canning, had conducted themselves with proper delicacy, in accepting places or continuing in office with those persons, between whom and that individual any unfriendly feeling had grown up. The noble lord had stated that he had put a question on a former evening, relative to a declaration which had been made by his right hon. friend, a member of the other House of Parliament, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble lord did ask a question, as to that declaration, and as to his joining in office with those persons who had express-
640
641
The Marquisof Clanricarde
observed, that it was necessary for him to show that the statement which he had formerly made upon this subject was accurate. This was all he intended to do. His proposition was a very fair one. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) made a certain declaration respecting the enemies of Mr. Canning; and at Liverpool he had said, that "of personal enemies to Mr. Canning he knew of none." Now, was this correct? It was not, as the noble lord appeared to think, a declaration made only to persons with whom he was connected; nor was it because the declaration had been made there that he adverted to it. The right hon. gentleman had been reported, in the public papers, to have used certain expressions at Liverpool. Now, if he did use those expressions at Liverpool, he used in parliament—he was going to say, different ones, but he would not say "different," because his question had not yet been answered—to whom did the right hon. gentleman make the declaration to which he referred? He must again observe, that his veracity had been impeached; that an imputation had been cast upon him; and it was necessary for him to show that there was no ground for it.
Lord Seaford
rose and said:—My lords; it is impossible for me, without feelings of the most painful nature, to enter into the discussion of a subject, which involves a question of the sacred performance of the duty of friendship, to a friend who is now no more; a friend, whose friendship was the pride and delight of my life, from our earliest youth, till the disastrous moment when he was snatched away—though in the fulness of fame and honour, yet most prematurely for the happiness of his friends, and the good of his country. Those feelings are so painful as only to be overcome by a paramount sense of duty; and they have been rendered still more distressing, by the course pursued by my noble friend (lord Clanricarde). The near connection in which he stood to Mr. Canning, and by which he is still united to those who were most dear to him, renders it most painful to me to express a difference of opinion from him upon points in which we have both so deep an interest, and the reluctance which I felt to do any thing which might have the appearance of unnecessarily entering into a conflict with him sealed my lips on a former occasion, and prevented my taking a part in that de-
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
The Duke of Wellington
said, he did not rise with the intention of entering at any length into this discussion, which, in his opinion, was entirely uncalled-for, and might as well have been left alone; or of making any profession of principles, because he thought that unnecessary, and because he hoped, after what had fallen from the noble lord, that he would support the principles on which he (the duke) should act. But he rose to protest against any such imputations being cast upon him, as that he had entertained any personal hostility to Mr. Canning. On a former occasion, he had stated distinctly to their lordships, why he did not think proper to remain in the government of which Mr. Canning was the head. The communications that had passed between him and Mr. Canning had, unfortunately, he must be allowed to say, been made public; and he defied any man to point out any thing like personal feeling in those communications. It was true, that, when he found it necessary to withdraw from the government, he had also thought it his duty to lay down the military office which he held; but he begged leave to call their lordships' recollection to the explanation which he had given at that time, and to his subsequent conduct. After he had left the government, he had always met Mr. Canning in the way in which he had been accustomed to meet
649
Lord Melross
said, he agreed in every syllable that had fallen from lord Seaford, and could not let that opportunity pass without declaring himself satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Canning's friends.
Their lordships then adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 25.
IMPERIAL GAS COMPANY BILL.]
The Report of this bill was brought up. On the motion, that the amendments made by the committee be read a second time,
Mr. Hume
opposed the bill, on the ground that the company had not complied with the provisions of the bill which they had obtained in a former session. By that bill they had agreed, whenever a dividend was made, that one-eighth of such profits should be invested in government security, until the sum so obtained should have accumulated to 250,000
l.
Mr. G. Robinson
seconded the amendment. The directors of this company, instead of vesting in the public funds one-
650
Mr. Clinton
hoped the House would examine the amendments recommended by this report, before they adopted the course now suggested. He admitted that the dividends had not been applied as required by the act; and it was to provide a remedy for that misapplication, that these clauses were now offered by the committee. If the directors should hereafter dispose of the one-eighth of the dividends otherwise than as directed by the bill, they would be subjected to a penalty of 500
l.
l.
Mr. Calcraft
thought it would be highly improper to trust those who had already abused the confidence of the public, and set at nought the acts of the legislature. The hon. member, who spoke last, confessed that the company had been guilty of flagrant abuses. This was now the third time of their coming to that House for purposes of aggrandizement. On the first occasion they had obtained 250,000
l.
l.
651
l.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that the fact of a connexion with the Arigna Mining Company, and those other public cheats which had so materially injured the community, together with the admission, by the chairman of the committee, that abuses had been practised for so considerable a period, were fully sufficient to warrant their rejection of the present demand. Seeing that the company had so grossly abused their trust for the sake of emolument, the House ought not to listen to any proposal which had for its object any addition to their finances. Even if the bill were in itself a desirable measure, he would not consent to enlarge the powers of the company.
Mr. Maberly
opposed the second reading of the report. The company enjoyed, he said, a charter which gave them a great monopoly; and they had endeavoured to make that monopoly still greater, by evading the condition's with which they were bound to comply.
The House divided: For the original motion 6; For the amendment 75. The bill was consequently lost.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)
Mr. Hume
presented a Petition, signed by the principal noblemen and leading Roman Catholics of Ireland, complaining oft he operation, and praying a modification, of the Landlord and Tenant bill, which had recently passed into a law.
Lord Milton
expressed a hope that, whatever alterations it might be found necessary to make in the details, the House would not lose sight of the principle of the measure, as it was calculated to produce the most beneficial effects in Ireland.
Mr. Brownlow
also defended the principle of the bill, and contended, that it was calculated to put an end to the great evils produced by the pernicious practice of sub-
652
Mr. G. Dawson
observed, that he felt it his duty to say a few words on the injustice of a petition, which had for its object the making a complaint against that part of the law known by the name of the Subletting Act in Ireland. When that act was about to be brought into parliament, the nature of its enactments were carefully made known throughout Ireland. No objection was made to it; and it was not until other circumstances had called up the Catholics in opposition to the act, that one word had been said about its supposed evils. The present petition was not from the landlords or tenantry of Ireland, but from the Catholic Association. There was hardly the name of one occupying tenant affixed to it; and he would venture to say that it was the petition of the real oppressors of Ireland—he meant her middlemen. In proof of this he would read from it a sentence, in which would be found words to this effect—" Can you, we ask with all deference and respect—can a Christian legislature contemplate two millions of murders, without horror and affright? We know that they are Irishmen, and poor Irishmen, but is not their blood of price in the sight of the Almighty." He would not comment further on such expressions; but he would ask whether, if the sentiments contained in the petition were those of the tenantry of Ireland, the table of the House would not have been crowded with them before now? The truth was, that the tenantry of Ireland were protected by this
653
Mr. North
approved of the principle of the bill, and thought there was not one man who really felt for the evils of Ireland that did not approve of it. He did not concur with all its provisions, as they at present stood. He thought the clause which provided that a tenant who possessed land under a lease should be precluded from devising his farm to more than one person ought to be repealed, as it compelled the testator either to sacrifice his children, and vest the property exclusively in his wife, or to mark out one favourite child to the exclusion of the wife and of the other sons and daughters. He thought, too, that some limitation of the periods of time mentioned in the act ought to be provided; and that the guardian of an infant or lunatic should be empowered to give his consent to an assignment proposed by the tenant.
Mr. F. Lewis
was also in favour of the principle of the bill, the tendency of which, he thought, was to assimilate tenures of land in Ireland to those in England. In consequence of the dissimilarity which now existed in these tenures, the appearance of the land in Ireland was very different from that in England. The same difference existed between the appearance of the men and of their habitations; and whoever had passed through Ireland, must have remarked the want of those comfortable homesteads which distinguished the counties of England. It had been said, that the grievance of Ireland
654
Mr. R. Colborne
suggested that the discussion had already gone far enough, as they would soon have an opportunity of debating the question when it came properly before the House.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, from what had fallen from his right hon. friend, the Irish Secretary, the other night, he seemed to be prepared to submit a proposition, for the amendment of this bill, to their consideration. Under these circumstances, the best course would be, to wait until the proposed amendment came distinctly before them. He would not more immediately refer to the terms of the petition, or to the object of those who presented it, than by saying, that the most dignified revenge the House could adopt was, to pass such amendments as they conceived would afford the best remedy to the evils that were admitted to be in the bill.
Mr. H. Grattan
thought that if members passed over the petition, without attempting to protect the petitioners from the effects of the bill, they would not discharge their duty. He differed from the hon. member who proposed to apply the
655
Ordered to lie on the table.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved into a committee, to which these Estimates were referred,
Sir G. Clerk
said, that as future and fitter opportunities would occur, he should not go into any detail of the items. At present it was proposed only to take half the sum that would probably be required for the service of the year. He moved, "that the sum of 2,208,233
l
s
d
Sir J. Yorke
said, that although he was one of those who were anxious to shorten the debates of that House, he was not altogether at his ease, when he saw that his hon. friend intended to shorten into a single vote a discussion which had often occupied the House more than a whole night. He conceived that there were items in/the present estimates, which the Committee of Finance ought to treat in a very inquisitorial manner, and which, if they did so treat, were certain to be reduced considerably. It was stated, the other night, by the Secretary to the Ordnance, that the duke of Wellington had made considerable reductions in that department of the public service, and that by those reductions he had not only increased its utility, but had stimulated the zeal of those who were employed in it. He trusted that similar reductions would be speedily made in the naval department, with similar benefit to the public service. He should like to know why his hon. friend below him, who had so often played first fiddle on occasions like the present, and the music of whose voice he was happy to hear again from his former situation, had again come forward to propose these votes, instead of his hon. and gallant friend (sir G. Cockburn), who had been first appointed to propose them. He wanted to hear from his hon. and gallant friend, what reductions were meditated at the Admiralty. He was afraid that we
656
l.
l.
l.
s
d
minus
s
s
657
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that, after his extraordinary speech, he could not help complaining of his gallant friend's not being in his place on the occasion to which he had referred, as he had thought proper in so loose a manner to quote the proceedings. His gallant friend had no right to put words into his mouth which he had never uttered, for the sake of answering them in his own way. What he had really said was, that an order had been given for a better description of jackets,
658
s
d
s
d
s
s
s
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, he was quite surprised that the government, in the manufacture of the Finance Committee, had not put upon it one, or two, or three professional men, connected with the navy, army, and ordnance, who could unravel the matters connected with their departments with technical dexterity. Upon it, however, there was not a single great gun; no, not even a pistol, or a patterero.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he could not help expressing his astonishment that the House should be called upon to agree to votes on account, without any statement being before them, or any one point marked out in which some reduction was to take place in the expenditure. That he considered to be the proper time for a member of that House to take into his consideration any and all the acts of government into which he deemed it right to inquire, and to demand something like a pledge from them, before he intrusted them with the disposal of large sums of money which might be spent, as it appeared, on their own shewing, that former grants had been, wastefully and extravagantly. It was rather a matter of surprise, that an hon. gentleman should, by way of passing a high encomium on a noble duke, have stated that a considerable effort had been made in the Board of Ordnance, to facilitate economy. The gallant officer
659
l
l.
660
l
661
l
l
l.
662
l.
Sir C. Cole
also expressed the gratifica-
663
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he could assure his gallant friend that, in the formation of the Finance Committee, nothing was further from his intention than to imply the slightest disrespect to the army or navy, by omitting the names of members of either service in the list of that committee. He could likewise assure him, that, so far from such a circumstance contributing to prevent the committee from turning its attention to the details of both services, since its appointment two distinguished military officers, members of that House, had been examined before the committee at great length upon all the points to
664
The resolution was then agreed to.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
On the Order of the day for receiving the Report of the Committee upon the Army Estimates being read,
Sir John Brydges
said, that before the report was brought up, he believed he should not be irregular in saying a few words upon that subject. He had hoped, when the provisional grants for the different branches of the public service were passed the other evening, including that for the yeomanry-corps, that some hon. member would have taken the opportunity to have done that justice to them which they were so fully entitled to; but that not having been the case, he should trouble the House shortly upon the subject. Instead of offering any objection to the vote proposed on that head, he had to express his regret, that it was not to a greater extent. It had been his intention to have submitted a motion to that House having for its object the consideration of the measure of certain corps of yeomanry-cavalry having been recently disbanded by his majesty's late ministers; but, understanding that it was in the contemplation of the present government to make some alteration in that establishment, he had declined to fulfil his intentions. He felt, however, he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if he suffered that grant to pass, without shortly bringing the services of those corps to the grateful recollection of that House and of the country at large. He did not desire unnecessarily to impugn the conduct of his majesty's late ministers! They were, happily, defunct, and peace be to their manes: all he should apply to them was the epitaph on sir John Van-
665
"Lay heavy on him, Earth; for he
Laid many a heavy load on thee."
Mr. S. Rice
said, he could answer for the noble marquis, lately at the head of the Home Department, that in reducing the yeomanry corps, nothing was further from his intention than to cast the slightest reflection upon any one individual connected with them, or to manifest an indifference to the services which those corps had rendered to the public. The government felt grateful to the yeomanry forces for its past services; but there was an extent beyond which that feeling should not be carried. The extent of service rendered by that force bore no comparison with the
666
l.
Mr. Littleton
said, that with him the
667
Sir R. Heron
thought that the only question to be asked was, why the whole body had not been dismissed? He could not see that any portion of them was necessary. In time of peace they were utterly useless, nay, they were worse than useless; for, from proofs of their acts, the painful particulars of which he would not bring to the recollection of the House, they had shewn how unsafe it was to employ them, and how much more preferably the regular soldiery might have been engaged to undertake the business. For his part, he thought they ought to have been abolished ten years ago.
Lord Palmerston
said, he did not see how the present topic was connected with the question before the House, but he was quite prepared to take the fullest responsibility upon himself for the measure. It had been a saving to the country of 86,000
l
Lord Morpeth
observed, that the hon. baronet had compared the late government to sir John Vanbrugh; nor did he object to that comparison, for he was quite willing that they, as sir John had been, should be the envy of the superficial, and the abuse of the ignorant; confident that they would inherit the well-founded admiration of posterity.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that upon every occasion, the yeomanry had distinguished itself for the public good. It had always merited and received the approbation of the country; and the same disposition still pervaded the body at large to contribute its exertions whenever necessary in future. He was justified in saying so by the fact, that many corps had tendered
668
On the question being put, "That ninety-one thousand and seventy-five men be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom for the year 1828," Mr. Alderman Waithman moved, that the number of men be reduced to eighty-one thousand and seventy-five.
Mr. N. Calvert
thought that, as long as Ireland was in the state in which she was at present, the army could not be safely reduced. It was beginning at the wrong end to think of reducing the army: they should rather seek for some way to tranquillize Ireland.
Lord Althorp
rose to explain why, upon this occasion, for the first time he believed, he should vote against reduction. They were at present only called upon to vote the estimates for six months, which were absolutely necessary, and nothing which passed now pledged any member to a particular line of conduct hereafter. He trusted that, in the Finance Committee, they should be able to reduce the military establishment of the country. In the existing state of their foreign relations, he did not think that the force specified in these estimates was too much to be granted to ministers for a period of six months [hear].
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, the House was called upon to make every effort to reduce the expenditure of the country. He should not, however, press his amendment to a division.
Mr. Sykes
did not see any reason why reduction should be postponed, on account of the appointment of the Finance Committee. When that committee should make its report, the session would probably be near its close, the members would be out of town, and, under such circumstances, parliament would be called on to discuss this most important question. He was unwilling to vote so large a number of men as ninety-one thousand. Such a force was not required in time of peace. They had not such a force in 1792, nor in 1817, nor even in 1823. He could not see what were the peculiar circumstances of the country which rendered such an enormous force at present necessary. Looking at
669
Sir M. W. Ridley
was of opinion, that, in the peculiar circumstances of the country, it would be only a delusion to hold out a hope that much relief could be obtained by reducing the army. This was a mere fallacy; and there was another which had gone abroad, namely, that by reducing the expenditure in other respects, great benefit might accrue to the nation. The total annual expenditure was about fifty millions, and of this there were not more than nineteen or twenty millions for the army, navy, ordnance, &c.; any reduction, therefore, that could possibly be made of these twenty millions of expenses, could not make a material difference, or meet the expectations of the public. The largest part of their expenditure was that which was connected with the interest of the national debt; and until they could reduce that, with perfect justice to the public creditor, it was clear that they could not make such a reduction as would satisfy the nation. Taking this point into consideration, it was, he conceived, very hard to expect from the labours of the Finance Committee that which they could not effect. He believed that the committee would prove to be an honest and efficient body; and nothing, he was sure, would prevent them from entering into a full investigation of every subject that might be brought before them; but it was unfair to expect impossibilities from them.
The amendment was negatived, and the original resolution agreed to.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
The order of the day for the second reading of this bill being read,
Mr. Tennyson
said, that at that late hour, and having in the last session occupied so much time on the subject of this bill, he should not, in moving the second reading, say more than was necessary to remind the House of the grounds on which it rested, and to explain the course he intended to pursue. Members would recollect that the committee appointed last year to try the merits of the East Retford Election petition, had presented a special report, in addition to that, by which they announced to the House that the election
670
671
in limine
672
673
Mr. F. Clinton
said, that having been intrusted by the corporation of East Retford with the care of their interests, he must object to the present bill, both on principle and because, in common justice to East Retford, the House could not entertain the present measure. In every former case—in the cases of Shoreham, Grampound, and Cricklade—the places had not been disfranchised on loose surmises of general corruption, but instances had been adduced, in almost all the cases, of individuals having been convicted of bribery. In the present case, the committee had thought proper to bring a general charge of corruption against East Retford at a former period, not properly under their consideration. In the Penryn case, what had passed at former elections had been stated to the House; but, in that case, repeated charges of similar acts at several successive elections had been recorded on the Journals of the House; whereas this was the first time that any charge had been made against East Retford. There was great hardship towards the accused in this course. The alleged acts of bribery had taken place in the election before the last. The accused, therefore, had not the same facilities of defence as they would have had if the charge had been made at that time. The evidence before the committee showed, that out of forty witnesses, eight or ten admitted that, at the former election, they had taken bribes. This was good evidence against those individuals, but not against
674
Mr. Stewart
opposed the bill. He said, he saw no reason why Birmingham should enjoy the privilege proposed to be taken from East Retford. There were four counties without representatives at all in that House. He would move, "that the bill be read a second time this day she months."
The amendment was put, but not seconded.
Mr. N. Calvert
observed, that the trust with which electors were invested was similar to that of jurymen; yet it was the practice now a days, to consider the elective franchise as a great privilege. In an early period of our history there had been instances of electors petitioning the House to be exempted from the office of voting, on account of their poverty. It was now, however, found out that the office was extremely profitable, and that it was quite cruel to take it away.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that even if he agreed with the hon. member that the trust of an elector was like that of a juryman, he must still assert, that to deprive a man of such a privilege inflicted a disgrace which would be felt painfully. He could not agree, therefore, that in these cases the complaints of the parties ought not to be listened to. The members of that House did not sit in it for their own purposes alone. A seat in that House was a burthen from which no member could
675
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought it was material that it should be distinctly understood what was the principal object of the present measure. If he thought the real question involved in the proposition of the hon. gentleman was that which had been contemplated by two hon. gentlemen on his side of the House—that it was to decide whether East Retford was to be disfranchised or not—he might be disposed to vote against the proposition of the hon. gentleman. But he understood from his speech, that he only called on the House that evening to agree to his motion, in order that further evidence might be obtained, to enable members to make up their minds. If this were the case—if the House was to agree to the second reading of the bill, in order that evidence might be adduced at its bar, and that it might by personal examination of the witnesses determine the extent of corruption in East Retford—he should not refuse to the hon. member the opportunity of establishing his facts. He did not feel himself called upon to enter into the question of whether there was or was not a
prima facie
676
Mr. Littleton
observed, that in the case of the bill for disfranchising Grampound, the name of Leeds was introduced, as the place to which the elective franchise was to be transferred; and that in the bill now in progress for disfranchising Penryn, the name of Manchester was introduced in a similar way. He had no hesitation in saying, that he was prepared, on the report of the Select Committee, to proceed to disfranchise East Retford; and he trusted that the legitimate object in view would not be met by Jesuitical evasions; but that the House would determine to do its duty.
Mr. Secretary Peel
, in explanation, observed, that all he wished was, to wait until the evidence before the committee had proved the expediency of disfranchising East Retford: after which he should support the proposition for introducing into the bill the name of the place to which, in the opinion of the House, the elective franchise ought to be transferred.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 26.
REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.]
Lord John Russell
rose and said:—
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
Mr. John Smith
rose to second the motion. He began by observing, that from conversations which he had lately held with several members of parliament, he was much surprised to find that great ignorance prevailed amongst them with respect to the nature of the statutes of which the Dissenters complained. He would, therefore, take the liberty of stating what those statutes were, in order that the House might see the necessity for its interference.
695
l
696
697
698
in terrorem?
699
700
701
Mr. Marshall
said, that having presented many petitions from his constituents, who were anxious for the repeal of these intolerant laws, he could not give a silent vote on this occasion. He did not participate in the great anxiety which some persons felt for the repeal of these laws, because he considered them as virtually repealed by the annual Indemnity acts. The Test act had been laid asleep for nearly a century, during which period not one opportunity had occurred, not one solitary occasion, upon which the friends of intolerance and bigotry had dared to put it in force. Could they, then, hope-could they flatter themselves, that any future occasion could arise, which would give them the power of enforcing this odious law?—A law which might inflict the most atrocious penalties on a man, who had served his country in some useful office, but who had refused to profane a solemn religious rite for secular purposes. It would be too revolting to the spirit of the age, too gross an insult on common sense, for any legislature, for any House
702
Mr. Wilbraham
said:—
Mr. Speaker
; I feel how many apologies are due, not only to the hon. gentleman who has given way to me, but to the House itself, for thus early presenting myself to its notice, and for claiming its attention at a moment when the opinions of so many more able and experienced members are anxiously looked for. But, Sir, the present is one of those subjects which have ever made a deep impression on my mind: it is one in which those principles of civil and religious liberty which I have ever been taught to revere, are so inti-
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
"To make the symbol of atoning grace,
An office key, the pick-lock of a place."
710
Sir R. H. Inglis
rose and said:—
711
712
Spartam nactus es, hanc orna.
713
714
715
Mr. Fergusson
said, that, during the greater part of the speech of the hon. baronet, who had just sat down, he had reckoned on his vote in favour of the motion of the noble lord; for he had not thought it possible, until the hon. member had so declared it, that setting out as he did by laying it down as a principle, that the question was one of political expediency, and admitting that the least possible restriction should be put upon the Protestant Dissenters, that was consistent with the public security, and the protection which was due to the religion of the state, the hon. baronet should come to the conclusion, that the Dissenters ought to be
716
717
*
*
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
at
before
as aforesaid;
725
726
727
728
Mr. Robert Palmer
said, that this was not a question of party, but one that should be decided on its own merits. Whether he had received a ministerial circular to attend or not, be would assure the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, that he should form his opinion on the question to the best of his ability, and give his vote as his conscience dictated. It had been conceded by every speaker, that the laws against the Dissenters were harsh in a high degree; but it was contended, that they were absolutely necessary to the safety of the church establishment. Again, it was said, that they were repealed every year by the operation of the Indemnity act; but that seemed to prove, on the other hand, that no necessity for them existed. He, however, certainly considered their existence no small grievance to the Dissenters. He was as much attached as any man could be to the church establishment, but he thought some better test might be devised than that of taking the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As to the importance of this subject in the eyes of the Dissenters themselves, if the House judged of it by the enormous number of petitions laying on their table, they might fairly conclude that the Dissenters felt the grievance vitally, and, consequently, that it was one to which the House was bound to give its most mature consideration. Before he concluded, he could not avoid remarking the total absence of any petition in favour of the Test and Corporation acts. This was a sign that no great fear was entertained, on the part of those who had the greatest interest in the established church, that any mighty danger would arise from the repeal of those acts. He was anxious for it, as an act of kindness and conciliation, and he returned his thanks to the noble lord for the ability with which he had brought the question before the House.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, he fully agreed with the noble mover in considering the imposition of religious tests, as the means of civil qualification, highly objectionable. He certainly regretted their existence upon the Statute-book, but he had likewise to express his regret, that, under the present circumstances of the country, and at the present time, the noble
729
730
731
732
733
734
Lord Nugent
, across the table, dissented from this proposition.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
continued,—Would the noble lord take upon himself to say, that the feeling in favour of the Roman Catholics was general, was universal, through all the Dissenters of this country? He was convinced that the present step, so far from being a step in favour of the Catholic claims, would be the means of arraying an additional power against them. He knew something of the feelings of the Dissenters, as well as the noble lord? (Nugent) who presented the petition of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry in their favour; and he could tell that noble lord, that it would, he owned, be revolting to his feelings, to continue the disqualification of the first duke of the realm, and at the same time to display an ostentatious liberality, by attempting the repeal, with respect to the Dissenters, of certain forms to which every exciseman was subjected; and to do away with which, he believed the whole collective body would not subscribe one day's pay. He would tell the noble lord who had introduced the subject, that he was satisfied, if the question; were carried and finally settled, that the noble lord would find in the great body of Dissenters (not indeed amongst the liberal and enlightened part of that body) a strong feeling of opposition to the Catholic claims. He would tell the noble lord, that this question might be argued by different persons in very different ways. Would he deny that there were in this country a great many persons, perhaps a majority, who most sincerely, and conscientiously, and honourably, entertained the greatest apprehensions lest the Roman Catholics should be allowed a further participation in the privileges of the constitution, unless under certain engagements? He was ready to contend, that there was not one of those persons who was not convinced that, whenever concession was made, it ought to be
735
736
Lord Althorp
said, that if he understood the true principle of a free constitution, it was, that the general rule existed, that no one was to be excluded from any of his civil rights on account of his religious principles. He therefore thought, that if this principle was to be recognised in the present case, the
onus probandi
737
738
Lord Nugent
said, that, from the temper in which the House had come to the discussion, he hoped that the recommendations in the opening speech of his noble friend on that score would be superfluous. The example of his noble and honourable friends, the mover and seconder, more powerful than even their recommendations, would, he was sure, be sufficient to deter gentlemen from the expression of any heated feelings on a question, on which, if some gentlemen were of opinion that the interest of the established church were indirectly menaced, some millions of persons in this country, of all the most useful, and of some of the most distinguished classes, felt their common law privileges to be cruelly and unjustly assailed.
739
740
741
742
Lord Milton
said, it was not long since a disclosure had been made of the course his majesty's ministers meant to take on this occasion. Since that disclosure had been made, he confessed he entertained a very great, and he hoped not an impertinent, curiosity, to hear the arguments on which those gentlemen meant to rest their opposition to this motion. At the commencement of the right hon. Secretary's speech—a speech which the right hon. gentleman would give him leave to say, was not at all like those clear statements which he was accustomed to give, with reference to commercial matters, for his con-
743
744
745
746
747
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose and said;—I am anxious, Sir, not to defer to a later period of the evening, the delivery of the very few observations which I think it incumbent upon me to make in reference to the motion which the noble lord has so ably introduced to the attention of the House. In the course of the very able and temperate address, the noble lord appealed to me personally, not as an individual member of this House—not as a minister of the Crown—but as the representative of the University of Oxford; and he made that appeal, as I understood, for the express purpose of eliciting from me the opinions which that learned body entertained upon this question, and the instructions which they have thought it right to convey to their representative for the guidance of his conduct in this debate. Sir, I beg to state, in reply to this appeal of the noble lord, that I have not been instructed on this occasion by that University, to deliver any opinion, nor have they intrusted me with any petition to present to the House in opposition to the claims of the Dissenters. I beg to state further, that I am not in possession of any instructions as to the course of conduct which they desire their representative to adopt; and I am, therefore, disposed to infer from this silence, that they have not thought it fit to do any thing with reference to this question, and that they are disposed to rely with confidence upon the judgment of this House. I cannot, however, permit myself to infer from this silence that the members of that University acquiesce in the prayer of the Protestant Dissenters, or that it is their wish that I should support it. All that I gather from it is, that I am left entirely unfettered in the application of my judgment, as to the vote which I may think proper to give upon the question. I approach the consideration of the noble lord's proposition unfet-
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
Mr. Brougham
rose, but gave way to
Sir T. D. Acland
, who said:
758
practical
759
760
761
762
763
pro futuro
764
pro tempore
Mr. Brougham
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—
765
766
"Then," said the hon. baronet, "I do not like to talk so slightingly of—I do not like to disparage—the wisdom of our ancestors." Far be it from me, Sir, to disparage the praise thus bestowed, by the? hon. baronet, on the "wisdom of our ancestors." The phrase, however, I consider to have been one of the most fruitful sources of mischief to the country: but I must inform the hon. baronet, that that phrase had been disparaged long before the existence of the Test and Corporation acts—not by ridicule, but by sound argument—not by the sneers of the senseless, but by the soundest wisdom, the greatest knowledge, the highest intellect, that England ever produced. I commend the phrase to the mitigated censure of the hon. baronet. For it was a lord High Chancellor of England—a person of the name of Bacon, or some such name—a name, perhaps, which has no respect in the eyes of the hon. baronet—who first stamped the seal of disparagement on the phrase which the hon. baronet brings forward this evening "to fright the House from its propriety." He it was, Sir, who first reprobated the eternally-recurring praises of the "wisdom of our ancestors." He it was, who laughed
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
Lord Palmerston
said, he was anxious to state shortly the grounds upon which his vote would be given, because as that vote would be adverse to the motion of the noble lord, he should be sorry that his motives should be misconstrued, and that he should be supposed to approve of the laws in question, or to think that they afforded any real security to the established church. He was as much a friend, as the noble lord who made this motion to civil and religious liberty; he was an enemy to all interference between man and his conscience; he utterly disbelieved that such interference can ever give security to the church or to the state, it could do no good; it must do evil; it must either turn honest men into hypocrites, or make loyal men discontented. The legitimate objects of civil and political safe-guards, were civil and political institutions; with the secret opinions of the human breast, religious and speculative, the laws of man could not without tyranny interfere, unless such opinions were embodied into acts, and such acts became dangerous to the civil and political institutions of society.
779
780
781
The House then divided: Ayes 237; Noes 193. Majority for lord John Russell's motion 44. The result of the division was hailed with loud cheers in the body of the House. The House accordingly went into the committee on the said Acts: the Committee reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday. Adjourned at half after one o'clock.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Clements, lord
Acland, sir T.
Clive, H.
Anson, hon. G.
Clive, E. B.
Althorp, viscount
Colborne, N. R.
Baillie, colonel
Coke, T. W.
Barclay, D.
Cradock, S.
Barclay, C.
Crompton, S.
Baring, A.
Curteis, E. J.
Baring, sir T.
Cole, sir C.
Baring, F.
Campbell, W.
Benett, John
Davenport, E. D.
Bentinck, lord G.
Davies, colonel
Bernal, R.
Dawson, A.
Bingham, lord
Denison, W.
Birch, J.
Denison, E. J.
Brougham, Henry
Ducane, P.
Brougham, J.
Duncombe, T.
Brownlow, C.
Dundas, hon. G.
Bruce, lord
Dundas, sir R.
Burdett, sir F.
Dundas, hon. T.
Buxton, T. F.
Dundas, C.
Byng, G.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Bright, H.
Dickinson, W.
Buck, L.
Daly, J.
Boyle, hon. J.
Easthope, John
Baring, B.
Ebrington, viscount
Browne, James
Ellis, hon. G. Agar
Calcraft, J.
Euston, earl
Calthorpe, hon. A.
Fazakerley, N.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Fergusson, sir R.
Calvert, C.
Fergusson, R.
Calvert, N.
Fitzgerald, M.
Carew, R. S.
Fitzgerald, J.
Carter, J.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Clifton, lord
Fitzroy, lord C.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Forbes, J.
Cave, R. O.
Fortescue, hon. G.
Cavendish, lord G.
Frankland, R.
Cavendish, H.
French, A.
Cavendish, C.
Foley, J. H.
Clarke, hon. C.
Fyler, T.
782
Greene, T.
Normanby, viscount
Gordon, R.
Nugent, lord
Graham, sir J.
Owen, sir J.
Grattan, J.
Onslow, A.
Grattan, H.
O'Hara, J.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
O'Brien, Lucius
Guest, J.
Ord, W.
Gascoyne, gen.
Osborne, lord F.
Gye, F.
Owen, H.
Guise, sir W.
Pallmer, C. N.
Harvey, D. W.
Palmer, C. F.
Hulse, sir C.
Palmer, R.
Heathcote, sir G.
Parnell, sir H.
Heneage, G.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Heron, sir R.
Phillipps, sir G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Phillips, G.
Howard, H.
Phillimore, Dr.
Howick, lord
Phillipps, sir R. B.
Hume, J.
Perceval, S.
Hurst, R.
Ponsonby, hon. W.
Hutchinson, J. H.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Halse, J.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Heathcote, sir W.
Portman, E. B.
Hay, lord J.
Power, R.
Horton, R. W.
Powlett, lord W.
Jephson, C.
Poyntz, W. S.
Jermyn, earl
Price, R.
Jolliffe, H.
Proby, hon. G.
Jones, J.
Protheroe, E.
Kennedy, T. F.
Powell, W. E.
King, hon. R.
Ramsbottom, J.
Knight, R.
Ramsden, J. C.
Knox, hon. T.
Rice, T. S.
Kekewich, S.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Kemp, T.
Robarts, A.
King, sir J.
Robinson, sir G.
Leycester, R.
Robinson, G. R.
Lamb, hon. G.
Rowley, sir W.
Labouchere, H.
Rumbold, C. E.
Lambert, J.
Russell, lord G. W.
Lascelles, hon. W.
Russell, lord W.
Lawley, F.
Russell, lord J.
Lennard, T. B.
Russell, R. G.
Lester, B.
Rancliffe, lord
Littleton, E. J.
Rickford, W.
Lloyd, T.
Sandon, viscount
Lumley, J.
Scarlett, sir J.
Lushington, Dr.
Sebright, sir J.
Langston, J. H.
Slaney, R. A.
Lott, H.
Smith, John
Marjoribanks, S.
Smith, George
Maitland, C. F.
Smith, hon. R.
Maberly, J.
Stanley, lord
Maberly, W.
Stanley, hon. E.
Macdonald, sir J.
Stuart, V.
Macintosh, sir J.
Stuart, lord J.
Marshall, J.
Sykes, D.
Marshall, W.
Seymour, H.
Martin, J.
Smith, Abel
Milbank, M.
Tavistock, marquis
Milton, viscount
Taylor, M. A.
Monck, J. B.
Tennyson, C.
Morland, sir S. B.
Tomson, C. P.
Morpeth, lord
Thompson, alderman
Mandeville, viscount
Tomes, J.
Marriot, J.
Townshend, lord C.
Newport, sir J.
Tynte, C.
783
Waithman, alderman
Walker, Joshua
Wall, C.
Walrond, B.
Warburton, H.
Ward, W.
Western, C. C.
Webb, E.
Whitbread, S.
Wells, John
Whitbread, W.
Warrender, sir G.
Whitmore, W.
Wilbraham, G.
TELLERS.
Williams, T. P.
Duncannon, viscount
Wilson, sir R.
Smith, Wm.
Wood, alderman
Wood, John
PAIRED OFF.
Wood, C.
Sefton, earl of
Wynn, sir W.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Wynn, right hon. C.
Gurney, H.
Wyvill, M.
Wilkins, W.
MINORITY.
Atkins, alderman
Cust, hon. E.
Alcock, T.
Cuff, J.
Ashurst, W.
Dalrymple, A.
Ashley, lord
Davenport, D.
Astell, W.
Davis, R. H.
Astley, sir J.
Downes, lord
Attwood, M.
Drake, T.
Arbuthnot, hon. col.
Dundas, right hon. W.
Alexander, H.
Dundas, hon. H.
Antrobus, G. C.
Dawkins, H.
Arkwright, R.
Dottin, A. R.
Baker, E.
Douglas, W. K.
Bankes, H.
Eastnor, lord
Bankes, G.
East, sir E. H.
Bastard, captain
Eden, hon. R.
Bastard, E. P.
Egerton, W.
Batley, C. H.
Elphinstone, J. D.
Beckett, sir J.
Estcourt, T. G.
Belfast, earl of
Ellis, hon. A.
Beresford, major
Eliot, lord
Beresford, sir J.
Fane, hon. H.
Borradaile, R.
Fane, T.
Brydges, sir J.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.
Bradshaw, J.
Foster, J. L.
Byron, J.
Fellowes, W. H.
Blair, T.
Fetherston, sir G.
Bonham, H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Brudenell, lord
Gower, lord F.
Buller, R.
Grant, sir A.
Calvert, J.
Hodgson, F.
Carmarthen, marquis
Handcock, R.
Campbell, A.
Hardinge, sir H.
Capel, J.
Hastings, sir C.
Cecil, lord T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Chandos, marquis
Hill, sir G.
Chaplin, T.
Holmes, W.
Chaplin, C.
Hope, sir A.
Clinton, J. F.
Hope, sir W. J.
Cockburne, sir G.
Hotham, lord
Collett, E.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Cocks, J.
Houldsworth, T.
Cooper, R.
Inglis, sir R.
Cooper, hon. W. A.
Irving, J.
Corry, lord
Innes, sir H.
Corry, hon. L.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Courtenay, T. P.
King, hon. H.
Cripps, J.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Croker, J. W.
Lennox, lord G.
Lamb, right hon. W.
784
Legge, hon. A.
Rochford, G.
Lewis, T. F.
St. Paul, sir H.
Lewis, W.
Scott, hon. W.
Lowther, viscount
Scott, hon. H. J.
Lushington, colonel
Scott, H.
Lucy, G.
Sinclair, hon. J.
Lygon, hon. H.
Seymour, H.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Shelley, sir J.
Lindsay, colonel
Shirley, J. E.
Luttrell, J. F.
Sibthorp, C.
Mackinnon, C.
Smith, C. H.
M'Naghten, E. A.
Somerset, lord G.
Malcolm, N.
Somerset, lord E.
Macqueen, T. P.
Somerset, lord F.
Manning, W.
Sotheron, admiral
Manners, lord R.
Spottiswoode, A.
Martin, sir T. B.
Strathaven, lord
Meynell, H.
Strutt, J. H.
Moore, G.
Talmash, hon. J.
Morgan, sir C.
Talmash, hon. F.
Morgan, G.
Taylor, G. W.
Mundy, F.
Thompson, G. L.
Mountcharles, earl
Thynne, lord J.
Nicholl, sir J.
Tindal, sir N.
Nightingall, sir M.
Tomline, W. E.
Northcote, H. S.
Trant, W. H.
Norton, G.
Townshend, hon. J.
Newborough, lord
Trench, colonel
O'Neil, A.
Tullamore, lord
Owen, sir E.
Tunno, E.
Palmerston, lord
Twiss, H.
Peachey, general
Ure, M.
Pearse, J.
Uxbridge, earl of
Peel, right hon. R.
Vivian, sir H.
Peel, L.
Willoughby, H.
Peel, W.
Walpole, hon. J.
Peel, J.
West, F.
Pellew, hon. captain
Wetherell, sir C.
Pennant, G. D.
Wigram, W.
Percy, hon. C.
Wilson, colonel
Piggott, G. F.
Wilson, R. F.
Petit, L. H.
Wood, colonel
Planta, J.
Worcester, marquis of
Powell, A.
Wyndham, W.
Price, R.
Yorke, sir J.
Rae, sir W.
Rose, sir G.
TELLERS.
Rose, G. P.
Clerk, sir G.
Ross, C.
Dawson, G.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 28.
POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS, AND
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose and said:—
Mr. Speaker
; I am desirous of calling the attention of the House to a subject, which at first sight, perhaps, may appear to be limited in its application, and local in its objects; but which, in point of fact, is connected with considerations of the utmost importance to the well-being of the country. I allude, Sir, to the increase of
785
786
787
In the year 1820
2,773
1821
2,480
1822
2,539
1823
2,503
In 1824
2,621
1825
2,902
1826
3,457
1827
3,384
788
789
790
London
125,434
Westminster
182,085
Middlesex
837,012
1,144,531
791
792
793
794
l
l
795
796
797
798
Mr. Hume
contended, that the right hon. gentleman, as well as the committee which the noble lord had obtained last year, to inquire into the increase of crime in the country, had shut their eyes to the real causes of it, and had blinked the only question into which it was important for the people that they should institute an inquiry. He was satisfied that the decreased wages paid to labourers, which, in some instances, was reduced two-thirds, and in others one-half, compared to what they were, was one great cause of the increase of crime; but the great evil of all was, excessive taxation. He had heard it stated by the right hon. Secretary, that the increase of our manufactures was one of the causes of increase of crime. He was of a different opinion.—He believed the increase arose from the general want of employment, occasioned by that over taxation which was grinding all classes of the community. We were now paying upwards of sixty millions for taxes annually; and there was but little hope of the evils being removed till that amount was greatly reduced. Another cause of these evils was the emigration of the starving Irish to this country; the conse-
799
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that, as his noble friend, the marquis of Lansdowne, had intended to have brought under the consideration of parliament the very question which had been so ably submitted to it that evening by the right hon. gentleman, who had succeeded him as Secretary of State for the Home Department, he felt it to be a duty which he owed to his noble friend, not to remain entirely silent. He would commence by stating, that in almost every word which the right hon. gentleman had said he entirely agreed; but he must, at the same time, take the liberty of urging the right hon. gentleman, with respect to one branch of it, which was of paramount importance, not to approach it either with timidity or apathy. Every man, who had paid the slightest attention to the practical operation of our criminal laws, would readily acknowledge, that one of the great impediments to any efficient improvement of them, was to be traced to the multiplicity and diversity of the peculiar jurisdictions which were now employed in the detecting of crime. When he looked either at the state of the parochial watch, or at the peculiar regulations of the police in the city of London, he felt convinced, that the House, on coming to deal with a question so important to the security and property, and to the moral feelings of the population, would not allow any partial or parochial jurisdiction to stand in the way of their doing what was right to their constituents, and of their advancing the essen-
800
801
802
803
804
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that the hon. member for Montrose was always trying to induce the House to believe, that the cause of all the distresses of the country was its taxation, and that its only hope of relief from those distresses was in the remission of that taxation. A reduction in the expenditure would not affect the low rate of wages, which was caused by the existence of a redundant population. The lower classes were distressed because their capital and labour did not meet with a sufficient demand. A reduction in the taxes would not meet that evil. As long as persons were out of employment, a remission of taxation would not raise the general condition of the mass of the labouring poor. Other remedies must be resorted to for the removal of that evil. This was a subject of vital importance, and he should reserve himself for other opportunities during the session to enter more at large into the various details connected with it. There was another subject upon which he wished to say a few words. He had often heard it asserted, that the immediate effects of the passing of that measure, in which Ireland was so deeply interested, would be the introduction of capital, and the establishment of manufactories, in that kingdom. Yielding to no man in the deliberate conviction, that the passing of that measure would put an end to a class of evils which might be referred to certain moral causes existing in Ireland, he would at the same time deny, that the abolishing of those causes would operate as a cure for the redundant population. That redundancy was principally, if not totally, caused by the absence of the demand for labour. When gentlemen talked of the granting
805
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he felt himself called upon to address a few observations to the House, particularly after what had fallen from his right hon. friend, in allusion to the county of Kent. His right hon. friend had said, that he considered the situation of this country was nearly approaching that state in which the population had outgrown the institutions of the country. He would take the observation in the qualified sense in which his right hon. friend intended to use it, applying it only to the police institutions. In that observation he entirely accorded; and he was gratified to learn from his right hon. friend, that he had no reason to extend it further. He had heard with satisfaction, that this inquiry was not to apply exclusively to the metropolis, but was to be extended to the towns in the neighbourhood of that great city. He rejoiced at this circumstance; for whatever might be the difficulties which the police of the metropolis had to struggle with—however arduous might be the duties of the magis-
806
807
Dr. Lushington
said, that the act of parliament passed for the regulation of prison discipline had been completely evaded by the magistrates of Middlesex. Last session he had moved for the report of the visiting magistrates in 1825, and it was frightful to see how the prisons had gone on increasing in iniquity, while no remedy had been applied to the evil. That Report stated, that riots and assaults were of daily occurrence in Cold Bath Fields prison; that incorrigible offenders were often confined with those who were comparatively guiltless, and frequently discharged without prosecution. In consequence of receiving this information, he had gone, in October 1826, to that prison to ascertain whether it could be true. He then saw eighty or ninety prisoners confined in one room, and the sleeping place allotted for each was about sixteen inches, in breadth. The greater portion of them, went to sleep in a perfectly naked condition. When he inquired why such a number of human beings were thus pent up in one room, the superintendent stated, that there was no other place for them. He understood from him, that when he went to open the door of this room in the morning, he was nearly overpowered by the smell, and was obliged to leave the door open for several minutes before he could enter; such was the dreadful stench which issued from the apartment. The condition of this prison still remained unaltered. No remedy had been applied but one, which, to the honour of the magistrates of Middlesex, was unique in its way. They dismissed the whole body of the visiting committee. Undoubtedly that was rather an extraordinary mode of proceeding, but in justice he must say, that the magistrates had since repented of their rashness, and taken the offenders again into favour. In pursuance of the Consolidated act, relative to prisons, a large book was laid late every year on the table of the House. He had looked into that book, in order to compare its statements with the report of the visiting magistrates; but he had found only four or rive lines, simply stating that the
808
809
Mr. D. Barclay
said, that a great deal of valuable information was contained in the Report of the Committee of 1817. He had no hope of any material improvement in the police of the metropolis, unless an end was put to the system of parish police. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to the increase of the population, and he agreed that, whoever compared the police establishment with the population, must be convinced that the time had arrived when the state of the police required consideration. An hon. baronet had alluded to the increased expense of prosecutions; and he concurred with that hon. baronet, that it arose in some measure from the increased facility lately given to prosecutions. Townsend, the Bow-street officer, in his evidence before the committee of 1817, had stated, that he remembered when ten and twenty persons at a time "graced the gibbet," while of late years, he said, we had only a paltry example of one or two brought forward; and from this decrease of capital punishment, Townsend inferred the increase of crime. The hon. member was of opinion, that if some protection was given to the parties concerned in the robberies of banks and receiving stolen goods, from the consequence of their own evidence, considerable benefit would result from it. By referring to the report of the committee of 1817, much time might be saved, in the examination of evidence before the new committee.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the establishment of the day-police of the right hon. gentleman was known to have produced great benefit to the public. But the day-police was not new in the city of London. It had existed there for a great number of years. Some allusions had been made to the difficulty resulting from the concurrent jurisdiction exercised by the magistrates of the city with the magistrates of the Borough. But it was impossible that a more general disposition could exist on the part both of the city and county magistrates, to give every facility to the administration of justice. As to the rights and privileges of the city, he could assure the right hon. gentleman, that there would be no difficulty. He would advise him to imitate the police of London. He had heard that night of a parish police. There was no such thing in the city of London. It was
810
l.
l.
l.
811
Colonel Wood
said, that neither the magistrates of Middlesex nor the police magistrates committed, in the first instance, to Newgate, but to the New Prison, from which, a few days before trial, the prisoners were transferred to Newgate. The learned doctor had complained of the crowded state of the
812
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, in explanation, that almost all the committals of the police magistrates were made to Newgate.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he should confine himself to the facts that had come under his own knowledge. While he filled the office of sheriff, it had been his melancholy duty to witness the execution of thirty-six persons. He also visited Newgate three or four days a week, and never found it in the state described by the learned doctor. The crowded state of Newgate was the city's misfortune, and not its fault, and was attributable to the thousands of prisoners that annually passed through it. Now, as to the increase of crime. If the committee about to be appointed was merely to give facility to prosecutions, then all that it would do would be to multiply prosecutions without removing crime. It was his belief that the greater part of the depredations in the city were committed by juvenile depredators; and he thought that the right hon. gentleman would agree with him, that there were much fewer prisoners sent from London than from Middlesex. If any thing better than the present system could be contrived, he was sure the magistrates of London would concur in it. They had, within the last few weeks, inquired diligently into the system of police in the city, and it was their intention to regulate it in the manner which would give the most effectual security to the inhabitants.
813
Mr. Dickenson
was sorry to hear that the county of Somersetshire was more prolific in crime than any other county; but though the convictions were more numerous, it was a curious fact that the prosecutions under the Game-laws were less.
Mr. Monck
said, that he agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the increase of crime was in a great measure attributable to the increase of taxation. It would be seen, by referring to p. Statistical Account of France, lately published, that the wages of an agricultural labourer per day were 14
d.
d.
814
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that the police of London was as efficient as in any other part of the country. As to the increase of crime, he believed one of the causes of it to be the low price of ardent spirits. Another cause was the system of compromising felonies. There was now going on in the city a regularly organized plan of stealing from counting-houses books and securities for money. These were the cases in which felonies were generally compromised. He was not at all surprised that persons whose credit was at stake, should be induced to enter into compromises of this nature. He hoped that the committee would inquire closely into the state of the law on this subject, and especially into the act called "Jonathan Wild's act." To convict under that act was extremely difficult. As to the crowded state of Newgate, he lamented it as much as any one; but he was quite sure that the person to whom the unhappy inmates of that prison were committed, treated them with the greatest humanity. If there was any way in which the crowded state of Newgate could be remedied, it would be a great benefit. He should recommend, that prisoners who had bean tried, and sentenced to transportation, should be sent off immediately.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that there was already on the table of the House the report of a committee that had inquired very fully into the crowded state of the prisons, the cause of the increase of crime, and
815
Mr. Secretary Peel
replied, and observed, that the hon. baronet was mistaken when he supposed that nothing had taken place subsequent to the report of the committee, of which he had just spoken. He believed that every one of the regulations proposed had been carried into effect. An act had been passed for the improvement of the prison-discipline, and all the provisions of that bill had been acted upon; also an alteration had taken place with respect to the licensing system. An hon. member had complained, that the proposed alterations were only to extend to London and Middlesex; but the hon. gentleman had not understood him aright. His motion was proposed to extend to the metropolis and the districts adjoining thereto; which would of course include a portion of Surrey, Essex, and Kent. When, however, he had referred to the state of crime, as the only documents he had were furnished from the Old Bailey, he had of course been obliged to confine himself to London and Middlesex. He was sorry that the fourth hon. member for London was not present, as no doubt he, like the three worthy aldermen, would have stood up to vindicate the city of London; but he could assure those hon. gentlemen, that he never had the least intention to cast the slightest reflections on the police of the city. All that he had said was, that instead of the police of London being on a concurrent principle, it appeared to act on an exclusive one. With respect to the crowded state of Newgate, that would have been remedied long since, had it not been for a doubt that was entertained, that, by a prescriptive right, arising from long custom, the recorder's report ought to be taken within the limits of London. Steps, however, were taken to relieve the pressure without delay. He had only to observe, that in constituting this committee, he had been anxious to select those magistrates who had been most active in their respective Counties. Several very active members were already too much occupied upon the finance committee to give this the benefit of their labours.
816
The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.]
Lord J. Russell
Lord John Russell
, in addressing the committee, observed, that he felt very great satisfaction at the tone and temper by which the former discussion had been marked. He was happy to say, that in no part of it had angry feeling been manifested: on the one side nothing had been introduced that could give offence to the most zealous friends of the church, nor on the other, had any argument been adduced that could wound the feelings of the Dissenters. In such a collision of opinion, on a subject of this nature, some strong expression of feeling might have been expected, but no such feeling had been expressed. Nothing was said, on the one hand, to give pain to the feelings of those who called for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts; and on the other hand, not one word had been advanced, which could create soreness or irritation in the minds of the right hon. gentlemen who had opposed the measure. For his own part, looking to the question, as a really important question—as a question connected with national feeling; as a question which touched, in a very material degree, on the rights of the subject—he should not allude to any of those minor divisions which might tend rather to narrow its scope, and to introduce a view of it which it appeared to him to be most desirable to avoid. Indeed, the only part of the question which he thought it necessary to allude to, was the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Devon (sir T. D. Acland), for a temporary suspension of those acts. This proposition was one of much importance—one that deserved deep consideration. In his opinion, to treat the subject in that way would be to tamper and palter with a
817
818
819
820
Sir T. D. Acland
said, that having been alluded to so particularly by the noble lord who had just sat down, he felt it necessary, in order to guard against misapprehension, to explain what he had stated on a former evening. After what had already passed, it was impossible not to see that, in the opinion of the House of Commons, some decisive steps ought to be taken in the alteration, amendment, or repeal, of these laws, and that the more speedy these measures were, the more soothing would they be to the parties interested, as well as the more effectual for their objects. He was pleased to hear the noble lord call upon the House to legislate upon that question, not as one affecting the interests, or supposed interests, of one party only, but as one of great and general importance. The House had already, by a most marked and he believed, unexpected majority, shewn the sense it entertained, for the just claims of the Dissenters; but he believed he was warranted in saying, that amongst many, if not the great majority, of those who voted for going into the committee, there prevailed the greatest difference of opinion, as to the mode in which the proposed relief ought to be afforded. He had contended, when the question was brought forward very recently, that the interests and feelings of the Established Church were, in this matter, entitled to
821
822
totidem verbis
823
Lord J. Russell
agreed entirely with his hon. friend, that it was a matter of great importance to conciliate the good-will of the Church of England. He was ready to agree to every thing that did not tend to encourage what he considered, to be a very unfounded and mischievous opinion; namely, that these acts afforded any security to the Church of England. He felt a strong objection to the plan of his hon. friend, because it would have the effect of keeping alive those feelings that ought to be suppressed. If a suspension bill were agreed to, the Church of England, on the one side, would look with anxiety for its revival, as their security, while, on the other, the Dissenters would view its enactment as a mark of their degradation. The great reason, however, which induced him to object to such a course was, because it militated against the total repeal of these acts. He thought, however, that there might be introduced into the repeal bill something palatable to the Church, without imposing any ob-
824
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that when it was considered that it was not until two o'clock on Monday morning that the motion of the noble lord was carried by a majority of forty-four, he thought that a longer period might be permitted to intervene between the success of that motion and the renewal of a discussion in the committee on the important subject to which that motion referred. For himself, he begged to declare that he had been so engaged during the last two days, that he had neither had time to consult with others upon the subject, nor of forming his own opinion conclusively upon it. But, after the decisive majority with which the motion had been carried, he would put it to the noble lord whether, for the sake of having his measure followed up with final success, he would not be disposed to accept some alternative, instead of the absolute and entire repeal of the Test and Corporation acts. The noble lord should bear in mind, that many members who voted for his motion on the former night, voted only for going into a committee upon these acts, but abstained from pledging themselves to go the full length of a total and unqualified repeal of them. To insure the continued support of those members, it would be worth while to consider whether some mode short of repeal might not advantageously be adopted. Another inducement to the noble lord should be found in the natural anxiety the whole House entertained, that those religious animosities which had been alluded to might be entirely removed, instead of being increased, as they would be, if the measure adopted by the legislature was not one of general satisfaction to the whole community. Again, if the redress of a real practical grievance was the object of the noble lord, and not merely the triumph of an abstract principle, would it not be desirable to shape the measure in such a manner as that it would meet the concurrence of both branches of the legislature, and not set them in collision on a subject which might exasperate feelings which they were all anxious to allay. In offering these suggestions, he wished again to be under-
825
Lord Althorp
said, he had hoped that the right hon. gentleman would have proposed some measure which the House could
826
Dr. Phillimore
said, he supported the repeal of these acts, on the conviction that it was consistent with the best interests of the established church. He regarded the existence of them as a scandal, which for the credit of the Church should be removed. The simple repeal was proposed by the noble lord; as an amendment to that it was proposed by an hon. baronet to suspend these acts. In his opinion suspension or repeal, for a time, could do no good: as when the time for renewing arrived, fresh dissatisfaction and animosity would be naturally evinced. If by a short oath, unobjectionable to the Dissenters, the objections of those who were opposed to the repeal could be removed, he would not oppose it. If the relief at present prayed for was granted to the Dissenters, it would furnish an additional ground for acceding to the claims of the Catholics. In reply to a question which had been put by the right hon. Secretary, on a former occasion—why in the bill introduced last session, by an hon. baronet, was it not proposed to release the Dissenters from the operation of the Test and
827
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he had voted a few nights ago most cordially for the repeal of the laws in question; for he was one who did not believe that the established church was at all protected by them. But, whatever his abstract opinions upon any question were, he was bound to adopt that course which he thought, in the long run, most sure to carry his policy into execution. A right hon. gentleman, now unfortunately no more, had stated, last year, that he opposed the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts, because he conceived that that repeal would militate against the general cause of the Catholics: now he had no hesitation to declare, that he believed that right hon. gentleman himself could not have supported the indemnity system, subject to the real case of grievance which had, in the present debate, been made out against it. At the same time he was not himself entirely of opinion, that the objection of the right hon. gentleman to whom he alluded had been without foundation; or that, when the acts before the House were repealed, some slight loss of strength to the Catholic question might not arise. He was no advocate for delay; he would carry both the question before the House and the Catholic question, that very evening, if he could. And, if he saw reason to believe that the repeal of the laws affecting the Dissenters alone could be carried, without endangering that unanimity of feeling which prevailed with respect to religious disabilities, he would support it. But, if there was a doubt upon this point, he should be induced to hesitate. Unanimity of feeling was his first object; and if that could be best secured by the course of suspension, suspension was the policy which he should prefer. If he were put to his election, to support, without any qualification, the proposition of the noble lord, or to reject it, he should undoubtedly vote in its favour; but he wished the noble lord would consider the suggestion of his right hon. friend.
Mr. Peel
hoped that the noble lord would postpone his motion for three or four days. The resolution declared that it was the opinion of the committee, that the acts should be repealed; therefore, if a bill was brought in upon the report of that
828
Mr. Wynn
said, he was favourable to a total repeal. Any partial measure would only have the effect of keeping the grievance alive. The making the Sacramental Test the qualification to office, was the scandal of the Established Church. There could not be a stronger instance than the one referred to, of the last chief magistrate of London, who, it was well known, was a Dissenter, but was nevertheless obliged to take the Sacrament according to the observance of the Established Church, in order to qualify for office. He had no hesitation in saying, that he preferred the repeal to the suspension. He believed that no cause could make the existence of the laws complained of again necessary; but, if they ever should become so, the parliament of that day would find no difficulty in re-enacting them. Repeal, in his opinion, was the only proper course. It was impossible to suppose, after the decision of Tuesday night, that the Dissenters would rest satisfied with suspension.
Mr. G. Bankes
thought, that as many members had not yet made up their minds as to the course which ought to be pursued, the decision of the question ought, for the present, to be postponed.
Mr. Calcraft
thought that, after the large majority of the other night, there would be no difficulty, at least until they came into committee on the bill. He believed that the object of the right hon. Secretary was conciliation; but he put it to him, whether delay was the way most likely to effect it. They had heard that night of animosities and probable bickerings; but an annual Suspension bill would not allay that irritation: it would tend to keep open jealousy; and if any serious difference did, in the course of time, arise, the friends to the Church might ask the recall of that suspension. He, therefore, thought the best way was to forward the repeal with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Fergusson
supported the repeal, as the only course likely to satisfy the Dissenters, and as that to which he considered the House had partly consented. It was a remarkable circumstance in the late debate, that not a single member had been found to defend these acts; and if indefensible, they ought not to be continued.
Mr. Perceval
understood the proposition of the right hon. Secretary to be made
829
Mr. Secretary Peel
regretted the continuance of the debate, as it seemed likely to disturb that harmony which had characterized the earlier stages of their proceedings; but he put it to the noble lord whether a short delay would not be the most consistent? After the unforeseen majority, he was not prepared, and he believed that many other members were not prepared, to say what course it would be most proper to adopt. By the unexpected decision which the House had come to, it became desirable that it should suspend further proceedings for a short time, to consider the whole bearings of the question, and the consequences of that decision. The noble lord would not prejudice his view of the question by consenting to the delay. If he (Mr. P.) had now intended to bring the question of suspension or repeal to a decision, he would have given the noble lord notice. But he had not considered the subject sufficiently. He could not yet say what would be the best course to adopt, for he had strong objections to adopt the suggestion, that an oath should be substituted as a protection for the Church establishment.
Sir C. Cole
said, he would grapple at once with the objections to the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts. It was said that they were a barrier to the Established Church. If so, they were a barrier of glass, which any man might break to pieces in a minute. It was a great hardship to the Protestant Dissenters of England, that they should have acts hanging over their heads, which did not affect those of Scotland and Ireland.
Lord John Russell
said, that if adjournment would promote the measure, and give satisfaction to the Dissenters, he would not object to it. The only question, he maintained, now under consideration, was repeal or suspension. The question of repeal had been fully taken into consideration. It was included in all the speeches, all the arguments, and in the vote of the House. If he thought that by giving time, the House would agree to his proposition, he would most readily accede to it; but he felt quite confident, that no time would suffice to produce a different conviction in those who were now opposed to the repeal.
830
Mr. Estcourt
hoped there would be an adjournment. It had been said, that if any member had been taken by surprise, the supporters of the repeal would consent to an adjournment. He believed that several members were so situated. He should support the suspension of the acts in preference to their repeal.
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that the right hon. Secretary asked for time, merely to consider the mode in which the measure could be best carried into effect. He concurred in that view, and was sorry that the noble lord had not evinced a similar feeling.
Lord Milton
begged to refer the committee to the exact words of the notice of motion given by the noble lord. They were "repeal of the Corporation and Test, acts." What, then, became of the objections of hon. members? Away with these idle pretences; which those who made them knew were pretences; their only object being to regain the vantage ground they had lost, and by delay, to defeat the Dissenters, and not the Dissenters only, but the best interests of the Church.
Mr. Secretary Peel
warmly repelled the noble lord's imputations; and declared, upon his honour, that they were wholly foreign to his motives. He had been most unjustly accused of not being actuated by a conciliatory spirit in this discussion. All he would say was, that, after what had passed, he would not only not propose suspension, but would not even accept delay; although that delay was proposed for purposes which, if his proposition had been accepted in the spirit in which it had been made, might have turned out satis-
831
Sir T. Lethbridge
applauded the determined and dignified conduct of the right hon. gentleman. He had come down to the House to vote with the noble mover, in conformity with the decision of the majority of the House; and he had hoped that the measure would have been completed with the temper which ought to be observed in considering a question of so much importance. But instead of friendly co-operation, the noble member for Yorkshire had thrown out the symbol, sign, and ensign of hostility.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
, in reference to the intimation on the part of the noble member for Yorkshire, that those who wished for the delay of a few days proceeded upon false pretences, said he repelled with indignation the imputation attempted to be cast upon him.
Lord Milton
begged to state, in explanation, that, when he had heard that some members conceived that the repeal of the acts was not the object of the noble lord's motion he had desired the clerk to give him the book, that he might show the exact nature of the motion; that repeal was the end in view, and that those who Stated the contrary were not correct.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
observed that the notice was to repeal the acts, but the motion itself had been for a committee to consider them. He regretted the tone manifested by the noble lord who spoke last, and his introduction into the discussion of unauthorized and unjust aspersions upon those who had differed from him. This was the last thing that the noble mover would desire. He hoped there would be a return to the spirit and temper with which the subject had been introduced, and to which it owed mainly the success it had received.
Mr. Calcraft
intreated the committee to consider the great interests involved in the decision of the present question. He regretted that any irritation had arisen, and trusted it would be allowed to subside.
Lord J. Russell
regretted the tone which the discussion had assumed. It
832
Lord Milton
was sorry for what had occurred. He had no intention to excite anger.
The resolution was then agreed to. Previous to which several of the ministers retired from the House.
Mr. Littleton
expressed his fears that this question, after what had passed, would no longer be discussed without an infusion of party spirit. He regretted the speech which had been delivered by the noble lord, and doubted much whether it would not be doing mischief.
Colonel Davies
was of opinion, that those who allowed paltry, petty, and personal, feeling to interfere with the broad path of their duty, were unworthy of a seat in that, or in any other House.
Sir G. Warrender
hoped, that whatever irritation might have been excited, it would not lead to any unfortunate result to this most important question. He must declare, that if any circumstance could induce him to withdraw his confidence from an administration, it would be the circumstance he had just witnessed; namely, the secession of ministers from the House. This was the first time that he had seen all the ministers retire from the House before a decision had been come to on a great question which had been agitating all men's minds. He begged pardon: he saw one minister left.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
thought his hon. friend, could not have heard the speech of his right hon. friend; who had expressed his intention neither to oppose the motion nor to support it. He now learned for the first time that it was a singular course for a minister to leave the House to avoid voting. The discussion was at an end. If he had remained in the House, and a division had been called for, he could not have avoided voting. [Mr. Peel here re-entered the House.]
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that the hon. baronet had announced the probability of his withdrawing his valuable support from a minister who was liable to moments of irritation. Now, he must say, that if he found his right hon. friend to be a minister
833
Sir G. Warrender
said, that when he commented on the departure of his right hon. friend he was not aware that he had declared his intention of not voting on the question. He was not apt to give way to feelings of irritation, but he supposed that, on this occasion, he had caught the infection. If he had said any thing objectionable, he was sorry for it.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he was occupied very agreeably up stairs when the intelligence was conveyed to him that his gallant friend was ready to withdraw his support from the government; nevertheless, he did not allow the intelligence to disturb his repast. The fact was, that having fasted since nine o'clock that morning, and being completely exhausted, he had retired to take some refreshment. He had returned to listen to the attack which was made upon him, but he feared that he should again provoke the indignation of his gallant friend by pursuing the same course by which it had been excited; for it was his intention to leave the House when the question should be put, if it had not already been put from the chair. When he left the House, he intended no disrespect to the noble lord, or to the committee.
The House resumed: and the report was ordered to be brought up on Tuesday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 29.
STATE OF THE COMMON LAW.]
Mr. Brougham
834
The order of the day being read,
The Solicitor-General
said, that in rising to offer to the House the observations which he felt it his duty to make upon the question, he laboured under no ordinary difficulty. The subject which his hon. and learned friend had brought under the notice of the House was large and embarrassing, being no less than the whole system of municipal law in this country; and further, branching out into the legal policy of the most distant dependencies of the nation. The minuteness of detail with which his learned friend, in the course of his address, explained the various topics which he submitted to the
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
Mr. Brougham
observed, that he had mentioned no names in his statement, and had abstained from doing so for fear of disturbing any existing titles.
The Solicitor-General
.— I thought my hon. and learned friend had mentioned one name, but as I find myself mistaken, I will follow the example of my hon. and learned friend. In the case of which he has been speaking, the estate went back to the Crown—and what did the Crown do upon that occasion? It acted as it always has done in such cases—looked out for the person who came nearest to the situation of a claimant, in order to present that person with the estate. Nothing is more common than such proceedings on the
845
846
847
tales
848
tales.
849
tales.
l.
l.
l.
850
851
852
853
indebitatus assumpsit.
indebitatus assumpsit
assumpsit
854
855
bonâ fide
elegit
856
857
858
859
860
861
Mr. George Lamb
said:—Sir, the Solicitor-general has complained of my hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, for having ill-treated the justices of the peace. I must say, that I am surprised to hear him make this accusation; and I am the more surprised, because, from something which fell from an hon. member yesterday, it seems that the same opinion is entertained by others. I do think that there is nothing more improper than to exhibit an excessive soreness of feeling at any attack, when that attack, instead of being made on good men, clearly applies only to the unworthy members of a particular body. But if my hon. and learned friend has ill-treated the magistrates of the country in his attack, they have been equally ill-treated by the learned Solicitor-general in his defence of them. As one of the proofs that my hon. and learned friend's attack was improper, he has stated the number of justices of the peace in the United Kingdom, and the paucity of cases which come from them before the King's Bench. Why, Sir, that is the very case which my hon. and learned friend makes against them. But few appeals come from their jurisdiction before that court, in consequence of the difficulties thrown in the way of bringing them there. In saying this I do not undervalue the services of men who render justice to
862
863
864
865
indebitatus assumpsit
indebitatus assumpsit.
ex delicto,
mesne process,
866
subpœna,
"Does not in Chancery every man swear
"What makes best for him in his answer?"
viva voce
Mr. Brougham
interposed. His hon. and learned friend was mistaken; he had contended the very reverse. He had objected to all that are called presumptions in construing and weighing evidence, and he had maintained that as one. It was a rule of evidence, that an accomplice was
867
Mr. G. Lamb
.—I am happy to find that I do not differ from my hon. and learned friend, as much as I expected. The difficulty of convicting in cases of perjury is one of the great blots in the law, both civil and criminal. Perhaps this topic is not so naturally connected with the common law as with the criminal law. Every one at all connected with criminal proceedings, must have constantly seen perjured
alibis
alibi,
868
indebitatus assumpsit.
869
The Attorney General
said:—In the course of the observations which I may make upon this question, I will state on what points I concur with, or differ from, the hon. and learned gentleman who introduced it. In the first place, I agree that
870
tort
assumpsit,
mesne
nisi prius.
871
nisi prius
nisi prius
Banco
in arbitrio
872
momentum
873
arbitrium
874
875
876
877
s.
d.
878
arbitrium
l.
l.
l.
l.
879
Mr. Fergusson
observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman, the Solicitor-general, had objected to the general inquiry into the abuses of the law, sought for by the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, and had proposed to limit the power of the Commission to two objects: first, to the state of the law respecting real property; and secondly, to the progress of an action at law from its inception to its termination. He would confine the few observations he had to make, to the latter of these propositions, which, taken in the enlarged sense in which he thought it ought to be taken, would include every abuse and defect in the proceedings of our common-law courts, from the commencement of an action (including the arrest) up to judgment and execution; and he hoped that no part of the law or of the practice, which obtained in the course of these proceedings, would be withdrawn from the cognizance of the Commissioners. He objected to their being limited to the mere practice of the courts, by which comparatively little good would be done.
880
881
882
indebitatus
solvit ante diem, solvit ad diem,
solvit post diem,
solvit ante diem
solvit ad diem,
solvit post diem,
883
solvit post diem,
Mr. Brougham
said, the case he had put was that of an executor plaintiff.
Mr. Fergusson
said, that no doubt made a difference, but he had understood his hon. and learned friend to have laid down the principle generally as applicable to all cases.
l.
884
885
886
887
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it had struck him that it would be some advantage to the House, at the present period of the debate, especially after the subject of the administration of law in the colonies and other topics had been introduced, which did not strictly apply to the question before the House—if he took that opportunity of explaining to the House the advice that it was the intention of the government to give to the Crown, with respect to the motion which the hon. and learned gentleman had submitted to the House. If he had understood the speech of that hon. and learned gentleman aright, it seemed to be rather an explanation of his general and particular views on the topics concerning
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
l.
Juges de Paix,
l.
l.
l.
l.
895
l.
896
897
"Still as you rise, the State, exalted too,
Finds no distemper while 'tis chang'd by you—
Chang'd like the world's great scene, when, without noise,
The rising sun night's vulgar light destroy."
Mr. Sugden
then addressed the House. He observed, that it was quite impossible that the numerous, complicated, and varied systems which were touched upon in the speech of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, could be intimately known by all or by any one of the members of the commission, however numerous. The first thing they must do, would be to divide the commission into a number of sub-commissions, if he might be allowed the phrase; and each sub-com-
898
899
900
901
902
Sir James Scarlett
said, that, if he had been disposed to differ with the right hon. Secretary who spoke last but one, in the conclusion he had come to upon this subject, he yet felt so strong a conviction of the right hon. gentleman's sincerity, and thought him so much entitled to the gratitude of the House and the country for his useful labours in reforming the Criminal-law, that he should most readily have surrendered his own opinion to the judgment and experience of the right hon. gentleman. He was bound to say, however, that he entirely concurred in the views taken by the right hon. Secretary upon
903
904
905
906
Mr. Brougham
.—I never proposed the admission of hear-say evidence.
Sir J. Scarlett
.—I never supposed my learned friend to have done so.
Mr. Brougham
.—But you used the word "also."
907
Sir J. Scarlett
said, he was ready to ask pardon of his learned friend for the use of that unlucky word "also," and, if he would not further interrupt him, would inform him, that he was alluding not to him, but to the hon. member for Dungarvon; who, besides other observations on the rules of evidence, though not relating to hear-say, had mentioned the rejection of the testimony of a party in his own cause. Now, he was conscious that he might be thought an incompetent judge of the merits of a system of which he was in the daily practice. It was too true, that men were apt to be prepossessed by their own habits and practice, and he perhaps ought to entertain a doubt of the value of his own opinion upon the rule in question. But he could state as a fact, that, during the course of a long personal experience, he never above twice or thrice in his life found it expedient to read the answer of an opponent upon oath obtained by a bill of discovery. In fact, men hardly ever thought themselves in the wrong in their own causes; the necessary result of which was, that they told their own story, even upon oath, so much in their own favour; that it was impossible for their antagonists to use it. A court of Equity would not permit the answer of a party to be read as evidence in his own behalf. And he was sorry, but bound to state, that in a very recent instance, when a court of Equity had directed a party to be examined in a court of law, in support of his own case, the most gross perjury had taken place. Upon this point, he repeated, that the constitution of the tribunal renders it proper to exclude such testimony. A judge might, perhaps, make due allowance for the passions and feelings which excite a party in his own cause; but if such evidence were adduced before a jury it would throw upon the advocate, in every case, the necessity of offering to them in each address, an essay upon human nature, and metaphysical dissertations upon the influence of motives upon the conduct and feelings of men, which would be thrown away before such a tribunal. Dissertations of this nature, as his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, well knew were too frequent in the lengthy pleadings of the Scots' courts, which were addressed to most intelligent judges, but which, however proper in those courts, would serve only to confound and perplex a jury.
908
909
910
Dr. Phillimore
said, he wished to offer a few words upon the constitution of a court in which himself had practised for many years; namely, the court of Delegates. The House would be aware that this court, which was the last tribunal of appeal from the maritime and ecclesiastical courts, had been a source of complaint for more than a century; repeated applications having been made within that time to the Crown to change the constitution of it. As the practice stood, the court was composed of three common-law judges, whom it was difficult to get together, and who, when assembled, were not familiar, from their professional habits and experience, with the civil law: and to assist these learned persons, three counsel from the court were added, who were necessarily always of those not immediately in the highest estimation, as those who were so were generally concerned on one side or the other in the cause. The delay which the difficulty of assembling the common-law judges led to, rendered the court almost valueless for the despatch of business. But the most glaring part of the grievance was the incompetency of the constitution of that tribunal: the decisions of the first civil judges were reviewed by judges not practising the civil law at all, and by assistant counsel, whose standing and reputation were by no means necessarily such as to qualify them for so delicate a duty. The hon. and learned member concluded by suggesting an improvement in the constitution of the court; the chief feature of which was, that one civil judge should, in all cases, sit with the court of Delegates, for the purpose of as-
911
Mr. Carter
shortly observed upon that part of the inquiry, which was to apply to the power intrusted to magistrates. In his opinion, the power of transportation for life was a very dangerous one to be exercised at quarter-sessions by persons whose habits of receiving evidence, when not directed or controlled by any presiding barrister, were frequently highly lax and irregular.
Mr. Brougham
commenced his reply by assuring the House, that the patient attention with which he had been heard by the House on a former evening, when he brought the important subject of the administration of the law under its consideration, would induce him to trespass but for a short time on its patience at that late hour. It was the more unnecessary, indeed, for him to do so, as the observations which had been made that evening did not furnish any very ample matter of remark in reply from him. He had, in the first place, to discharge a duty imposed on him by his hon. and learned friend (sir J. Scarlett) who had been obliged to leave the House; namely, the explanation of a point which his hon. and learned friend had omitted to notice; and which he was about to enter upon after his observations on the speech of the hon. member for Dungarvon, but which he had been prevented from doing by his (Mr. B.'s) accidental interruption. The point to which he alluded, referred to the practice of special pleading, which had been attacked by the hon. member for Dungarvon. Upon this point he agreed with his hon. and learned friend; and he was glad to be confirmed in his opinion by an authority of such high experience and talent, that all that was wanting to render special pleading perfectly competent to its purpose, was to bring back the system to its ancient rigour and simplicity. He would have the pleadings made simple, to prevent misconstruction and misapprehension; but in confining the power to plead, and in diminishing the number of counts, he would not leave, as at present, the judges with the power of nonsuiting the parties, because some trivial and verbal mistake had been committed. That would be a great injustice. So many counts were now necessary, be-
912
913
914
915
916
tales,
tales,
l.
tales,
l.
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
The motion was then put and agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 3.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.]
Lord Clifden
said, he held in his hand a petition from the Catholics of Liverpool; not, however, praying for any thing for themselves, but for the repeal of those laws that injured and insulted the Protestant Dissenters. A noble friend had presented last week, a petition to the same purport from Ireland, and another to the same effect had been presented to the House of Commons, signed by seven thousand Catholics of England, among whom were the first duke and the first earl in the kingdom, five other peers and several baronets. The petition he had now to present was signed by two thousand persons, and the seven first names of those in it were those of Catholic clergymen. He troubled their lordships with this prologue, because it was the fashion to say that the Catholics were enemies to civil and religious liberty. The petitions which had lately been presented from that body were a sufficient answer to that most unjust accusation. The Catholics were now petitioning, not for themselves, but in favour of that class of persons who were thought to be hostile
924
l.
l.
"Hast thou by statute shov'd from its design
The Saviour's feast, his own blest bread and wine,
And made the symbols of atoning grace
An office-key, a picklock to a place,
That infidels may prove their title good
By an oath dipp'd in sacramental blood?
A blot that will be still a blot, in spite
Of all that grave apologists may write;
And, though a Bishop toil to cleanse the stain,
He wipes and scours the silver cup in vain."
Lord Redesdale
thought the noble lord opposite had made a few mistakes. In the first place, Charles 2nd would have been very glad not to have passed one of those laws of which the noble lord complained; and with respect to a person qualifying himself for office, against his conscience, the fault did not lie in the law, but in the person so doing. The principle upon which those laws were made was, that property could not be safe in any country, unless those in power were interested in its support. In like manner the established church could not be safe, unless those in power were interested in its support. In this country when was that church in danger? It was at that time when the power and the army had got into the hands of those who were hostile to the church. How was it that
925
Lord King
said, that the learned lord had stated, that the question was totally a political one, yet he seemed very ready to derive all the religious aid he possibly could. The noble lord said, that Charles 2nd was not the maker of these Tests. If Charles was not a maker of Tests, at any rate he was a great taker of them. Charles 2nd, first of all, qualified himself for the crown of Scotland by signing the Covenant. After that, he came to England, and qualified himself for the crown of this country, according to all the ceremonies of the established church, and when on his death-bed, he qualified himself for dying as a true Catholic, by receiving extreme unction. That showed the value of Tests. He did not think that all the learned lord's ingenuity could make out that the church derived any security from the Test laws against bad men. Against good men there was no need for security, and against bad men there was no security in consequence of these laws.
Lord Calthorpe
thought it was the obvious meaning of the oaths alluded to, that they should be taken in a proper manner, instead of which they were made a passport to office. He could scarcely conceive any thing more injurious to the character of the Church of England, than to say that its security mainly depended on acts like those. He thought the continuance of these laws as little consistent with the interests of the Church of England as they were creditable to parliament.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 3.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. Tennyson
926
Mr. G. Bankes
The Speaker
called the attention of the House to the state of the question. Certain persons had approached the House with a petition which concluded in this way—"Your petitioners represent to your honourable House that they have no representative of their own in the House, and they pray that they may be heard by their counsel, in support of the petition, against the enactment of the proposed bill." The question was, whether the House would suffer the petition to be referred to the committee, and then allow the petitioners to be heard by counsel on the petition.
Mr. G. Bankes
shaped his motion accordingly.
Mr. Tennyson
having risen, counsel was ordered to withdraw. The hon. member proceeded to oppose the hearing of counsel until all the evidence had been heard.
Mr. Littleton
thought there was no difference in the proceeding on this occasion and on a bill affecting private property. The custom was to call in witnesses to prove the preamble of the bill; then to hear the argument first, and the evidence after.
Mr. Peel
was for not limiting the petitioners, as to the time when they were to be heard against the bill.
Mr. G. Bankes
was only anxious to discharge his duty to the petitioners, and would be governed by the opinion of the committee.
Mr. Wynn
argued, that the proper time for hearing counsel on the part of the petitioners, was after evidence had been heard in support of the bill which they opposed.
927
The Attorney-General
was of opinion that the petitioners' counsel ought to be heard first.
Mr. Tennyson
objected to hearing counsel in this stage of the proceedings. To hear counsel before the case of the complainants was closed, appeared to hint to be manifestly absurd.
The Attorney-General
conceived that the way in which the House was proceeding was unconstitutional. If a member's seat were attacked, he got up, made his defence, and called his witnesses; and here they were about to disfranchise a borough without giving the petitioners a similar privilege. He claimed for these individuals the same right as that enjoyed by a member when he defended his seat. Counsel ought to be called in and heard in their defence.
Mr. Wynn
believed, that it had not been usual to call on any member for his defence, until the whole case against him had been gone through. All he contended for was, that the whole evidence in support of the preamble should be concluded before the evidence for the defence was begun. It would be inconvenient to hear the defence, in parts; and it would be unjust, after the defence was opened, to examine evidence against the petitioners.
Mr. G. Bankes
contended, that there was a distinction between this case and that of a private bill. In this case they had already heard a considerable part of the evidence; indeed, all that would ever be taken on oath had been already printed and circulated. Many of the members had expressed their opinion, that that evidence would be alone sufficient to warrant the disfranchisement. The committee, therefore, would not be hearing counsel against a shadow, but against that which would probably be the best evidence that could be obtained against the borough.
Mr. Littleton
agreed with the hon. gentleman, and moved, that "Counsel should be at once called in, and heard against the preamble."
Mr. Tennyson
remarked, that the petition was, that counsel might be heard against the enactments of the bill, and not against the preamble.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, they were then in the middle of the plaintiff's case, and he thought it would be very strange if, before the plaintiff, had sustained his case by all the evidence he could produce, he
928
Mr. Peel
was of opinion, that the learned counsel ought to be allowed to decide for himself, when it would be prudent for him to address the House. The present case was like finding a bill before a grand jury, and it would be a most unusual thing if the party accused entered on his defence before all the witnesses were heard on whose testimony the bill was either to be affirmed or dismissed. He would, however, leave it to the decision of the learned counsel, whose ability and acuteness would leave him to wave the privilege of addressing the House in the present stage of the business, if such a step should appear to him to be calculated to injure his clients.
Mr. G. Bankes
Mr. Denman
said, he felt himself only capable of answering the question in general terms. He was quite sure that the course which might be considered by the committee the best mode of proceeding would be that which would give him the fullest opportunity of doing his duty towards his clients. Owing to causes chiefly of an accidental nature, he had been unable to attend last Monday to object to the principle of the bill; and it was, he apprehended, highly probable that, by the time the evidence was gone through, he should be called by his avocations to another part of the country. He had no doubt that an ample opportunity would be afforded, when the evidence in support of the bill had closed, so that no enactment might be made to the prejudice of the parties concerned with-
929
Counsel having withdrawn,
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as the learned counsel was satisfied that the course the committee might follow would be conformable to the ends of justice, and as he had not stated that it was absolutely necessary to the interests of his clients that he should then address the committee, he thought it useless that counsel should be heard until after the evidence had been gone through. The committee could not take into their account any circumstances of private convenience; it was the duty of the petitioners to provide themselves with counsel who would be able to attend to their interests. It would be proper, therefore, to move "that the Counsel be informed that they would not be heard until after the evidence was concluded."
By Mr. Tennyson.
—Was a solicitor. Had lived at Retford and in the neighbourhood thirty-three years. Had seen many elections in the course of passing on. Was concerned in one. It is generally understood that forty guineas is paid after the election; twenty guineas each member; that is notorious; it is not a secret; I believe it is known to every one in the town. Had been concerned in the election for, 1812. Mr. Osbaldiston and Mr. Marsh were returned. Upon that occasion I saw a great deal of election-money paid. One or two I paid myself, in 1814, for Mr. Osbaldiston. About sixty or seventy voters were paid in one day. I have in my pocket a list of the whole of the persons who were paid. It was made out at the time they were paid, by myself. It is all in my own hand-writing. It only contains a list of those living at Retford and the neighbourhood; there were some at Nottingham, and some at Manchester, of whom I know nothing. It contains a list of about seventy-five burgesses. They had borrowed some little money of me; their names are mentioned, and that money they had of me was taken off the twenty-one guineas, and so it was paid
930
l
l
931
l.
Mr. Denman
said, he would only ask witness how many of those persons, to whom payments had been made, he knew to be alive now?—Witness said he could not exactly say. There were only a few of them dead to his knowledge.
By Mr. Tennyson.
—He keeps an inn. Was employed in 1814, by Mr. Osbaldiston, to go to Retford, and pay money to the voters. Witness believed that the voters received twenty guineas a-piece at that time, but had no papers relative to the
932
By Mr. Tennyson
.—Was a clerk in the Retford bank in 1818 and 1819, and received 100
l.
l.
l.
l.
933
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
934
l.
l.
By Mr. Baring
.—You have stated your belief that this money was paid to Ledbeater? Yes; I only stated my belief of it.—Do you think it possible you could at any period of your life have delivered many hundred pounds in small parcels to the bellman of the town, and not have recollected it to the last day of your life? I only speak from recollection. I certainly cannot state the thing, because I only state my conviction that I think it was done; even now I cannot say most positively it was done. [The witness was informed that was no answer to the questions, and was cautioned by the chairman to answer the questions as they were put.]
By Mr. Tennyson
.—Give an answer to the question. I can only state to the best of my belief; I can only say I never made such a payment in a particular way, that it makes that impression upon my mind that it was paid for the purposes I have stated.—In answer to another question, witness said parcels were made up in sums of twenty guineas. He then went on to state, in answer to other questions, that, if any of the freemen took money for their votes, he did not believe that all did. He could not say whether there were ten or five who had not taken money; but
935
l.
l
l
By Mr. Peel
.—Supposing there were packets, you would have made them up? I presume so.—Supposing you saw packets, and you were the person who made them up, would you have sealed them, or not? I cannot say.—Do you think it probable? I really cannot say.—Would the inclosures in the packets consist of gold—of sovereigns at that time? I cannot say in what way.—Supposing there were packets, they would probably contain notes of your own bank? It is highly probable they would.—Supposing the payment was made in packets, is it not probable it would be made at the banking-house? I cannot say, for I do not recollect any thing about it.
By Mr. D. W. Harvey
.—You have said you have given up all your vouchers to Mr. Crompton? They are all given up to Mr. Crompton.—You say that you applied to Mr. Crompton since to lend you these vouchers? Yes.—What was his reply? That he had received them, but having the highest reliance on the honour and fidelity of our house, that we should do nothing wrong; he had looked cursorily over the things, and on
936
The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
observed, that the committee could not suffer its dignity to be trifled with in this way. He would appeal to the committee whether this man's answers could be believed. Something ought to be done to support the dignity of the House, which ought not to be trifled with in this manner. He should move, that the witness had been guilty of gross prevarication.
Mr. Baring
asked, how, if the inquisitorial power of the House was to be exercised, that power could ever be exercised if it was treated in this manner? One phrase was perpetually in this man's mouth. In a well-known case, a poor man who came from Italy, got great disgrace for using the same phrase. Here was a man from a short distance who had entertained the committee for an hour and a half, with
937
Mr. Peel
thought it doubtful whether the witness had been guilty of prevarication; it seemed a wilful suppression of the truth.
The Attorney General
agreed, that the conduct of the witness did not amount to gross prevarication, although it was evidently a wilful suppression of truth.
Mr. Wynn
confessed that he did not know what prevarication was, if the witness had not been guilty of it.
By Mr. Tennyson
and others.—She is the widow of the late Mr. Thornton. Her husband was in the habit of employing others to pay the election-money. A memorandum-book, which stated certain payments made by him on those occasions, was produced. At the elections of 1818 or 1820, he had given 21
l
l.
By Mr. Tennyson
and others.—Remem-bersthree election sat Retford before the last. Recollects Mr. Evans's and Mr. Crompton's election, in 1818. He received forty guineas for his vote from each. Mr. Cottam, since dead, paid him with his own hand the consideration for his vote, enclosed in a letter. He was in a room at Mansfield on the occasion. It was on the part of Mr. Crompton. There were six other freemen present, some of whom got letters at the same time. In 1818, Mr. Thornton
938
Samuel Hindley
was called in, and examined,
By Mr. Tennyson.—
He is freeman of Retford, a cordwainer by occupation, and magistrate of the borough. He was present when Mr. Thornton canvassed his journeymen. They were given assurances that all would be made right in the event of their supporting him. Understood by that expression the forty guineas. He heard similar expressions made use of upon former occasions. There were about one hundred and twenty freemen in Retford; but he would not undertake to say how many had been remunerated for their votes. He had received forty guineas for his vote at every election previous to the last; at which he did not vote. There were, he understood, about forty freemen who would not receive bribes. Being examined afterwards upon this point by a "member," he said he did not believe there were forty freemen who would not receive bribes.
The chairman reported progress, and: asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 4.
EMIGRATION.]
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that he had given notice of three motions for that evening. The first was
939
940
941
942
943
l.
l.
l.
944
l.
945
l.,
l.
946
947
948
debouchement.
949
950
951
952
953
Mr. Baring
said, that the repayment of any sum of money advanced to the emigrants would be much easier than was generally anticipated. To prove his assertion he referred to the evidence given by Mr. Benton before the Emigration Committee. He was convinced that, if the emigration was conducted upon a wise and suitable plan, and if the settlers could be placed, not at a distance from the cultivated part of the Canadas, but upon the confines of civilization; so as to be enabled, after planting their own land, to earn some remuneration by labouring for others, it would require no assistance from this country to support the settler after he had once been sent out. Besides, even if he could support himself, the Legislative Assembly of Canada had declared itself willing to give him assistance. If government would either give up part of the Crown lands, or should part with the supremacy over them, the assembly would provide for the support of every indigent person who might be sent over into that province. He believed there was greater difficulty experienced in preventing settlers from going from Canada into the United States, than in providing for them in that colony. One of the greatest objections to emigration to Canada was the tenure under which land was held in that colony. A law was passed several years ago to remove those objections, but it had never been carried into effect.
Mr. James Grattan
said, he looked at the question of emigration purely as one
954
l.
955
Colonel Davies
said, he had no sanguine expectations of success from the scheme which the right hon. gentleman had propounded to the House. In order to make such a scheme of advantage to England, it must be attended not only with an alteration of the whole system of our Poor-laws, but with some measure which would prevent the influx of such numbers of Irish paupers as were daily finding their way over into England. He was decidedly of opinion, that there was little chance of any repayment of the money advanced to the emigrants for the purpose of carrying them abroad.
Sir F. Burdett
agreed, that the subject demanded their most serious attention. He did not, however, think that the House was furnished at present with the means of forming a correct judgment on the details of the plan. There was no person who was more convinced of its importance than he was; for he thought it the best, and, indeed, the only way of relieving the distresses of both England and Ireland; and he considered it as much an English as an Irish question, and one of as great importance as any taken up by the leading politicians of the day, whether with regard to the freedom of trade, the education of the people, or Catholic emancipation. He thought the right hon. gentleman deserved the highest credit for the perseverance and ability with which he had called the attention of the House to the subject.
Mr. Slaney
agreed entirely with the hon. baronet, that this was by no means an Irish question, but one as closely connected with the welfare and happiness of England as any that could occupy the attention of parliament. The subject was one of great importance, even if taken in no other view than that it would give a check to the progress of misery, the termination of which no one could foresee. As to the Poor-laws of England, it would be his duty to bring this matter shortly before the House, and he would therefore abstain from making any observation upon it. He only wished now to thank the
956
Mr. Leycester
avowed himself an enemy to emigration, which appeared to him to be a system of gross impolicy, and might, indeed, be termed a system of statistical suicide. If he were asked what was to be done with a superabundant population, he would answer, employ them in improving and cultivating the waste lands, which would give employment to thousands. Such cultivation was certainly impeded by barriers of no ordinary difficulty; namely, the poor-laws, tithes, and taxes; but remove them, and the advantages would be of easy attainment. He had himself paid no less than 6,000
l.
Mr. Benett
said, it was clear from the report on emigration, that whatever vacuum we might make would be filled up as rapidly as it was made. Under these circumstances, he thought no sum of money would effect the proposed object. He would not, however, object to the remedy proposed without stating another. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the land in this country and in Ireland was exhausted. That could not be true; for the bogs of Ireland had never been touched with the plough. The real embargo on cultivation was to be found in the amount of taxes and tithes; in the uncertainty in the price of corn, and in the value of money. If these evils were removed, neither England nor Ireland would be found to have a surplus population. Men, when unemployed, had lately been spoken of as a sort of mischievous animal of which the country must be rid at any rate, and as if no means would be too great to effect such a riddance. Every other domestic animal had its price; but man seemed to be considered so far inferior to them, that instead of claiming a price we offered one to get him away. Our colonists, wiser than ourselves, were willing to do what they could to obtain what we thus foolishly rejected. Was it not possible, therefore, for us to make a profit of the concern? Could we not sell the unfortunate wild Irish who were now proposed to be re-
957
Colonel Wood
said, there were more difficulties opposed to the plan recommended by the hon. member for Wiltshire, than to that introduced by his right hon. friend. If the corn-laws, the currency, and all those other difficulties, were disposed of, then they might think of cultivating the waste lands of Ireland, in order to give employment to the lower orders. It was, however, the opinion of many, and especially of those who were advocates for the principles of free trade, that too much land was already under the plough; and sure he was, that in England
958
s.
s.
Mr. John Smith
, as a member of the Emigration-committee, felt it to be his duty to bear testimony to the assiduity and zeal displayed by the right hon. gentleman. Certain calculations connected with the right hon. gentleman's plan might
959
s.
s.
960
Mr. W. Whitmore
said, there could be no doubt but it would be a great advantage to send the unemployed Irish to the colonies. At the same time he could not help thinking that insuperable difficulties
961
Sir J. Graham
asked the Secretary for the Colonies, whether it really was the intention of government to re-introduce the Passengers' act, after the report of the last session?
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, he felt, in common with his right hon. friend, that no matter required earlier attention than the revival of certain provisions of the Passengers' act. If the hon. baronet had seen all the reports from New Brunswick and the other colonies, to which there was a considerable emigration last year, he would be satisfied of the propriety of such a course. Those who arrived brought with them contagious disorders of the worst description: the gaol fever devastated whole townships, to the destruction, in some instances, of not less than one-tenth of the population. The interests of humanity loudly demanded that immediate measures should be taken to secure for the passengers in those vessels a sufficient space, and a due attention to their comforts and accommodation. There were many provisions in the old act of an objectionable nature, and which government did not propose to revive; but no time should be lost in reviving the material provisions of the act, as the season was fast approaching when vessels with passengers would be clearing for the Colonies and North America. He would not enter then upon the discussion of the subject immediately before the House, nor examine whether there existed an excess of population beyond that for which employment could be found. But, although that was an evil in itself, there were other evils and other considerations which should be attended to. One of the greatest of these—an evil not impossible in any country, and not improbable in this—was, that there might exist a great emigration from amongst the population without a corresponding emigration of capital; and thus they would be only transferring a portion of the mischief existing to other quarters of the world.
962
The motion was agreed to.
PASSAGE VESSELS REGULATION BILL.]
Mr. W. Horton
Mr. Hume
said, that after a full deliberation the Emigration Committee had recommended the repeal of the act which it was now proposed to revive, on the ground that it had prevented the emigration of thousands to America. It increased the expense, and added to the difficulty of conveying passengers thither. Before the repeal of this act for the regulation of passage vessels, disease as contagious and distress as great, were wafted to the shores of America, as subsequently. These facts would be found detailed in the report of the Emigration committee. He saw no reason why this act should be revived; but if it was the intention of government to introduce a bill, as this certainly would be, in contradiction to the recommendation of the Emigration committee, he trusted time would be allowed to examine into and consider the measure.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
confessed he was unable to understand the nature of those pure abstract principles which were to prevent them from interfering where the interests of humanity were at stake. He could not conceive the meaning of those general principles which were never to bend to circumstances. During the short time that he had been in his present office, a variety of documents had reached him upon the matter, and amongst others a letter from sir J. Kempt, who commanded on the Halifax station. He wrote, that during the last season the ship "James" arrived there from Ireland, with emigrants. She sailed with a hundred and sixty on board, of whom five died on the passage, and thirty-five were left at Newfoundland, being unable to proceed. The remaining one hundred and twenty, with the crew, arrived at Halifax, labouring under typhus fever. The population of Halifax amounted to seven thousand, and in the lapse of ten months eight hundred had fallen victims
963
Mr. Stanley
said, that if he had not been one of those who recommended the repeal of these regulations, he would not have addressed the House. Certainly, on the evidence before the committee, they had resolved to do away with all regulations respecting passengers. He was willing to take his share of the responsibility of having been a party to this rather hasty decision; but, at the same time, on the evidence before the committee, he did not see how they could avoid the conclusion to which they had come. If great practical evils, however, were found to result from the removal of the regulations, he had no objection to the introduction of a modified bill for their revival. He had lately had an opportunity of seeing the correspondence to which his right hon. friend had alluded. Having attentively read through these details, he was satisfied that some restrictions were necessary to restrain the excessive cupidity of the adventurers,
964
Mr. Warburton
said, he had no wish to oppose this measure, if sufficient time were given for obtaining information from Ireland, and from other parts interested in the question. He considered it very unwise that they should legislate without having the requisite information to proceed upon. Certainly, if emigration was good for any thing, it should be made as cheap as possible. If emigration from Ireland to England could be effected at 10
s.
Mr. Robinson
said, that, from his connexion with the colonies, such a multitude of papers had come under his observation,
965
Sir J. Graham
defended the conduct of
966
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. Tennyson having moved the order of the day for going again into the committee on this bill,
Samuel Buxton was called in, and examined,
By Mr. Tennyson
, and others.—Had been a burgess of East Retford for thirty years. Had witnessed many elections. At some of the elections did not receive a farthing. Could not say any thing about any one else. Received no money at the election when Mr. Osbaldiston and Mr. Marsh were candidates, because they would not give him any. He was promised money by an attorney (Mr. Hannam); but he forgot to give him the money. Mr. Hannam told him to call upon him and he would give him ten guineas; but he did not perform his promise. Hard as this was upon him, he was obliged to bear it. At the election in 1818, he received twenty pounds or guineas. He would speak the truth; but he could not tell who gave it him. It was sent to me as a present, in a letter. He had some conversation with Mr. Foljambe. Mr. Foljambe came in and sat down by him, and said, "all should be right." Did not know what Mr. Foljambe meant by it. Had often heard the expression used at Retford, but never knew what it meant. Had said upon the committee, "If they win, they expect the same as a labouring man that goes to his day's work, and that the practice had been continued for twenty years." Might have said before the committee that the voters seldom got any thing but black-looks, if they were on the losing side; and that the meaning of a burgess at Retford "having lost his election," was, that he had got nought for voting.
Mr. William Grant
was called in, and examined
By Mr. Tennyson.
—Was a burgess of Retford. Had received money at elections. Could say that no candidate never gave him a half-penny, nor he never promised
967
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
By Mr. Fergusson.
—He always received these presents about the time of elections. Never received such things at any other times. The present he received was in bank-notes. Could not say exactly what he did with them. He took care of them. He put them into
practice.
By Mr. Fergusson.
—Did you count them before you put them into
practice
968
R. Hodgkinson
was called in, and examined.—Had not voted at any election but the last for twenty-one years. Received twenty guineas after the members were returned. Had had that evening a conversation with alderman Parker in the lobby, who told him, that no man had occasion to commit himself.
E. C. Brown
was called in, and examined. He was town-clerk of Retford. He was an attorney.—Have you received any election money?—I appeal to the Chair whether I am bound to answer that question or not.
Mr. Tennyson
observed, that other witnesses had been obliged to answer similar questions, and he did not conceive why the last witness should be permitted to refuse.
The Attorney-General.
—The witness was not in law bound to answer any question which might criminate himself. The other witnesses who had answered had answered voluntarily.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the House might be disposed to take any statement as to the practice of the law from the learned gentleman, but they would not take his authority as to what was the practice of parliament. That practice was to oblige witnesses to answer every question put to them. Without that power, their privileges, in prosecuting any inquiry of this kind, were worth nothing. If the witnesses were allowed to go from their bar without being compelled to answer the questions put to them, they ought to go in a body, with their chairman at their head, and apologise to the individual whom they had committed.
Mr. Littleton
said, if the House permitted the witness to depart without answering the question, they would act most unconstitutionally. What would be the effect of such a course, but to give perfect impunity to every man who might be called before them, who wished to suppress the truth? He was surprised the Attorney-general should have shown himself so ignorant of the law of parliament. But his ignorance was the least to be considered. He had shown a contempt for that law in the opinion he had given. Was it to be supposed that in asking any questions from a witness, they would not extend to
969
Sir C. Burrell
observed, that the law of parliament, as he understood it, was, that every witness was protected from the consequences which might otherwise follow from his speaking the truth before the House, but that he was committed only for prevarication, or for refusing to answer. He therefore considered that the witness was bound to answer any question put to him, to the best of his knowledge; but as some witnesses might not be aware of the protection which the House gave to those who were called before it, he would move, that the chairman be instructed to state to the witness, that in any evidence he gave before that House, he should be protected as far as he spoke the truth.
The Attorney-General
said, he rose for the purpose of repelling the coarse, unfounded, and wanton, attack which had been made upon him by the hon. member for Staffordshire. The hon. member had charged him with ignorance of the law on this question, and had added that his ignorance was the least of it. How was the hon. member warranted in making such a wanton attack on him? Had he said that if they compelled the witness to answer any questions put to him, they were not bound to cast round him the mantle of their protection, as to the consequence of his answers? But the hon. member had implied that something of this kind was meant by him, and had taxed him with ignorance of the law of parliament. He had been longer in parliament than the hon. member, and knew the practice of parliament, as well as he did: but he would not retaliate or reciprocate his wanton attack, for he disdained such rustic coarseness. He had merely objected that a witness was not legally bound to criminate himself, and at once the hon. member accused him of ignorance. He could not tamely bear such language as that which the hon. member had vomited forth. The hon. member was wholly unjustified in the coarse attack he had made upon him: and he trusted it might be permitted to him, as the Attorney-general, who, though Attorney-general, was still a member of that House, to repel it as he now did. He would say, that no
970
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was sure his hon. friend, the member for Staffordshire, would see, on more cool reflection, that the attack he had made upon his learned friend had called for the warmth of expression with which he had met it. He had risen for the purpose of begging that any remarks arising from personal feeling might give way to the important subject under discussion. They were then acting in a different course from their ordinary proceeding, and it was of the utmost importance that they should go on with good temper. His learned friend had laid down the legal rule, consistent with justice and equity, that no man was bound to give an answer which might criminate himself; but, on the other hand, it was not meant to be denied, that as the witness before the committee was to be protected from the consequence of his answers, his case was taken out of the general rule; for if the witness could refuse to answer any question put to him, no investigation by that House could take place. In that respect, the House differed from the courts of law; and he remembered the case of a witness, an attorney, who was examined at that bar, who refused to divulge the secrets of his client; but that was overruled, and the House declared that the rules of the law courts did not apply; that for the ends of public justice it was necessary that he should answer, he being protected from the consequences. On these grounds, he was compelled to answer. The case before the House was one which, in his opinion, called for an application of the same rule; but he thought it was necessary that the witness should be informed that in answering, he would be protected from the consequences of his answers, He would suggest, therefore, that the resolution of the House of the 26th of March, 1818, be read to the witness.
Mr. Wynn
rose for the purpose of stating the difference between evidence given before that House, and evidence given in
971
Mr. Lyttleton
said, that nothing had fallen from him, that ought to have excited the irascibility in which the Attorney-general had so intemperately indulged. In what he had stated, he was not conscious that there had been any vulgarity or coarseness.
Mr. Horace Twiss
wished to make a few observations with respect to the resolution of 1818. Unquestionably the rule in a court of justice was, that no man was bound to answer a question the answer to which might criminate himself. It had been said distinctly, with reference to the present case, that if the witness were to criminate himself by his answers, the House would protect him from all consequences injurious to himself. The right hon. gentleman had read the resolution of the House, which declared that no clerk, short-hand writer, or other officer of the House, should give evidence elsewhere of what had occurred in that House, without leave first obtained. That leave, he took it, would not be granted. But he begged to ask, if a witness was criminally prosecuted, what could prevent his conviction on the evidence of any two or three hon. members who had heard his confession in that House, and whose attendance in the court of justice it would not be in the power of the House to prevent? He had made this statement, not as presuming to lay down the law of parliament, but in order that, if wrong, he might be corrected.
The Speaker.
—I beg permission to say a few words. Some expressions have just fallen from the learned member for Wootton Bassett, which are so directly at variance with the first and most important privileges of this House, that I feel it my duty not to allow them to pass without notice. I understood him to say, that it might possibly, happen that a member of this House might be required to give evidence in a court of Law of what had passed within these walls. Now, I conceive, that hardly any doubt can exist in the mind of
972
By Mr. Tennyson.
—I have received election-money after two elections, those of 1818 and 1820. About six weeks after Mr. Crompton and Mr. Evans were returned in the first election, two letters, without signature, were brought to my house. Each letter contained 20
l.
By Mr. Peel.
—How came it to be sent to you?—I was at that time a poor boy writing in the office in which I have now the honour to be a partner.
By Mr. F. Clinton.
—I was agent to sir H. W. Wilson. I got a promise of sixty-seven votes for him. I did not promise money. The freemen did not expect it, and the reason why I say they did not expect it is this—I met sir H. Wilson one day near the town, and I told him the lower freemen expected money. He said, "My
973
By Mr. Tennyson.
—Had been a freeman of East Retford for twenty years. Had been junior bailiff. The bailiffs were the returning officers. Was a smith and farrier by trade. Witness admitted after some hesitation that he had received money. Had received money, at three different times. The last occasion was after the last election. Two letters had been put into his house late at night, and at different times; they contained twenty guineas each. At the former election there had been one letter sent to his house containing twenty guineas. Witness believed it came from Mr. Crompton. Afterwards there came another. In 1812, the witness received no money. He had promised to vote for Mr. Osbaldiston: but when he applied for the election money, witness was told there was none for him; he was told that he was not a staunch blue. Never said that he and his family had received six score guineas. Whilst bailiff, witness belonged to the corporation. This was in 1820. Had received money after he had been bailiff.—Did you not say, that the man who delivered the letter had concealed his face; but that you had found him out?—No.
William Hodson was called in, and examined,
By Mr. Tennyson.
—Had received money after the election more than once.—How much? I cannot tell.—Was it 10
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
974
Tennyson.
William Leadbetter
examined.— Is a burgess of East Retford, and voted at the elections of 1812, 1818, and 1820. He received nothing for his vote in 1812, nothing in 1818, and nothing in 1820. He did not get either money or present on any of those occasions; nor did any member of his family, to his knowledge, get money on his account. Knows William Newton. Having repeated his denial, he was ordered to withdraw.
975
William Newton
was examined.—Is clerk to a solicitor at Retford. Knows W. Leadbetter, and heard him admit that he had got money at the election of 1812, on the part of Mr. Osbaldiston, and a similar consideration at the elections in 1818 and 1820. Within the last fortnight, Lead better had avowed to the fact of his having received money for his votes. He himself was not employed by any person to collect the evidence. His doing so was entirely of his own voluntary impulse. Another person named Sharpe did the same. He knew a man of the name of Hodson, and was told by Parnham that Hodson had told him he had received money from Fox, and changed a 20
l.
l.
l.
The House resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 5.
SLAVE TRADE.]
Mr. Denison
presented a petition from the Auxiliary Anti-Slavery Society of the county of Surrey. Above four years had elapsed since the House had agreed, upon the motion of Mr. Canning, to certain resolutions expressive of their sense of the expediency of such an amelioration of the condition of the Slaves in the West Indies as might gradually lead to their emancipation. He believed, however, that no step had been taken by the Colonial Assemblies in furtherance of that most desirable object. He would take the
976
Lord F. Gower
said, that he was not immediately able to answer the hon. gentleman's inquiry.
Mr. Bernal
said, he was as anxio s as the hon. member for Surrey to know what course ministers intended to pursue; whether the colonies were still to consider themselves as component parts of the British empire, or whether they were to be entirely isolated and distinct from that empire. It was high time to determine, whether the link which still bound the colonies to the mother country was to be dissolved or not. When the hon. gentleman talked of adopting a measure, for the purpose of bringing the question to a speedy issue, he seemed to forget that, by imposing a duty on the sugar exported from our colonies, a bounty would be given on the increase of the slave-trade, by the encouragement which would thereby be given to the importation of sugar from Martinique, the Havannah, the Brazils, &c. where, the slave trade was still carried on to a horrible extent; more especially under the French flag. At that very moment an immense number of slaves were constantly transferring from the coast of Africa to the colonies he had mentioned.
Sir A. Grant
said, that if the object of the petitioners was the annihilation of the slave trade, they could not do a greater favour to the West Indies than by petitioning for its utter annihilation. Great evil resulted to our West-India islands from the continuance of the trade in other quarters. As to the amelioration of the state of the slaves, a unanimous feeling pervaded the whole of the West-India proprietors to contribute to that object as far as it was in their power to do so; but to pursue that object by the means resorted to by many persons in this country, would only produce irritation in the minds of the colonists.
977
Sir R. Wilson
said, that if the mischief likely to arise from the conduct of the petitioners was the abolition of female whipping and the compulsory manumission of slaves, he was one of those who would do all in his power to promote such mischief.
Mr. Hume
expressed a wish that the duties on East and West India sugars should be equalized,
Mr. Baring
thought that this country, having taken upon itself the duties of the police of the world, in suppressing the Slave-trade, had entailed upon it an immense expenditure of life and money.
Dr. Lushington
thought, that the country stood so strongly pledged to the abolition of slavery, that no minister would dare to recede from those pledges.
Mr. Brougham
said, that as government had given a pledge to the country, that certain measures would be taken if the colonial legislatures did not do what was requisite to carry into effect its views, with respect to the abolition of the slave-trade, he wished to ask what had been done to procure from the colonial legislatures an acquiescence in the views of government with respect to the slave population; or, whether the proceedings of the colonial legislatures appeared to government to be so satisfactory as to preclude the necessity of any further measures in this country?
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that the only answer he could give to the learned gentleman was, to refer him, in the first place, to the ample information which had been laid upon the table of the House. The resolution agreed to in 1823, with the returns consequent upon that measure, were both before parliament, and would soon be followed by further returns, developing what had been done, and what was in course of progress, relative to the improvement of the condition of the slaves. If that were considered the proper opportunity he would have no opportunity to enter into a statement of what had been effected by such of the colonies as possessed legislatures towards accomplishing the great work. There could not be the slightest doubt that the resolution of 1823, contemplated for the slave population the ultimate possession of civil rights, but it also contemplated that this transition should be effected without any interference with the rights of private property. It was perfectly true that no change had taken place in the system on which govern-
978
979
Mr. Brougham
said, that there were not two opinions relative to the abolition of the slave-trade. The House was bound by every principle of duty, as well as of national honour, to persist firmly in its course, until, as far as possible, that abominable traffic was abolished. AH he wished to know was, whether the government were satisfied with the acts of the local legislatures. If government were dissatisfied, then no further proceedings on his part would be necessary; but if they were satisfied with what had been done, he should bring forward the subject after the recess. The ultimate abolition of slavery had been the object of Mr. Pitt, and of Mr. Dundas. It was quite clear, that sooner or later the slaves in our colonies must become free. But the House must perceive, that the progress of the colonies was so slow as to be imperceptible to all human eyes, save their own; it did appear to him, that they themselves must perceive that they were standing still instead of advancing towards the goal at which it was the wish of that House they should gradually, but certainly arrive. If that was his view of the question, it became his duty, as a member of the legislature, to see that the intentions of that House were carried into effect, not precipitately, but without any unnecessary delay. Whether little had been done or much had been done by our colonists, it was not his intention at that moment to inquire; but it did appear to him, with respect to the colonies generally, that out of twenty heads of regulation and improvement recommended to them, there were no less than nine in which not a single, colony had taken, or even affected to take, a single step. He would take two of our principal colonies —Jamaica and Barbadoes; one having a population of 360,000, and the other a population of 80,000 or 90,000 persons, making in all a population of between
980
981
Ordered to lie on the table.
CHARITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES.]
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that in moving for a Return of the number of Bills filed in the Courts of Equity, under the authority of the Commissioners appointed to inquire concerning Charities in England and Wales, he felt it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the object which he had in view. He was anxious, in the first place, to avoid the supposition that he was actuated by any unfriendly feeling to the principle in which the inquiry into the abuses existing in charitable institutions had originated. He therefore stated, most distinctly, that instead of being actuated by unfriendly, he was actuated by the most friendly, feeling towards them. He thought, however, that the time had arrived, in which some information respecting the result of their labours should be afforded to the House by the commissioners of inquiry, beyond that contained in the bulky volumes now upon the table. He believed that of all the commissions which had ever been issued at die desire of parliament, no one had ever been attended with such costly results,
982
l.
l.
983
l.
l.
l.
984
985
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 6.
INCREASE OF CRIME.]
Mr. Dugdale
presented a petition from the magistrates for the county of Warwick, assembled at the quarter-sessions, stating the great increase of crime in that county, and praying that the House would take the subject into their most serious consideration, and apply such a remedy as its importance demanded. The hon. gentleman observed, that great anxiety existed throughout the county with reference to this subject. The greatest increase was of juvenile offenders. About ten years ago, the magistrates established an asylum in the county of Warwick, for receiving juvenile offenders after conviction, which had been attended at the time with the most beneficial effects. Of late years, however, crime had increased in the county with alarming rapidity. At the late quarter-sessions, of one hundred and fifty-two prisoners convicted, seventy-five, or eighty, were boys under fifteen years of age. It was impossible, of course, to receive so many into an asylum which was maintained by private contributions. A pamphlet had lately been published by a magistrate of the county, sir E. Wilmot, in which, for the purpose of preventing the evils which resulted from the commitment of mere boys to gaol, he recommended that, in certain cases, the magistrates should have the power of summary conviction. Such was also the opinion of many other respectable magistrates. Certain it was, that notwithstanding every effort that had been made, and after every allowance for an increasing population, crime had of late increased in an alarming degree. He trusted that this petition would be referred to the committee now sitting to consider the causes of the increase of crime.
Mr. Lawley
looked upon the evil as one of great magnitude, and mainly attributable to the existing state of the law. Boys were brought before the magistrate, charged with various offences; and under the circumstances, the magistrate had no alternative, but was constrained to commit them to gaol. In gaol, therefore, they
986
Mr. Littleton
said, he knew nothing more afflicting than to see so many poor children brought to the bar at every assizes. In the county which he represented the increase of crime, and especially among youth, was most alarming. In 1825, there were eighteen children under fifteen years of age convicted in Staffordshire; in 1826, there were thirty-two; in 1827, forty. In 1825, there were eighty-seven young men, between fifteen and twenty years of age, convicted in the same county; in 1826, there were a hundred and thirty-seven; and in 1827, a hundred and sixty-four. This was really a most horrible evil. He believed that many of the magistrates were inclined to think that it would be advisable to give the power of summary conviction in certain cases. The bias of his mind was strongly in favour of such a measure.
Sir T. Lethbridge
entirely concurred in the extent of the evil, and the necessity for some remedy.
Sir J. Wrottesley
was of opinion that the existence of this youthful immorality could not be justly attributed to a want of employment for the children of the poorer classes, as it prevailed in the agricultural counties, where work, was to be had in abundance. He thought it might with more propriety be referred to the too great prevalence of criminal prosecutions. By late returns it appeared that out of ninety thousand commitments, thirty thousand got a discharge without trial, as the bills were ignored by the grand jury. This he could not but believe to be the result of the recent act which permitted prosecutors their expenses, as it naturally tended to increase frivolous prosecutions. After the initiation into all kinds of turpitude, which a gaol was so calculated to effect, it was not a matter of surprise that depravity should extensively prevail throughout the country.
Mr. Portman
thought that separate jurisdictions were injurious; and that there should be no commitments except by two or three magistrates acting together. As to the great increase in the number of juvenile offenders, he did not believe that it originated so much from
987
Referred to the committee on the Increase of Crime.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION—PETITION
Sir F. Burdett
said, he was commissioned by the general body of the Catholics of Ireland to present to the House a Petition, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which they laboured. The petition he had to present to the House involved such important interests, and embraced concerns of such magnitude to the welfare of individuals as well as of the country at large, that he was induced to break through a general rule he had laid down to himself, of not occupying the attention of the House upon the presentation of petitions. He felt convinced that the condition of the petitioners excited the sympathy not only of a majority in parliament, but of a vast portion of their fellow-subjects in Ireland and in England; and that it would be a great relief to the House and to the country, if parliament would take into consideration the claims of the Roman Catholics, as well as of persons labouring under disqualifications on account of their religious opinions. Upon the hardships under which the Catholics laboured some persons were disposed not to lay so much stress as he did; they thought it no very great grievance to labour under these disabilities; but, in his opinion, nothing could be more galling to the mind of an honourable man, than in his own country to be considered as a proscribed person—to have a mark set upon him for his conscientious religious belief—to be held up as a person unworthy of trust, and incapacitated from receiving all marks of honour and emolument—as a person whose career was arrested in every course of ambition, however beneficial to the individual or to the state—to have the finger of scorn pointed at him, and to be compelled to witness other persons having every possible advantage over him on account of their religious belief: this was
988
989
PRINTING EXPENSES OF THE HOUSE.]
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he was induced to move for some particulars of the expense of printing certain papers by order of the House, on account of the great sums which had been laid out in that way, and the apparent uselessness of that expenditure. He wished to be understood as having no intention of curtailing the right of petitioning, or of having petitions printed. What he principally objected to was the appendices to the reports of the committees, which seemed to convey no information whatever. The appendix to the slavery report, for instance, contained nothing but the names of slaves and their masters and mistresses, accompanied with declarations as to the good or bad qualities of the latter. The expense of printing these papers for the last year was calculated at 80,000
l.
l.
REGISTRATION OF FREEHOLDERS.]
Lord Althorp
rose, pursuant to notice, to move "for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Freeholders in England and Wales." He observed that a committee had been appointed last session to consider the mode of taking polls at elections, and a bill was printed by their directions for the use of the House. It would therefore be the less necessary for him to detain them at any length on the present occasion. He would, however, explain briefly the principle of the measure, and the reason upon which it was founded. The great object he had in view was to diminish the expense of elections, by having the poll taken at different parts of the county, instead of bringing the electors from various distances all to the place. The chief objection to the plan was, that it would be difficult to know who were voters and who were not, and that it would be necessary to
990
Lord Lowther
thought it was right that those who were interested in the elections of counties should have time to examine into the provisions of the bill. For his own part, he was not so sanguine as the noble lord seemed to be with respect to the probable operation of the measure.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
TREATY OF LIMERICK.]
Sir Henry Parnell
rose, pursuant to notice, to move "that a Copy of the Treaty of Limerick be laid upon the table." Many petitions had, he said, been presented in the course of the present session from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in which they prayed for a restoration of the civil privileges of which they had been deprived on account of their religious opinions. These petitions stated, that the laws and statutes by which the Roman Catholics were deprived of their civil rights had been, framed in direct violation of the compact entered into between the Irish nation and king William 3rd, the conditions of which compact were comprised in the Treaty of
991
992
993
"That the Roman Catholics of this country shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of king Charles 2nd, and their majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such farther security, in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance on account of their said religion."
"The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit themselves to their majesties' government shall be the oath aforesaid, and no other."
994
995
"It will now be seen, that even if these (the Popery) laws could be supposed agreeable to those of nature in these particulars, in another, and almost as strong a principle, they are yet unjust, as being contrary to positive compact, and the public faith most solemnly plighted. On the surrender of Limerick, and some other Irish garrisons in the war of the Revolution, the lords justices of Ireland, and the commander-in-chief of the king's forces, signed a capitulation with the Irish, which was afterwards ratified by the king himself by inspextinces under the Great Seal of England. It contains some public articles relative to the whole body of the Roman Catholics in that kingdom, and some with regard to the security to the greater part of the inhabitants of five counties. What the latter were, or in what manner they were observed, is at this day of much less public concern. The former are two—the first and the ninth. The first is of this tenour:—'The Roman Catholics of this kingdom (Ireland) shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their Religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of king Charles 2nd, and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour, to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion.' The ninth article is to this effect:—'The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit themselves to their Majesties' Government shall be the oath aforesaid, and no other, viz.—
996
997
998
Mr. H. Grattan
said, he rose to second the motion, and he did so in the persuasion that the case of the Catholics of Ireland would be made out by the document, Indeed, he had not a doubt upon his mind but that if twelve honest men were placed at the bar to decide on the meaning of the articles, they could not hesitate to adopt the interpretation for which the Catholics and their friends contended. The question, as it appeared to him, resolved itself into a mere matter of fact: it was merely whether such a Treaty had ever been completed; for on the meaning of the terms there could be no dispute. He thought at the same time that his hon. friend would fall short of his object if he persisted in confining his motion to the civil articles; for there were two copies of the Treaty originally published—one in Ireland, and the other in England; and it was curious to observe that the one printed in London omitted to state that the king had sanctioned them. This had, to him, the appearance of an intention, from the beginning, to break through the articles. Such conduct was not without example in the transactions of this government. The Crown had disowned what its servants had done for Ireland, both in the reigns of
999
pari passu
1000
1001
1002
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that whatever credit the hon. gentleman might claim to himself for discretion, he thought that he would not obtain it, if he claimed it for a
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he claimed equal credit for sincerity with the right hon. gentleman, when he declared his firm belief in favour of a different construction from that which the right hon. gentleman had put upon the articles of this great national stipulation—a treaty, not contracted, as lawyers would say, without a consideration, but which at once transferred to king William the full possession of the kingdom of Ireland. How happened it, that when the right hon. gentleman depended so much upon bishop Burnett's authority in behalf of his opinion that no violation of the treaty had taken place, he had overlooked the strong fact, that at the very time the bishop was writing, in 1705, some of those penal laws, which were infractions, had actually been enacted?
Mr. Peel.
—"Bishop Burnett was, you know, only writing the history of William and Mary."
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that was true, but in point of date, the bishop was engaged in writing the work after 1704, when some of those penal acts had actually passed. That horrid act against the education of Catholic children —the most wicked that ever disgraced a statute book —had previously passed under the cognizance of bishop Burnett. Both the law and the fact were upon this point against the historian. But the bishop was good authority in another part of his work, where he spoke of the occurrence of direct facts under his own eye, and stated, in plain terms, that so intent was the government to obtain an end to the war in Ireland, that the commissioners were instructed to keep their terms in good faith (alluding to this very treaty), "to the no small grief," says Burnett, "of some English who wished to ruin the Irish for their own purposes." The passage in Burnett was as follows:—"When they came to capitulate, the Irish insisted on very high demands, which were set on by the French, who hoped they would be rejected; but the king had given Ginckle secret directions that he should grant all the demands they could make that would put an end to the war. So every thing was granted, to the great disappointment of the French, and to the no small grief of some of the English, who hoped this war would have ended in the total ruin of the Irish interest. Those of Limerick treated not for themselves alone, but for all the rest of their countrymen who were yet in arms. They were
1011
1012
Mr. Peel.
—"No; what General Ginckle said, was, that these propositions were contrary to the laws of England."
Mr. Spring Rice
resumed and said, so it was, to have an Irish priest established in every parish: if he did not mistake, the right hon. gentleman had, on a former occasion said the same; and sure he was that the earl of Liverpool had made such a declaration, when the motion was made for assigning a stipend to the Catholic clergy. That noble earl had then said, that such a demand went to the overthrow of the Protestant religion, and to a breach of the coronation oath. Turning to the conduct of general Ginckle, it would be seen, that on the 1st of August, 1691, the government had addressed a letter to him, urging him, in the strongest terms to put an end to the war in Ireland. The letter from Coningsby to Ginckle, of the 1st of August, 1691, represented how absolutely necessary it was for the affairs of Christendom, that the war in Ireland should be ended this summer. He represented how averse people were generally from giving the Irish any conditions, but that such persons did not consider the misery of the country, and less understood the circumstances of affairs abroad. At that time there were two contending parties in the field-councils of the different armies. There were in the Irish camp a French party, urging them on to extreme demands; while with Ginckle there was an English party, insisting that the Irish should receive no terms short of confiscation. Between these two inflamed parties the Irish government were desirous of moderately mediating. "But," said the right hon. gentleman, "see the length of time which elapsed before any complaint of this kind was made respecting the alleged in-
1013
1014
1015
1016
Mr. G. Moore
said, he did not mean, in discussing this question, to inquire whether the Treaty had been punctually fulfilled, but he would view it as
res integra
1017
Mr. A. Dawson
said, he could not avoid saying a few words in reply to the right hon. Secretary. That right hon. gentleman had observed, that the parliament of James the 2nd was composed exclusively of Catholics, to the number of two hundred and forty members. That parliament afterwards attainted all the Protestants in Ireland, and confiscated their estates. Nothing, however, could be more absurd than to argue that a parliament, elected afterwards in Ireland, was likely to be composed wholly of Catholics. On the contrary the boroughs and counties of Ireland, which were settled as protestant, and in which the protestants had a preponderance, were so numerous that the parliament must have afterwards had a clear majority, both in the House of Lords and Commons. It appeared, indeed, by a work of a colonel Lawrence, that in the year 1680, there were seventy-nine Protestant peers in Ireland, and only thirty-two Catholic. When, therefore, the contending parties negociated at Limerick, there could not have been any fear of the consequences from the granting political privileges to the Roman Catholics. No danger could possibly have been apprehended from the predominant influence of the Catholics in the-parliament of Ireland. That question, indeed, never came before Ginckle, because BO such idea ever entered the heads of those who were called upon to negociate. It was true that the conditions first proposed to Ginckle were returned, because they were inadmissible; but other conditions
1018
1019
The motion was then agreed to.
SCOTCH LAW OF ENTAIL.]
Mr. Kennedy
, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Scotch Law of Entail, expressed his determination, in the amendments he had to propose, to consult, as far as he possibly could, the feelings and the prejudices of the Scotch Aristocracy. The statute he wished to amend, was of very ancient date. It was passed in the year 1685. By its provisions, the owner of the fee simple of an estate in Scotland was enabled to limit the succession by a series of entails through ages. Possessing the fee simple, he had the power to name his unborn heirs, and to settle the succession to his property through a series of ages, without the possibility of any future possession altering the nature or terms of the entail. The consequences of this extended nature of entail were most injurious to all the transactions of society: for when all other properties were found liable to debts contracted by their proprietors, the owners of entailed estates found their possessions exempt from any obligations. A record was kept of the entails settled according to this statute, and he had procured a return of the numbers of properties which had been progressively entailed, through periods of twenty years, in order to shew how rapidly they were increasing, and how injurious that increase must prove to the prosperity of the kingdom. In the first forty years there were 313 estates entailed: in the next period of twenty years there were sixty-nine; in the next 138; in the next 272; then 360; then 459; and in the last period there were 54: making in the whole, 1,645 estates entailed under the statute, besides a vast number of other properties left in the hands of trustees for the same purpose. It was a fact worthy of notice, that large quantities of English capital were gradually finding their way to Scotland, in order to its being placed under the security of the same restrictions, tending to increase the evil, and
1020
1021
The Lord Advocate
said, he did not object to the manner in which the hon. member proposed to bring the subject before the consideration of the House, as during its progress the country would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this important measure. It was the more necessary to give the country this opportunity, as it was the obvious tendency of the bill to do away with entails entirely
1022
Mr. Sugden
thought, that any change which would affect the statute of 1685, by which the real property of Scotland was settled and established, would be productive of much inconvenience and litigation. He would not say that the law of entail in Scotland was not susceptible of improvement; nor would he advocate the expediency of strict entail: on the contrary, in this commercial country, he thought that property should be comparatively open; whilst a due regard should be held for the principle of non-alienation, for the preservation of property in families, and the other salutary purposes for which it was instituted. Much litigation and confusion ensued from many parts of the law affecting real property and its entailment in Scotland; but that confusion would, in his opinion, be only increased by any precipitate interference with the principal on which entail property, consisting as it did of nearly half the whole property of Scotland, was settled.
The Attorney General
, recommended the dividing the proposed measure into two distinct branches, the prospective and retrospective. Upon the propriety of touching existing relations, great difference of opinion prevailed. He did not understand for what reason the peerage was excepted from the operation of the prospective clauses.
Mr. Kennedy
, in reply, said, he never meant to unsettle the relations of property in Scotland: his object was to remedy an-
1023
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.]
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that before he proceeded to enter on the motion which stood for that evening, he felt it necessary to make an observation with respect to some circumstances that had recently occurred. Yesterday a conversation arose on a petition being presented relative to the situation of negroes in the colonies, and the learned member for Winchelsea then made several observations which he had declared his intention of answering when he brought forward the motion of which he had given notice. The learned gentleman had then requested him to put off the discussion until seven o'clock this evening; and afterwards the learned gentleman wished him to postpone it altogether. He was obliged to notice this, because many gentlemen were anxious that the discussion should come on immediately. He, however, would be guided by the feeling of the House [cries of "go on."] The motion, then, which he meant to propose to the House was, "that the minutes of evidence taken before his majesty's privy council, in the matter of the Demerara and Berbice manumission order in council, be laid before this House." And he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to those circumstances which induced him to consider such a course as highly expedient. He begged it to be distinctly understood, that the step he was taking was not in the slightest degree influenced by any communications with the members of his majesty's government. He, as a privy councillor, attended the original investigation, and, in the performance of his duty as a member of parliament, he now brought the question forward. Gentlemen were aware, that in May 1823, certain resolutions were passed in that House, which pledged the House to pursue a certain course of policy with respect to slaves. The resolution which was then proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton) set forth, "that the state of slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British constitution, and of the Christian religion; and that it ought to be gradually abolished throughout the British colonies, with as much expedition as may be found consistent with a due regard to the well-
1024
1025
1026
invito domino
lex non scripta
1027
1028
l.
l.
1029
1030
1031
1032
Mr. Keith Douglas
seconded the motion; but the hon. member was not audible in the gallery. We understood him to support the arguments of his right hon. friend, and to contend, while he approved of the resolutions of that House, that they ought to be enforced with equity and mildness. Great caution was necessary in their proceedings, particularly in the absence of the requisite information. This point had been much insisted on by the Colonial Legislature of Jamaica, and was the object of one of their resolutions in 1826. As to the Slave Trade, he was afraid the introduction of slaves into the foreign islands had not diminished, and that the restrictions we had imposed on that trade subjected the slaves, during the passage, to increased privations and hardships. He referred to several authorities to shew that parliament was greatly uninformed as to the true situation of the slaves in the West Indies.
Lord Nugent
did not rise to oppose the motion, but for the purpose of making a protest against some of the doctrines laid down by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman had deprecated going into any controversial matter; but he had stated some opinions, against which he found himself obliged to protest. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman in what he had said of the two resolutions of that House, with the exception of one word. There was a higher power than parliament,
1033
Mr. W. Whitmore
differed in one point from his right hon. friend. His right hon., friend had argued that, because there was no market-price for slaves, the appraisers could have no principle by which to determine their value. Now, he would contend, that there was a market price for slaves, they were still, and they would be, transferred—this would give a market-price, and by this the appraiser might regulate his conduct. There would be some evil, however, in settling the price this way, for as the demand for them outgrew the supply, the price would rise. But still he would contend that there must, even on this principle, be a market-price for slaves. Those who owned land that yielded a profit of six or twelve per cent, would transfer their slaves to those who owned land that yielded eighteen per cent; and as long as a difference of this kind existed between estates, there must, and would be transfers of slaves, and a market-price. Certainly, they could not enforce compulsory manumission at a fixed price, but he was persuaded that our colonies would never be in a flourishing condition until all the slaves were converted into free labourers. This was what he looked to to give security to the planters themselves. In his opinion, the time was not far distant when the whole cultivation of the West Indies would be carried on by free labourers, and this was a state of things that would be, he was persuaded, infinitely more advantageous to the planters and the negroes than their present state. It must not be said that a vertical sun and a tropical climate would prevent this; for the House must know, that sugar was cultivated in Mexico by free labourers. Let the House look also to the East Indies: there sugar was culti-
1034
Mr. W. Smith
said, he must protest, as he ever had done and should do, against the doctrine, that the ownership of slaves could be assimilated to the laws applicable to any other species of property. Man never could become the legal property of man. There was a maxim "
nullum tempus occurrit regi;
Mr. Baring
said, he would not follow the line of argument pursued by some of his hon. friends as to the abstract right of property in the negro, or how far slavery was inconsistent with the laws of God; but he could not avoid remarking, that that mode of argument must naturally tend to excite distrust in the minds of the West-India proprietors towards those who had voted for the resolutions on a former occasion". When he heard such arguments as those of the noble lord, and of his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, as to compensation, he begged to ask them if they could get rid of the resolutions of parliament in 1823, which were founded on the rights of property? His hon. friend who spoke last had said, that no man had any right of property in another man. Now if he were a West-India proprietor, which he, was not, he should think, from the tenour of the resolutions of parliament
1035
1036
1037
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that amongst all the difficulties with which government had had to contend, in carrying into effect the measures with reference to the West-India colonies, none were more serious than those founded upon the doctrine of the abstract rights of man, advanced by the noble lord, and by his hon. friend the member for Norwich. This difficulty, great as it was, was very much aggravated by the opposite extremes indulged in by his hon. friend the member for Callington, who endeavoured to impress upon the House and the country, that slavery was in itself unavoidable, and that the condition of the slaves was preferable to that of the average of free labourers in this country. He was not surprised to hear such an unsound and extravagant principle advanced on one side, when he heard it advanced by a noble lord on the other side, that there could be no such thing as a legal right of property—no such thing as an ownership in slaves. He did not know what this last assertion meant, for it appeared to him that the ownership in slaves was similar to other rights established by law. He acknowledged that it was an ownership entirely distinct from any other species of description of property; but let it not
1038
1039
1040
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said:—I had originally resolved to follow the advice given by the noble lord (Nugent) considering the importance of the subject, the interests that are involved in it, and the absence, upon our part, of the information which the right hon. gentleman possesses. I had resolved to abstain from troubling the House with a single observation. The hon. member for Callington renders it impossible for me to adhere to that resolution. It is incumbent upon someone of those who have advocated the cause of the slaves, to stand up in his place and notice and repel his accusations. Up to the moment when he rose, the debate had been conducted with all possible tranquillity of temper. But the hon. gentleman favours us with a lecture upon temperance, moderation, command of temper, and control of tongue, in a speech just the most immoderate, intemperate, violent, and exasperating, that ever I heard in my life. In order to accomplish his purpose of calming irascible feelings, and banishing from this debate all topics which might create animosity, he is pleased to charge us with exaggeration, misrepresentation, quackery, and nonsense.
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
Mr. Bernal
said, that in the part which he was about to take in the discussion, he should avoid anything like an irritated or angry feeling. He appealed to his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, whether he had not upon all occasions discussed this question calmly and dispassionately; Indeed, he always felt sorry when he found anything like angry discussion introduced into so important a subject. But he was not sorry at finding that the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Weymouth had been elicited that evening. He had taken a fair and manly course, and had given to the House the tone and opinions of himself and his coadjutors in the work (the great work no doubt he and they thought it) in which they were engaged. His hon. friend had at length plainly told them, that he would look to the compensation of the negro before that of the white master [hear, hear !]. An hon. member cheered, but he would tell him, that that was not the wisest course to take, in order to attain the object which his hon. friend had in view. The West-Indians might be a weak body; but if driven and forced together, it might be found that they could muster both strength, and courage to resist those opposed to them, and who attempted to destroy their just rights. The hon. member went on to deny the decrease in the negro population. He was taken by surprise by the assertion, and
1046
Mr. Sykes
justified the course pursued by the hon. members for Norwich and Weymouth. He thought the principle of negro slavery so inequitable, it was so unfair, that any body of men should govern their fellow creatures by a system of laws which enacted the penalty of twenty stripes for one offence, of thirty for another, and so on, punishing human infirmities by a self-assumed right as a superior order of beings: he considered this system so abhorrent to humanity, and so essentially repugnant to justice, that he would not detain the House by commenting on it. He maintained, that the slave population was decreasing at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum. As to the Sunday-market, he thought the sacredness of that day ought not to be disregarded, and that another
1047
Mr. James Wilson
complained of the aspersions and insinuations thrown out against the West-India proprietors, whenever an opportunity for doing so occurred. He would say to his compassionate brethren over the way, who were for galloping away thousands of miles from their own country and seeking to bestow their benevolence every where but in those places where it was most wanted, "look at home; go to Ireland and Scotland; there you will find misery and wretchedness enough; there you can be at no loss to discover plenty of starvation. In these places you may find persons, perhaps, related to yourselves, in a state of the utmost destitution, actually starving. When you have done what you ought to do in this respect, when you have relieved the poor of your own country, go abroad as fast as you like; relieve Ireland first, and then I will go hand-in-hand with you in assisting the West Indies, which, however, stands in need of assistance much less than the places already mentioned." He was the owner of a small parish in the north of England, and he had an estate in the West Indies, containing nearly the same number of subjects; and he could say most conscientiously, that the condition of the black-coloured people was infinitely superior to that of the tenantry of his parish in England. If one of his tenants in that parish wanted a glass of wine, he must go without it. Now that was a state of things which he never recollected in the West Indies. The hon. gentleman had thrown out a great deal of abuse upon the West-India planters, but he could say that they had feelings of kindness equal to any of the modern philanthropists. He desired those hon. gentlemen to recollect, that the planters held their estates and their present rights under the authority of acts of that House. Their situation was no act of their own; they went out from this country and purchased or laboured for their property, and left it to the children under the sanction of that House. Widows and orphans were the holders of much of that property, and he called upon the House to pause before it interfered with their rights. He called for protection to them and to himself with as much confidence as he called upon them for protection to his parish in Yorkshire. He spoke as a plain country gentleman, who had seen many ups and downs in life;
1048
The motion was agreed to.
WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
1049
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 7.
CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he wished to ask a noble lord a question, which was connected with those observations which he had ventured to make to their lordships on a former evening, relative to the Roman Catholic Association. Before he asked, however, an explanation upon that point, he could not help, when he observed, in the reported proceedings of that Association, that a letter had been read from a noble lord (Duncannon), a member of the other House of Parliament, making a few observations with respect to the conduct of that noble lord. If that Association was bad in itself, it became infinitely worse when it was made a channel of communication to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and when those political spirits, whom he could call no better than demagogues, made use of the authority with which they were thus clothed. The letter was too long to trouble their lordships by reading the whole, but he had selected one paragraph from it. The letter stated, "for lord Lansdowne, Mr. Tierney, and lord Carlisle, I am prepared to assure you now, as I did on a former occasion, that they and their friends were most anxious the question should be brought on, and that it would have had, as it always has had, all the support that as individuals they could have given to it. For this opinion, I can have no objection, now or at any other time, to have my name used. On the formation of the late government, I thought it my duty, as an Irishman, to give such advice to my Catholic countrymen as I thought most to their interest to pursue. I thought the agitation of that question, at that time, proposed, as it was attempted to be done, by the bitterest opponents of the Catholics, would have embarrassed the formation of the government, and I recommended a postponement of
1050
1051
Lord Clifden
hoped, after the speech of the noble marquis, he might be allowed to say a few words. If the noble marquis had not put a question to him he should, nevertheless, have stated, that he never had authorized the gentleman who had been mentioned by the noble marquis, to make the declaration which he had just heard read. He understood that the proceedings of the meeting had been ill-reported. With respect to the Association, their lordships would recollect, that it was now thirty-five years since, under the shapes of convention, committee, or association, the Catholics had carried on their applications for relief from those laws which the wisest and ablest men in the country contended ought to be abrogated. In 1793, an act passed to put down the convention; and that act was so worded, that had it not been for a special exception in favour of the two Houses of the Irish parliament, they could not have continued to sit. In consequence of that act of parliament, the convention appeared in the shape of a committee, and during the government of the duke of Richmond there was a violent contest with that committee, and he forgot what was the end of it. Then arose the Association, and this state of things would continue until the two countries were identified. There was no choice for their lordships for putting down the Association, but by the strong arm of power, and even then it would rise up in some other shape, like the Carbonari in Italy. Their lordships could not muzzle, crush or strangle six million of people. He was, however, far from justifying the acts of the Association. In many cases he exceedingly lamented them. For the
1052
sine qua non
1053
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he should not have thought it necessary to take a part in the conversation, which had arisen in consequence of the observations of the noble marquis opposite, had not the noble marquis introduced his name in reading a copy of a letter which he had then heard for the first time. After hearing that letter read, and after the observations made by the noble marquis, it became necessary for him to state, that he never authorized any communication to be made, directly or indirectly, to the Catholic Association. He would go further and say, that he never had, and never would. He thought it due to his noble friend whose name appeared at the end of that letter, to say, that he had repeatedly stated to his noble and honourable friends that he thought himself called upon, in consequence of it having been proclaimed in Ireland," that he had endeavoured to induce the Catholics not to petition parliament in the present session, to declare that he had not, either directly or indirectly, made such endeavours or given such advice. He never had thought himself called upon to communicate with the Catholics, through their Association, or any other medium, as to the time at which he might think proper to bring forward their claims for the consideration of parliament.
1054
The Earl of Roden
expressed his earnest hope that some measure would immediately be adopted for suppressing
1055
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 7.
SUSPENSION OF A JUDGE IN INDIA.]
Mr. Brougham
said, that seeing an hon. member connected with the Board of Control in his place, he wished to call his attention to the reported removal or suspension of a judge in India. The alleged offence of the learned person said to have been thus disposed of was, that in the course of delivering a legal opinion, he had mentioned something, as if he contemplated the probability of the time arriving when the East India Company's charter might not be renewed. Now, he thought there could be no doubt that any man was justified in stating, without meaning to question the supremacy of the East India Company, that by law their charter expired at a certain time. Indeed, if any man should take upon himself to state that the charter would be renewed as a matter of course, that would be illegal; it would be doing what the Crown and the Parliament could not do. Mr. Justice Blackstone had laid it down to be one of the few things which the Crown or Legislature could not do, to bind themselves down as to what they would do at a future time; yet here was a judge, because he had chosen in argument, to contemplate the possibility of that which he (Mr. Brougham) earnestly wished might prove the fact; namely, that the Company's charter would not be renewed, at least not without great curtailment of their monopoly, and a corresponding extension of the rights of the subject, instantly suspended from his judicial functions, If the statement, the
1056
Mr. Courtenay
said, it was impossible for him to declare that the statement in question had no foundation whatever. He could only say, that no intelligence of the suspension of Mr. Courtenay Smith had reached the Board of Control. He would, however candidly state, that information had been received of an explanation having been called for from Mr. Smith of the expression alluded to. Further than that, he knew nothing on the subject.
Mr. Brougham
wished to know by whom that explanation had been called for? In this country a judge could not be called to give an explanation of what he had said, except to the Court of Appeal. It was perfectly well known that any person connected with Government in this country who shall presume to call upon a judge for an explanation of what he had said, might be impeached and removed from office, besides suffering other penalties.
Mr. Courtenay
said, that the explanation had been called for by the vice-president of the Council.
PUBLIC CHARITIES.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that on a former evening an hon. member had put a question to him with the view of eliciting some information respecting the labours of the commission appointed to inquire into the abuses of charities, and at the same time the hon. member expressed an opinion, that the reports made by the commissioners were inoperative, and, as it were, a dead letter. At the time the question was proposed, he had stated his impression, that in every instance in which the commissioners thought it desirable that the attention of the Court of Chancery should be called to any charge of abuse, the Attorney-General had directions to attend immediately to their wishes. Upon inquiry he had found that such in fact was the arrangement. In order to prevent unnecessary correspondence, it had been arranged between the Secretary of State and the commissioners, that the latter should have the power of making direct application to the Attorney-General; who in his turn was authorized
1057
Mr. Brougham
seconded the motion. There certainly was, he said, in many commissions, a great tendency to slumber in their proceedings; although appointed for temporary purposes, they enjoyed a good revenue, and did little work, just enough to serve as a pretence for continuing their appointment. That observation, however, did not apply to the commission in question. He concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman respecting the reports of the commission. What parliament wanted was a registration of the rights of the poor, a distinct declaration of the objects of the various charities in the kingdom, in order that every person who had a right under the endowments, might at once be able to claim it. The cheapest mode of registration was by means of the press. Many hundreds of copies of the commissioners' reports had been spread over the country; and in various places, portions of those reports had been reprinted, to make all mankind acquainted with the contents. He considered the reprinting of parts of the reports a very judicious proceeding, and was desirous that some plan should be devised for doing it more frequently. Of this he was satisfied, that the labours of the commission had caused the correction of many abuses which had arisen in charities; frequently, he would admit, from ignorance, but very often
1058
The motion was agreed to.
CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he held in his hands a petition which he trusted would receive the serious attention it deserved from the House, as well from the importance of the body from which it came, as the matter it contained. It was a petition from the general body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and had attached to it the names of the leading advocates, as well Peers as Commoners, of that body. They prayed the House to erase from the Statute-book a law, which was alike discreditable to Catholics and Protestants, as it made it imperative upon the former to state, and the latter to sanction the statement, that the Roman Catholic religion was damnable and idolatrous; thus denouncing a great, portion of the empire. The petitioners further stated that such a declaration was unchristian and illiberal, pointing out as outcasts a great portion of the people of Ireland. They prayed the repeal of all tests, oaths, and obligations, which operated in producing the disabilities under which they at present laboured with respect to seats in the Councils of the empire. It was unnecessary for him to add, that he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition. He hoped the very respectable body who had intrusted their petition to his care would not consider him guilty of the slightest want of zeal in
1059
Ordered to lie on the table.
LICENSING SYSTEM.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he held in his hand a petition from a person named John Yule, late the keeper of a respectable inn in Halifax. The petitioner complained of the conduct of certain magistrates. He gave the names of those magistrates, but be (Mr. B.) would forbear mentioning them; if, however, the case which the petitioner stated was true, then he thought it the hardest that had ever come within his knowledge, and at the same time strongly illustrative of the caprice with which licences were granted or withheld. The petitioner stated that, in May, last year, he took a lease of a respectable inn, in Halifax, at a yearly rent of 85
l
1060
Mr. M. A. Taylor
put it to the House, and to the hon. and learned gentleman himself, whether he was justified in calling him to order for holding a conversation with the Secretary of State. Did the hon. and learned gentleman wish him to call at the right hon. Secretary's office, when he could ask a question of him in the House with so little inconvenience?
Mr. Brougham
expressed his surprise at the use of those distant expressions, which were not very seemly between such old and intimate friends; but his hon. friend, if he would permit him to call him so, must be aware that it could not be pleasant for him to be kept on his legs longer than he intended. It was not for himself that he felt, but for the House, which he was detaining. He knew not how much longer his hon. friend's conversation might have lasted if he had not, by his expostulation, called down the vials of his wrath. Besides the hon. member for Derry was just beginning another conversation that might have lasted as long again.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, he could not help retaining the impression that the remonstrance was most unnecessary and uncalled-for.
Mr. Brougham
said, he was glad to find that he was himself singular in the opinion that it was necessary.
Ordered to lie on the table.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANGHISEMENT
Mr. Lumley
1061
Mr. Alderman Waithman
thought the House was bound to protect its rights and privileges. Those privileges, like all their other rights, they were bound to exercise for the public good. He believed that, if this individual had not been committed, not a word of truth would have been got out of the other witnesses. It was idle to talk of their ignorance. Those low Yorkshiremen were possessed of as much cunning as any hon. member in that House-But, if they were to bring' this man up to be discharged, surely they would take care that it should not be without a reprimand.
Mr. Stewart
supported the motion for the discharge of Fox.
Sir C. Burrell
also thought the motion ought to be agreed to.
Mr. Baring
said, that, if ever there had been a case for the interference of the House, it was that of the individual in question, whose conduct had been such as; to render it absolutely necessary to commit him. In his opinion, there would be no harm in allowing Fox to remain in Newgate until the termination of the inquiry relative to East Retford. However, if the I House thought differently, he was content that the individual should be called to the bar, and discharged, after receiving a proper reprimand.
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought the resolution of the House the other night was quite necessary, because the object of the witness seemed to have been the wilful concealment of the truth; and when the House had once shewn a determination to punish an individual who had so offended, they could not so trifle with their proceedings as to extend almost as a matter of course their lenity to him, merely because he came the next day and petitioned for their indulgence. He therefore wished this motion had been postponed; but as it had been made, and the petition was a proper one, he would give his consent to its prayer, amending it only by adding the condition, that the individual be brought up on Monday instead of that night, and that he should then receive a reprimand from the Speaker. He trusted that, if the worthy alderman had any prejudices against Yorkshiremen, he would not display them on the present occasion. The witnesses who were to be examined that night came from the town of East Retford,
1062
Mr. N. Calvert
did not object to the motion as amended, but should like to put the same witness again under examination, to see what effect his punishment had had on him.
Mr. W. Smith
thought the punishment too slight, considering the grave nature of the offence.
Mr. Crompton
stated, as an apology for the witness, that he was in ill health when he was called to the bar.
Mr. Tennyson
objected to the re-examination of Fox, lest it might be said that his evidence had been obtained by the application of a sort of torture.
The Motion as amended was agreed to. After which, the House went into a committee on the bill, Mr. R. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. E. C. Brown
was called in, and Mr. Tennyson proceeded to interrogate him. In your examination of the 4th of March, you stated that you knew in some of these elections, there were above forty electors at East Retford who would not take money. I will now put into your hands the lists of the burgesses for 1818, 1820, and 1826. Will you mark off, in any of those lists, the forty names you have alluded to.
The witness retired with the lists, when
Mr. Wynn
suggested, that as the witness had in his former examination, merely given his opinion, they had better not dwell on an answer so given, but go into the evidence of the particular fact sought to be established.
Mr. Tennyson
said, he wanted to shew how far the fact would, or would not, justify the witness's opinion of there being forty who would not take bribes. If the names were marked, then the opinion could at once be brought to the test.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that the witness was not called upon to give an opinion against the guilty, but in favour of the innocent.
Mr. Wynn
said, that still they must have positive instead of secondary evidence; of what use, then, was the delivery of a mere opinion.
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that even with the supposition that forty refused to take bribes, it did not follow, from a mere
1063
Mr. Stewart
said, that if it were competent for one witness to mark off forty names as innocent, it would be equally competent for another to mark off as many more who were in his opinion guilty—a course both irregular and inconvenient.
Mr. Fergusson
argued, that as it stood on the minutes that forty voters would not receive bribes, it was fit to ascertain who those forty were, and whether they deserved the character for purity which had been given them.
Mr. Batley
reminded the committee, that the witness had said, that sir H. Wilson was determined not to give a single penny, but to stand on his hostility to the Catholic claims.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
was in favour of pursuing the inquiry. The witness's declaration in favour of the forty burgesses was only matter of opinion, the value of which might be judged of by the various means in the power of the committee.
Sir E. Knatchbull
remarked, that the committee could not act upon the mere opinion of the witness after it had been given.
Mr. Calcraft
contended, that the opinion of the witness could not influence the vote of a single member, nor add at all to the weight of the testimony the hon. gentleman was scraping together to disfranchise the borough of East Retford. The assertion of the witness was, that there were forty burgesses who would not take bribes, and he was told to go out and mark them in the list, without being able to say from his; own knowledge whether such and such a man had taken a bribe. To take such evidence was only to incumber the minutes, and indulge curiosity without furthering the ends of justice.
1064
1065
Mr. Richard Hannam
was re-called to prove, that Leadbeater was one of those he had seen paid in 1812, at the Angel-inn. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Denman, to ascertain whether he had not been accused of keeping some money intrusted to him? He answered very positively in the negative. At the Angel-inn Pickup had the money and paid it. Witness never touched a farthing of it: one man who had not attended there, was under the mistake that witness had his money, but such was not the fact: no money was intrusted to him to be distributed; it was not true that the electors had objected to his being employed as an election agent, because they alleged he had withheld any money from them. He had only paid one man himself, and that had been within a few days afterwards. He believed that the payments for the election of 1812, were all completed in 1814. It was well known that he was the agent of Mr. Osbaldeston in 1812, and he had pointed out to Mr. Pickup who were likely to be the friends of Mr. Osbaldeston. There was not a farthing deposited with the witness for the purpose of making payments. He had been clerk to the magistrates of the district for twelve or fourteen years. Mr. Clark was the partner of Mr. Vaughan, and the former had been connected with a celebrated will-cause that had been tried some years ago. Buxton was not paid because he was so intolerably drunk, otherwise he could have had his money, if he had come down for it. The witness had signed a paper that had been brought to his office for the purpose of obtaining the removal or extension
1066
By Mr. Crompton.
—Have you ever received any penalties that have been levied under the game laws? I have.—Did you put those penalties into your own pocket? No; I have paid them over to the clergyman of the parish, and to the proper authorities.—The borough of East Retford was situated in the hundred of Bassetlaw. If the right of election was extended over the whole hundred, there would be seventy-four townships, or parishes included in it. There were many noblemen and gentlemen in the hundred who would have influence, owing to their estates. If the number of voters should be 1,200, there would be a great number of them under the political influence of the Duke of Newcastle.
By Mr. Davenport
.—If you were told a person had said to the freemen that he would do what was right and just, what should you understand by it? That he would pay them the forty guineas.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, it now became his duty to introduce a question of considerable delicacy, on which he wished to have the advice and assistance of the com-
1067
l
1068
The Chairman
.—The question for the committee to consider is, whether, if the hon. gentleman be called to the bar, he will feel disposed to answer any questions that may be put to him, and if not, what power the committee possesses to enforce answers? The case of calling a member of the House to the bar is not, I believe, a very common one: but instances have occurred where members who were called upon to be examined before the House of peers have refused to answer certain questions. My impression is, that the hon. gentleman may also refuse to answer.
Mr. Wynn
said, it was in the power of the committee to demand answers to such questions as might be put to a member.
Mr. Crompton
said, he did not mean to say any thing at all on this question. He did not think it was necessary. He felt ashamed of nothing that he had done. As to what the hon. member for Colchester had said about his conduct, he would make no observation on it. He had been elected for this borough in 1812 and 1818; and, if that House determined to call on him for information, he hoped it would be found that he never had swerved from the right line of duty. But this he would say, that he never would come forward at the mere wish of the hon. member for Colchester, to enter into any explanation. It must be a better man than the hon. member for Colchester who would bring him to disclose his private affairs. [Cries of order.] He would not be examined by that hon. member.
1069
Mr. D. W. Harvey
rose to order. The hon. member for Derby had chosen to state, that while he was willing to be examined by other persons, he would not allow himself to be examined by the hon. member for Colchester.
Mr. Crompton
.—" I won't—I won't."
Mr. D. W. Harvey
.—I say this, that if the committee come to the resolution to examine the hon. member for Derby, or if any other hon. member shall be examined, I, as member for Colchester, will interrogate that man, and it will not be in the hon. gentleman's power to prevent me.
Mr. Wynn
said, the hon. member would certainly have a right to examine any witness at the bar.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that his hon. friend (Mr. Crompton) evidently spoke under the impulse of very strong feeling. He should therefore recommend to the committee, that, in the state of excitation under which his hon. friend laboured at that moment, the question should be adjourned, and his hon. friend's examination taken at a future day.
Mr. Crompton
said, he never would dispute the power of the House; but he would say, that he never would be examined at their bar until it was made an order of the committee. He would not, at the nod or beck of any individual, come forward to disclose his private affairs. He was perfectly ready to bow to the decision of the House. They were deliberating upon a very important question, on which they were justified in procuring all the information they could; but he would not be bullied into any thing by any individual; and to that individual he would say, "When you are ready to lay open all the transactions of your life, and let the public judge of them, am I ready to do the same" [cries of "hear," and "order."]
The Chairman
said, he must again suggest to the committee, that no member could be examined contrary to his inclination.
Mr. Wynn
said, he had never before heard that any member of that House possessed within it, a privilege which exempted him from such examination, if it were the pleasure of the House to require that he should undergo it. The case was very different in respect of applications of this sort proceeding from the other House; for nothing was more reasonable than that one branch of the legis-
1070
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, the hon. member for Derby had misunderstood him if he had supposed him to say that he would exercise any personal interference. He had spoken merely as a member of the House. But in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Derby respecting the transactions of his life, he would tell that hon. member, that if he chose to move for an inquiry into all the transactions in which he (Mr. Harvey) had been engaged, from his cradle until the present moment, he should be ready and willing to go into the inquiry.
Sir R. Wilson
said, there was an evident misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Derby, in supposing that the hon. member for Colchester had attempted to exercise any improper jurisdiction. But a question had arisen, as to whether the House had the power of examining one of its own members against that member's inclination. It appeared to be the opinion of some, that a member, if he pleased, could protect himself under his privilege. Now the best way of settling this question, would be to move, "that the hon. member for Derby be examined in his place."
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was sorry that the hon. gentleman who had proposed that Mr. Crompton should be examined, should have prefaced his motion by the observations which he had made. It was true that that hon. gentleman had not said that he would exercise any [improper jurisdiction; but then it would have been better if he had abstained altogether from making any reference to the share which Mr. Crompton had taken in this investigation. An observation which the hon. gentleman had made, appeared to him to justify the warmth which it had excited in the hon. member for Derby, he meant the observation that whatever delicacy he (Mr. D. W. Harvey) might have felt in moving, "that the hon. member for Derby should be examined," was removed by the part which that hon.
1071
Mr. Alderman Waithman
concurred in the propriety of postponing the motion until it could be considered with better temper.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
assured the hon. member for Derby, that he did not mean any thing disrespectful when he proposed his examination. He thought that if that hon. member had been silent, it would have been more delicate; but as that hon. member had taken part in the discussion, he thought it as well to examine him. He had stated to several hon. members, before the occurrence of this evening, that it was his opinion that both Mr. Evans and Mr. Crompton ought to be called to the bar of the House.
Mr. Crompton
said, he conceived the hon. member to have censured him for taking a part in the examination.
Mr. Tennyson
said, that in his opinion, there had been evidence enough given on the subject last session. Under these circumstances he had no intention to call on the hon. member for Derby. He had other witnesses whom he could call if the House pleased, but he considered his case to be fully established, and was ready to close it at any time. It was no longer his case, but that of the committee.
1072
Mr. Alderman Waithman
.—What have you to say to that evidence?—Witness.—I positively deny it. I still persist in the evidence I gave. I am innocent of it; Hannam was then called in and identified Leadbeater.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
then moved, that it was the opinion of the committee that Leadbeater having been guilty of gross and wilful falsehood, be committed to Newgate.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that although he had no difficulty in inflicting the other evening that punishment upon a man who had, in an examination before the House, committed wilful perjury, yet felt some doubts as to the propriety of pursuing the same course in a case where a witness was merely contradicted by the testimony of others, and that testimony not confirmed by any other incontestible evidence.
Mr. Benett
said, they could not have stronger testimony against any man, and thought it necessary to the dignity of the House that he should be committed.
Mr. Twiss
said, the witness might not be speaking the truth, but the House had not heard the evidence which might be produced on his part to disprove what was said by his accusers.
Mr. Benett
expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should have any doubts upon the subject. The evidence of two respectable witnesses was all that was required to hang a man for felony, and yet the House paused upon that testimony in a case like the present.
Mr. Twiss
repeated his assertion, that the witness might be able to disprove what was asserted by other evidence, and that he ought to be allowed the same time and notice for that purpose as a criminal put upon his trial.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that the testimony of Leadbeater had excited suspicion before he was confronted with Hannam and Newton, and the House ought to recollect that he was the son of the bell-man, who distributed all the money.
The Attorney-general
said, he had no difficulty in stating, that the evidence of two was preferable to that of one, still he did not see that this witness could be committed on the evidence of two other parties, without having an opportunity afforded him of proving his statement. This was always the case in prosecutions for perjury. He recommended that the
1073
Lord John Russell
observed, that the House was not bound in its proceedings by the same strictness of rule which governed a court of law. It was to be recollected, that although a man accused before parliament of perjury had not the same advantages of defence that he would have in a court of law, the punishment inflicted upon him in case of conviction was considerably lighter. Unless the House acted with decision, it would be impossible for it to obtain the truth. If persons like the witness, were assured of the forbearance of the House, they had only to deny stoutly every thing that was alleged against them, and it would be impossible either to have the facts ascertained, or guilt brought home to the offending party.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that the House would do well to be extremely cautious in its proceedings; since a hasty decision, whatever might be the quantum of personal suffering inflicted upon the individual, had the effect of casting indelible disgrace upon his character. In a court of law, the judge told the jury, in summing up the evidence, that if there was doubt in their minds they must give the prisoner the benefit of it. Now, in this case he had doubts, and he could not bring himself to vote for the motion.
Sir J. Wrottesley
was of opinion, that the assimilation of the House to a court of law was totally untenable. The object was, to obtain truth by simple and comprehensive examination, and to substitute common sense for legal subtlety. It was abundantly clear, from the evidence, that this man had received election money upon three several occasions. He did not see how it was possible for the House to shut their eyes to the notorious fact, and should certainly vote for the motion.
Mr. Twiss
contended, that no man ought to be declared guilty upon any charge without having an opportunity of being heard in his defence. This was principle of common justice, not peculiar to courts of law, but recognized by every tribunal in the world.
Mr. Wynn
thought there was sufficient
1074
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he could not concur with the noble lord, that because the House inflicted a less heavy punishment for perjury than would be inflicted by a court of law, it was on that account the less bound to be governed by the same principles of law and justice. Though the physical suffering inflicted by a sentence of the House might be comparatively trivial, it was to be remembered that by that sentence the character of an honest man, and even a man in the highest station of life, might be blasted for ever. Though the evidence before the House might warrant a moral conviction, it did not seem to him sufficiently clear to send a man to Newgate upon. It was just possible that the witnesses who deposed to the fact of Leadbeater's having received money, might have an interest in what they stated. The lists only proved that there had been an intention to pay him, not that he had been paid: the individuals who spoke to his having been paid, were those to whom money had been intrusted for his payment; and the House would observe that as these were transactions in which no receipts were given, the payment or non-payment must stand upon the allegation of the individual. He confessed that he was disposed, before Leadbeater was committed to Newgate, to call in the witnesses who had contradicted him, and re-examine them.
1075
l
1076
Mr. D. W. Harvey
again pressed for the examination of Mr. Crompton on Monday.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that if, on Monday, the hon. member for Bletchingley thought his case deficient, and if it should appear that the House had the power to compel Mr. Crompton to give evidence, whether inclined to do so or not, then he should have no objection to such a proceeding; but he could not allow it to be considered as a matter of course.
After a few words from Mr. Calcraft, Sir R. Wilson, Mr, G. Bankes, and Mr. Wynn, Mr. D. W. Harvey gave notice, that he should move on Monday, that Mr. Crompton be called before the committee.
Mr. Denman
was then admitted to the bar; and addressed the committee in be half of the burgesses of East Retford, The learned counsel having concluded his speech, the House resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again,
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 10.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Jonathan Fox being called in, upon the motion of Mr. Lumley, to be discharged, the SPEAKER addressed him as follows:
"Jonathan Fox, the offence for which you were committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, was that of suppressing the truth, when examined as a witness before a committee of this House. It is an offence of immense magnitude. It is obvious that if such an offence were to be tolerated, or suffered to pass with impunity, the ends of justice must be defeated, and the dignity and character of this House impaired. The House, therefore, had no alternative but to adopt the Resolution under which you were imprisoned.
"Since your imprisonment, you have approached this House by petition: In that petition you express to the House the feebleness of your health at the time you were examined; you express your entire respect and deference to the House; and you express also your sincere regret and contrition: It is because the House believe the explanation you have given, and because they rely upon the sincerity of regret and contrition you have expressed, and because they are satisfied that their
1077
Jonathan Fox was ordered to withdraw. Mr. Tennyson then moved the order of the day, for going into a committee on the East Retford Disfranchisement bill.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that having, on Friday, intimated an intention of examining a member of the House on the subject of this bill, he would apprize the House, before he stated the reasons which induced him to make the motion, of what had passed between that hon. member and himself. Being desirous, on every occasion, to observe the maxim—"Do unto others as you would wish to be done by," he addressed a letter to Mr. Crompton, stating his intention of persevering in the motion, and desiring to know whether Mr. Crompton would attend voluntarily, or prefer attending by a compulsory order of the House. In answer to that communication, he received a letter from Mr. Crompton to the following effect:—"That it was not his present intention to be in his place in the House on Monday next, and in case he wished to change his intention, he would inform Mr. Harvey of that circumstance; that, according to his present views, he would rather be in his place some day subsequent to Wednesday; but that Mr. Crompton's colds were so tedious, as to leave him no chance of attending without making himself ill." In consequence of this letter, he should move that Mr. Crompton attend the committee on Friday next. He would now briefly state the reasons which induced him to make the motion. Since last Friday he had read all the evidence taken, not only at the bar of the House, but before the committee appointed to try the merits of the election; and the impression which he had entertained on Friday evening was strengthened by that perusal. It should be recollected, that the object of this bill was that of punishment, by striking the borough out of the political map of the country. The bill was not introduced upon the principle of general reform, but upon the principle of applying reform in any particular case in which palpable malfeasance should be proved. Acting upon this principle, there were three courses of proceeding. The first and most lenient was that of punishing only particular indi-
1078
l.
1079
1080
l.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
expressed his dissent from the greater part of the observations of the hon. member. He did not think any evidence was wanted to prove general corruption in the borough. Some hon. members had entertained doubts and scruples which surpassed his comprehension. They seemed to forget things in the evidence, that an unexceptionable witness, named Thornton, had produced accounts as well kept as they could be in any merchant's counting-house: there were not only the sums paid, but all the persons receiving the money. He thought this a most convincing fact. The only circumstance which made him feel any difficulty in rejecting Mr. Crompton's testimony was, that the world would say that the House acted inconsistently, if not unjustly, in treating persons of a humble class in life with great severity, for an offence which they overlooked when it was committed by one of its own members. He had no wish to examine Mr. Crompton; for he wanted no further evidence to make up his judgment; but he thought that the House ought to consider, whether it would not injure its own character with the country if it failed to command the attendance of that gentleman.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, he would take that opportunity of informing the hon. member for Bletchingley, that he did not consider the evidence, as it now stood, sufficient to disfranchise the borough of East Retford. The evidence of Hannam varied materially from that of Pickup; and he should wish to have both those witnesses re-examined with a view of seeing whether the discrepancy in their evidence could be reconciled. He also was of opinion, that the
1081
l.
Mr. Sykes
said, he merely rose to state to the House the situation of Mr. Crompton. His hon. friend had intended to have met the challenge of the hon. member for Colchester; but he was at present too much indisposed to come down to the House. He held in his hand a medical certificate from a gentleman of the highest character in his profession, stating that Mr. Crompton was so ill that he could not attend that night in his place without extreme danger. He had himself seen Mr.
1082
1083
Mr. Lumley
considered that there was no necessity for examining Mr. Crompton.
Mr. Tennyson
said, that the question of the propriety of calling Mr. Foljambe as a witness to the bar had been so ably disposed of by the hon. gentleman on the other side, that he felt himself excused from the necessity of saying a word upon the subject. Under the peculiar circumstances in which that gentleman was placed, he felt that he should not be justified in summoning him as a witness before them. "With respect to the observations which his hon. and learned friend had made upon Mr. Foljambe's connexion with a part of the case proved before the committee up stairs, all he had to say was this, that the conduct of earl Fitzwilliam, as there disclosed, had no bearing whatever on the case which he had undertaken to lay before the House. If his hon. and learned friend had any charge to make against that noble individual, it was for his hon. and learned friend to bring it forward as a substantive charge against a peer of parliament. As he had been obliged to touch upon the conduct of earl Fitzwilliam, he thought it mere justice to the character of that illustrious nobleman to add, that though it had appeared that he had advanced 1,200
l.
l.
1084
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that on the subject of the examination of their members in the manner proposed, the information furnished by the current of authorities was rather of a complex kind. No committee had, he thought, a power to originate a motion for the examination of any witness whether he were a member or not, without receiving an order from the House. Among the authorities, there were several instances of orders for the examination of witnesses, with the superadded words, "if they should think fit." On the whole, however, he was disposed to assume, that the House, if it pleased, had the power to examine members as witnesses in any business before them. He knew that there were instances of members having at first refused to be examined, but who had submitted after some wavering; in no instance had the House proceeded, as far as he could learn, to commit to the Tower in case of a refusal. For his own part, being satisfied on the point to which alone he thought Mr. Crompton could be examined, he saw no necessity for calling upon that hon. member. Still, as this was a case in which they had to decide judicially, and where their decision ought alone to be founded upon the uninfluenced operation of their consciences, he would yield his opinion, should it appear that any number of hon. members were anxious to have Mr. Crompton examined. He cared little for the prevalence of any feeling elsewhere, that they would be disposed to screen one of their own members: all he should ask himself was, ought this particular course to be taken? Because, if he felt it ought, he would do it, regardless of popular impressions. If many hon. members were desirous of examining Mr. Crompton, then he thought it quite clear that in the course of such examination no question should be put which could expose the witness to penalties, or to his being placed in an unfavourable situation elsewhere. The examination should not be conducted with any view of criminating the hon. member himself, but solely for the purpose of
1085
l.
Mr. Wynn
thought there was not a shadow of doubt as to the power of the House to direct the examination of a member. In a committee of the whole House, every member had a right to put such questions as he thought fit to any other member. In this instance, he did not see sufficient grounds for the delay which would result from Mr. Crompton's examination, and, therefore he should vote against it. At the same time he proceeded only on the impressions of his own mind; and if he thought there were many members who wished to hear the evidence of Mr. Crompton, he would vote for his examination. As he considered it most important that every thing concerning the power of the House should be clearly understood, he would repeat, that he was clearly of opinion, that in a committee of the whole House, every member had a perfect and unquestionable right to examine any other member, without any fresh orders from the House. In the case of colonel Wardle, on the charges against the duke of York, no order had been made that he should attend in his place; but being called upon to answer some question, and having objected that one member of the committee should call on another, lord Colchester, then Speaker of the House, sitting as a member of the committee, stated, that no member could refuse to be examined before a committee of the whole House. But it was said, suppose the member should object, the committee had no power to enforce his attendance. The committee could do in this case what they could do in any other similar instance. They would report the fact to the House, and obtain its interference. This was the course they always followed. In the cases of the witnesses who had been guilty of prevarication and false evidence in this investigation, the committee had invoked the authority of
1086
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, there was not a shadow of difference between his right hon. friend and himself as to the power of the House to compel the attendance of any member to be examined before a committee. The result of his inquiry was
1087
Lord Howick
said, that if the only question was, whether the evidence of Mr. Crompton was or was not necessary to make out the case against the borough of East Retford, he should vote for that hon. gentleman's examination. But he wished to argue the question on higher grounds. If the laws against bribery were constantly enforced, he would say, by all means discover all the parties guilty of corruption in these cases. But as it was notorious that nine tenths of the members who sat for boroughs in that House were returned either by bribes of money, or money's worth, he saw no reason to select any particular individual, and make him a scape-goat for the sins of others. The House could neither deceive itself nor the country; and he would say, unless the House was determined to adopt some general rule to suppress bribery, and to carry it in all instances into execution, he would not concur in inflicting what he must otherwise consider only a cruel and useless punishment. He should certainly vote for the bill, as the burgesses of East Retford had no right to use their privileges for selfish or corrupt purposes.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that some hon. members had stated that they considered the examination of Mr. Crompton necessary to establish facts. He for one was prepared to vote for the disfranchisement of the borough on the evidence he had heard. But he thought it very strange, that members, who differed from him as to the sufficiency of the evidence, should join with him in refusing to hear further evidence. It had been stated, that the proposition to examine Mr. Crompton had originated in personal feelings; but the hon. member for Colchester had solemnly disclaimed the imputation. That hon. gentleman had stated that he held the examination of Mr. Crompton necessary, to enable him to arrive safely at the conclusion, which, as a judge, he must draw from the evidence before him. As to the objection that Mr. Crompton might, by some of his answers, subject himself to prosecution, he disregarded it; for the committee would prevent the hon. gentleman, from giving any answer which might
1088
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he was quite at a loss to account for the imputation so pointedly made against him by the hon. member for Hull, that he was influenced by feelings of spleen towards Mr. Crompton. He disclaimed solemnly that he had not felt the slightest spleen towards the hon. gentleman. As to what had been said by the hon. member who conducted the inquiry he would reply to him in the words of Sterne, "that the ass had sought his master as much only as the master had sought the ass." He had been induced to interfere in this inquiry in consequence of two gentlemen, connected with East Retford, having called upon him, who, after presenting that hon. gentleman's compliments, had stated, that he would feel personally obliged if he would give his aid in conducting this investigation. The persons who had thus induced him to intrude sat at that moment under the gallery, at the bar of the House. He had told them at that time, that, in his opinion, the inquiry would be mere trifling, if the committee did not call, not only on Mr. Crompton but on Mr. Evans. He knew nothing of Mr. Osbaldeston till he heard of him in the course of this inquiry, and he would have been as ready to have called him if it had been necessary. But there was no occasion for doing that, as they had had his agent Pickup, before them, who had stated, that he had taken the money for the express purpose of paying the voters; and they had also had Hannam before them, who had assisted Pickup on that occasion. Here there was a complete identification of a corrupt purpose. Not so with respect to Mr. Crompton; for, from all that appeared in the evidence of Fox, he might still be in possession of the 2,840
l.
l.
1089
Mr. Tennyson
said, that the hon. gentleman had been misled; for he had not sent his compliments to him, or any message on the subject. With respect to the present question, if he had abstained from calling for the evidence of Mr. Crompton, Mr. Evans, or Mr. Osbaldeston, he had done so, not from any desire of preventing their exposure, but because he had been given to understand that those gentlemen would be unable to prove the receipt of money by the burgesses.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
recommended the hon. member to withdraw his motion. If it went to a division, he should not vote for it.
Mr. Hume
concurred in the recommendation.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that insinuations had been thrown out against him, and private motives had been attributed to him, and he therefore was anxious to press this motion to a division, in order to satisfy the House of the purity of his motives. If he stood alone he would divide the House thirty times. If, however, the House were satisfied as to the purity of his motives, he should not press for a division.
Mr. Peel
said, he could bear testimony to the fact, that the hon. member for Colchester upon a former evening, and before any of the imputations alluded to had been made, had pressed as anxiously for the examination of Mr. Crompton as he had done upon the present occasion. There was no question, therefore, as to the purity of the hon. member's motives; and seeing that, he trusted the hon. member would not call for a division.
The motion was then withdrawn.
MUTINY BILL.]
On the report of the Mutiny Bill being brought up,
Lord Nugent
rose, pursuant to notice, to move a clause for preventing corporal punishment in the army. In bringing
1090
1091
"Une fois gentilhomme, toujours gentilhomme!"
1092
Mr. John Smith
, in seconding the motion, observed that, in his opinion, the punishment of flogging had a tendency to increase the number of crimes. He had I lately conversed with a person who had been many years the principal keeper of Newgate, and he had been assured by him, that he seldom recollected a criminal flogged at the Old Bailey who had not been committed again within less than twelve months for a new offence. A punishment of that kind invariably produced a total loss of character, and such a recklessness of consequences, that it was not a matter of surprise that the unfortunate
1093
Sir J. Sebright
, being of an opinion diametrically opposite to that of the noble lord, and of the hon. gentleman, felt himself bound to state, in a few words, the reason of that difference. There were many persons in the House better quali-
1094
dernier
Sir H. Vivian
said, he participated in all the humane sentiments which had been expressed by the noble lord and the hon. member who had seconded the amendment. No man would more readily give up the present system than he would, if he had pointed out to him a safer or a better plan. He, however, was a friend to the discipline of the army, knowing that without strict discipline, an army was infinitely more dangerous to its friends than to its enemies. His feeling was, that times might arrive when it would be absolutely necessary to have recourse to corporal punishment for the preservation of due order and. discipline; and therefore
1095
boulet
1096
Mr. Wilbraham
strongly condemned the practice of flogging. It was a most sanguinary punishment; and, in his opinion, a disgrace to the British army. Those who opposed this practice were described as visionary speculatists; but he believed that lord Combermere would not be considered a speculatist; and that gallant officer had, in a very great degree, if not entirely, abolished, the inhuman practice
1097
Mr. Warburton
said, that in contrasting the modes of punishment in our army with those in the French army, hon. gentlemen had spoken of the latter as though no other punishments were known in it besides solitary confinement and death. They had forgotten all the gradations of punishment; that in the French army offences were divided into two classes, the one of which consisted of faults against discipline, and the other of crimes. Faults against discipline were visited with fourteen days' confinement, being kept on bread and water for three days, and other punishments of a lenient nature. Crimes were the subject of the sentences of a court-martial, and the punishments assigned for them were
travail publique
Colonel Lindsay
said, that hon. gentlemen ought not to forget of what class of persons the army was composed. Some of them were wayward and disorderly, and a great portion of them exactly at the age when men's passions were the most ungovernable. Physically speaking, the army was the most uncontrollable body of men in the community. And yet they had to undergo the greatest privations; were exposed to insult without the means of resenting it; and were called upon to do their duty silently and instantaneously. It was therefore absolutely necessary that such men should be restrained by a very severe code of laws. He would call upon the noble lord who wished to abolish corporal punishment in the army to say what he would substitute in its place. He was free to admit that military men were greatly indebted to hon. gentlemen, and especially to the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, for bringing this subject
1098
Mr. Hume
said, it would seem from the speech of the gallant member that the British army owed its superiority over other armies to the system of flogging that prevailed in it. Now he was by no means disposed to admit, that a practice which had a tendency to degrade the soldier, and to brutalize his mind, was a practice necessary to sustain the character of the British army. In Holland, Prussia, and in Wurtemberg, as well as in France, flogging had been abolished with the most beneficial effects: and even in Austria, and the few other places where it was continued, the flogging did not take place by removing the clothes of the soldier publicly, and punishing him in a manner so revolting to humanity as was practised in our service. When it was admitted that this punishment was not inflicted in more than one regiment out of four or five, and even then very seldom, it was evident that the perfect state of the discipline of our army was not owing to this practice. He had proposed a safe experiment; namely, that the abolition of this punishment
1099
Colonel Wood
thought that, although corporal punishment was not allowed in foreign armies, the discipline of them was preserved with greater severity than in ours, because the infliction of capital punishment was more frequent. The noble mover had attributed to him an argument which he had never used: that noble lord had made him say that, as boys were flogged at school, he saw no reasons why soldiers should not be flogged. Now, no such argument had ever fallen from his lips. He had commanded a regiment for many years, and had always introduced corporal punishment as seldom as possible. There was, perhaps, no regiment in which it had been inflicted in so few instances. He was not, however, of opinion that the punishment could be altogether done away with, although it ought to be as seldom resorted to as possible. In some instances he had had recourse to it; and there were I two in which young soldiers, on whom it had been inflicted, had thanked him for the salutary effect it had had upon them, in deterring them from continuing in a course of offences which would have led to severer punishment in the end. The British army had been contrasted with the armies of other countries. For his part, he thought the British soldiers, who had beaten all the armies that had been brought against them, had military character enough. Besides, as soon as they were disembodied, I they fell into the mass of the people, and
1100
Lord Palmerston
said, he would not again go over the old argument upon this subject. To state the objection to what was proposed generally, it was this,—that where there were large bodies of armed men collected together, strong measures were necessary to keep them in order. Means which might be used for this end in other countries, could not be resorted to in this. How, for instance, could the punishment, so much insisted on, of solitary confinement, be inflicted in this country? Our troops were not in strong garrisoned towns or military fortresses, where men could be confined apart from their comrades. We had no mode of imprisoning soldiers, except sending them to the common gaols; and he did not think that an association with the ordinary inhabitants of gaols would be likely to send a soldier back to his regiment at all improved. It was a great mistake to suppose that corporal punishment did not prevail in foreign armies. Foreign soldiers were subject to blows and stripes, and the only difference between them and ours was, that in the one case this species of punishment was inflicted with trial, and in the other without trial. He apprehended that the House would not be inclined to follow this course. Many of the substitutes for this punishment in foreign countries would not be tolerated in England. If our soldiers were seen parading the streets with cannon-balls chained to their legs, such a spectacle would be much more revolting and disgusting to the public mind than the present system. The noble mover wished to abolish all corporal punishments, except for certain offences named in the clause. Now, the mutiny act and the articles of war said, "Go to the civil power whenever it is possible," and the cases in which this was not possible were the very cases in which the noble lord wished to do away with corporal punishment. The mutiny act was passed to provide for cases which called for the immediate interposition, and which the ordinary course of the law could not put down. These were, desertion, disobedience, insubordination, and mutiny, whatever it might be, and these the noble lord wished to exclude from corporal
1101
General Duff
protested against any hasty attempts to remodel an army which had driven the invincible legions of France from one end of the world to the other.
The amendment was negatived.
ROMAN CATHOLIC LAND-TAX BILL.]
On the order of the day for committing this bill,
Mr. Curteis
objected to the mode which the bill recognised, of taking the valuation of land for the purpose of the tax.
Mr. G. Bankes
entered into a lengthened explanation of the clauses of the bill. He pointed out the inequality of the assessment of the Land-tax, as it existed at present in England, both as regarded the Catholic and Protestant land-owners. It had been formed, as it then stood, in the reign of William 3rd. and had continued down to near the end of the reign of George 3rd. in the same disproportion. Another grievance under which the Catholics especially laboured, was the necessity of being compelled to prove the payment of the four shillings in the pound upon a rack-rent, before any relief could be sought in the court of Exchequer; and every succeeding year the evil had increased. The object of the bill was, not to place the Catholics in a better situation than the Protestants, with respect to the Land-tax, nor to throw on Protestants, that portion of the burthen from which the Catholics were to be relieved.
Mr. Fergusson
said, that some objections which he had to part of the bill having been removed, he now gave it his hearty support.
The Attorney-general
said, he had no objection to the principle of the bill, but thought the relief ought not to be extended to Roman Catholics who had purchased the estates of Protestants, nor to Protestants who had purchased those of Roman Catholics; for they bought them subject to those payments.
The House then went into the committee.
1102
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 11.
STATE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.]
Mr. Sykes
said, it would be recollected, that he had, at the end of the last parliament, endeavoured to draw the attention of the House to the state of the unrepresented freeholders in certain counties corporate, and that he had brought in a bill which was read a first time, declaratory of what he conceived to be the law upon the subject. He found that there were many districts, separated from the counties to which they belonged, in which the freeholders had no right to vote at the elections of knights of the shire; and to remedy that anomaly in the law, he had introduced a bill which was opposed by an hon. and learned gentleman opposite, on two distinct and separate grounds. The first respected the right of the freeholders to vote at elections for their respective counties. It was urged that though he had come to the conclusion, that they had such right, he was not therefore entitled to call upon the House to come to the same conclusion without investigation. The second respected the particular time at which his bill was introduced. It was at that time, as he had said before, near the end of the parliament, and some counties were already engaged in severe election contests. It was said, that it would be unfair to pass a bill at such a time, inasmuch as it would alter the number of votes in all the contested counties throughout the kingdom. He had yielded to the weight of these two arguments, and had deferred his bill to a future period, determining, however, to bring it forward again on the earliest opportunity. During the interval which had elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, he had turned the matter over and over again in his mind; and he was now of opinion, that the best shape in. which he could bring it again under the notice of parliament would be, by moving for a committee to inquire into the state of the representation in these counties corporate. He thought that such a mode of proceeding would obviate the objection which had previously been made to his motion, on the ground that he was taking the House by surprise. His attention had been drawn to the subject by a knowledge of the situation in which many of the inhabitants of the town which he had the honour to represent, were placed. King-
1103
1104
pro bono publico
1105
1106
pari ratione
Mr. F. Lewis
began by remarking, that the hon. gentleman had stated, that on the previous occasion when he had brought this question before parliament, he had withdrawn it at his (Mr. F. L.'s) suggestion. He now rose to offer another suggestion to the hon. gentleman, which was, that he should change the course he was following, and, instead of asking for a committee of inquiry, at once bring in a bill. In his
1107
1108
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, the right hon. gentleman had entirely mistaken the object and views of his hon. friend. The committee proposed, were not to inquire into the expediency of setting up new rights, but only of restoring those which could be proved to have existed formerly, and which, under particular circumstances, had lapsed. The elective franchise of a freeholder was not a personal right, vested in the individual himself; it belonged to the freehold, and if that was sold, the right of voting was transferred with the property. In the town he had the honour of representing, there was a numerous body of freeholders who could vote neither for the town of Newcastle nor the county of Northumberland. In the time of Henry 4th, the town was separated into a county of itself. This was a privilege and distinction granted to it for the part it had taken in some commotions in the north, in which it had been particularly useful to the government. Originally, the town of Newcastle sent joint-representatives with the county of Northumberland. The first notice was in the 22nd of Edward 1st, when the representatives were styled the members for the united counties of Northumberland and Newcastle-on-Tyne. In three or four years the representation was divided, and Newcastle sent burgesses to parliament under its own charter, and the county sent its members also. The power given by the charter to elect representatives, included all free burgesses, whether by birth or servitude: but it did not, therefore, take away the right of voting from the freeholder. The right hon. gentleman had objected to the committee because he apprehended it would bring on a general inquiry into the whole state of the representation; but his hon. friend had stated that it would be confined to the particular question before the House, and was not to be extended to any general views of reform. If it was the opinion of the House, that his hon. friend should bring in a bill, he had no doubt he would agree to it, but the arguments of the right hon. gentleman as to that point, were singularly inconsistent; for while he had recommended a bill, he had proved the impossibility of entering into the discussion of every circumstance, unless in a committee. He there-
1109
Colonel Sibthorpe
, though an enemy to abstract reform, yet thought that, where a clear case of deprivation of undoubted right, which once existed, had been shown, the House was bound to give it their closest attention. His own opinion was, that in most of the cases of local jurisdiction, a barter was made between the burgesses and the Crown, by which the former were released from the expense of sending representatives to parliament. However, as this might not have been the case with all the places named by the hon. mover, it was but fair to go into an inquiry on the subject.
Lord Lowther
said, that in this discussion one very material point had been overlooked. The information he possessed had been obtained on the investigation of the Warwick case before the House. The objection taken to the admission of the freeholders of Coventry to the right of voting for the county, was, that they could not show that the city of Coventry had ever belonged to the county of Warwick; and that the freeholders of Coventry were, therefore, not subject to the usual duties which devolved on all freeholders of the county. They never served on juries; they were not liable to serve the office of sheriff; nor did they share the expenses of the county, nor pay towards the county rates. If they had lost the franchise on the one hand, they had gained many advantages by it on the other; and he believed, if the question were put to these freeholders in The different parts of the country, whether they would prefer to have the elective franchise restored to them with the ordinary duties that accompanied it, they would decline it. The customs were very different in every one of these instances; and he was convinced, that if the gift of the franchise were offered them, with the attendant responsibilities, they would consider it rather a burthen than a benefit.
The Attorney-general
agreed entirely with his noble friend. The hon. mover proposed to examine each individual case on its own grounds; but this general proposition was founded on a fallacy. The freeholder whose property was situated in a city or town which was a county in itself, could not, in certain cases, vote for the city or town where he was not a freeman,
1110
1111
Sir J. Newport
denied that any such compact was ever entered into, as that upon which the Attorney-general founded his objections to the present motion. He knew that it was not so in Ireland; and he thought it could not be so in England. In the cities of Cork, Dublin, and Limerick, many persons, who could not give a vote for the members of the corporation, had yet the power to vote for the members of the county, and he believed that a similar practice prevailed in England. Where, then, was the compact to which the learned gentleman alluded, and upon which he had laid so much stress? Admitting, however, all that the learned gentleman had asserted upon the subject of these anomalies, he would say to the House, if there be an anomaly producing injury and injustice to a portion of the people, then it is your duty to remove it; rather than to say, like the learned gentleman, "I know this may be an anomaly, and that those persons are deprived of their rights, but we cannot cure the evil, lest it compel us to prosecute more extended inquiries into the state of the representation."
Mr. Wynn
confessed, that the line which, in some cases, separated the inhabitants of borough towns, and deprived them of the right of voting, was an anomaly in our representative system; but then, was not the whole of our system of representation an anomaly? He was disposed to take much the same view of the situation of these persons as his learned friend (the Attorney-general), and to consider that much of the evil had been produced by the lapse of time, and the change of circumstances. In many of the charters
1112
1113
Mr. Alderman Wood
, although a member for the city of London, returned by the livery, felt it due to justice to say, that there was a very large number of freeholders in the city—men of great property —who were unfairly excluded from the privilege of voting for a representative in parliament. It might be unpopular to say so, but he thought this a grievance of which those persons had good reason to complain. It was indeed a matter worthy of consideration, whether, if the franchise could not be conferred upon these persons there ought not to be a fifth representative of the city, in order that the freeholders might have the means of procuring an organ of their opinion. If the honourable member (Mr. Sykes) succeeded in procuring a committee to inquire into the state of corporate towns, he thought the subject might be submitted to its attention.
Mr. Secretary Peel
confessed himself not reconciled to the proposition of the hon. member, by what had fallen from the worthy alderman. The worthy alderman proposed to go into the committee with an intention of subverting the right of the livery of London [No, no, from alderman Wood]. Why, the charter of the city of London was given to the livery upon, grounds with which the possession of a freehold had no concern, and yet the worthy alderman said, he was prepared to go into an inquiry as to the propriety of invading those rights, by giving the freeholders the power of voting for their freeholds.
Alderman Wood
said, across the table, that he wished to give them a power of voting either for a member of the city of London or any where else.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the proposition of the worthy alderman was
1114
1115
Mr. Sykes
, in reply, observed, that his motion had been quite misunderstood. The object of it was not to confer a right, but to declare one which at present existed. The learned Attorney-general had maintained, without adducing a single proof in support of the assertion, that when the charters were granted by the Crown, a compact was entered into, by which the freeholders forfeited their right to vote. Now, he would contend that it was not competent for the Crown to enter into a compact to deprive any party of a legal right. In point of fact, the right never could be taken away; it was in existence to the present moment, and his motion was merely declaratory of its existence. Seeing, however, that the sense of the House was rather against the motion, he begged leave to withdraw it.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn; and Mr. Sykes gave notice, that on Thursday se'nnight he would introduce a bill affirming the right of voting to the freeholders of Hull.
CRIMINAL TRIALS IN SCOTLAND—
The Lord-Advocate
, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to "authorize an additional Circuit Court of Justiciary to be held at Glasgow, and to facilitate Criminal Trials in Scotland," said, he did not anticipate any opposition to the motion. A great deal had been said of the progress of crime in this country, but he was sorry to say that crime in Scotland had kept pace with that increase. A return had been made of the number of criminal commitments in each year, so far back as the year 1805. In that year, the number of criminal commitments for all Scotland amounted only to eighty-five: in 1809 it had risen to between two hundred and three hundred;
1116
1117
Mr. Hume
said, he had heard with great pain the statement made by the learned lord as to the increase of crime in Scotland. He did not think that he had, however, fairly explained the reason of that increase. In his Opinion, a great number of those commitments arose from the difficulties which individuals encountered in obtaining the necessaries of life; and he hoped the time would soon come when things would grow better, and when, in consequence, the growth of crime would be checked. This could only be effected by a general improvement of the situation of the people, and not by the adoption of temporary palliatives. He could not see why the practice of the city of London, with respect to the holding of frequent sessions, should not be followed throughout the country. One great cause of crime was the leaving individuals so long in prison, as their morals suffered by the example of those with whom they were obliged to associate. It would be much better, if, as was the case in the city of London, a session was held every six or eight weeks, at Glasgow and elsewhere.
1118
Mr. Benett
was of opinion that the increase of crime was not produced by an actual growth of vice and immorality amongst the people, but was occasioned by the hardness of the times which reduced the lower orders to the commission of practices of which they would not otherwise be guilty. The remedy proposed by the learned lord was to extend the number of the circuits, and thus to cause justice to be done more promptly. That certainly was desirable; but while he admitted that, he must be allowed to observe, that it would be better to seek out the cause of crime and to check it, than to direct their attention merely to the punishment of offences.
Mr. Kennedy
thought it highly desirable that, measures should be adopted for bringing individuals accused of offences to as immediate a trial as possible. One great evil was the state of the gaols in Scotland. In the condition of those gaols he believed the increase of crime in a great measure to have originated. Nothing could be worse. A person shut up in one of those gaols for four or five months before trial must necessarily suffer such contamination that the punishment that might afterwards be inflicted on him could not be attended with any moral effect.
Sir M. W. Ridley
hoped that the learned lord would take into consideration the disadvantage under which those English counties, which were near the Scotch borders laboured, in consequence of the system of banishment out of Scotland, which formed one of the punishments awarded by the Scottish law. Thus an unfortunate Scotchman, if banished from his native country for his misdeeds, immediately sheltered himself in Northumberland, and was by no means sorry to give tip his peat fire for a comfortable chimney corner in a neighbouring town. For his own part, he could not conceive how this banishment could be considered as a penalty. On this point he could not but quote the opinion of the poet, by whom it had been wittily said,
"Had Cain been Scot, God had revers'd his doom,
Not forced to wander, but remain'd at home."
Mr. H. Drummond
was sorry that there
1119
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.]
Mr. Spring Rice
rose to make the motion of which he had given notice. He hoped that, if any discussion arose upon it, all asperity would be avoided and no topic touched upon that was likely to create angry feeling. Let them argue the principles of the question temperately, and strive to produce the happy result of agreeing upon some plan for the education of Ireland. All that he intended to do was, to make out a case which would warrant the appointment of a committee. For this purpose he would merely refer to the proceedings which had already taken place, and to the state in which the subject now stood. In the year 1806, education in Ireland was for the first time since the Union brought under the consideration of parliament. In that year a commission was appointed under the government of the duke of Bedford. The commissioners had presented fourteen reports between the
1120
l.
l.
l.
1121
Mr. W. Lamb
said, that perfectly concurring with his hon. friend in the advantages that would attend the diffusion of education in Ireland, he nevertheless wished his hon. friend had postponed his proposition to a more favourable opportunity. At present he confessed he was unable to see how it could be advantageously carried into effect. Still he could not refuse the means of eliciting all the information that could be obtained upon the subject. He confessed, however, that he was much less sanguine in his expectations of a beneficial result than was his hon. friend; and, standing in the situation in which he stood, he must be distinctly understood as declining to pledge himself to carry into effect any recommendation of the committee; although he should be most happy to do so, as far as was compatible with an abstinence from incurring any additional public expense, and with the principle of not extinguishing private benevolence.
Mr. Brownlow
was glad that the motion was not to be opposed, as they were now totally without any efficient plan of national education in Ireland. All the schools were under the superintendence of the established church, and were therefore not places of resort to the Catholic. The charter schools of Ireland were certainly looked upon with great jealousy; and, as every society which had education for its object taught the doctrines of the church of England, or actually professed their wish to make converts from the errors of popery, there could be no common feeling between them and the Catholics. Out of the Protestants in Ireland one third were educated at the public expense: of the Catholics not one fourteenth. This made it necessary, that if education in Ireland was to be national, some active steps
1122
1123
Sir J. Newport
thought it better not to enter at present into an examination of subjects which they would have to decide upon after the committee had made their report. Whatever might be the result of the labours of the committee, he was quite sure that much mischief might be done by a previous discussion of the topics which were to engage the attention of that committee. Several reports had been presented to the House, in consequence of a commission which he had had the honour to propose, and he could have wished that the recommendations contained in the last of those reports had been acted upon. As all the reports, however, were to be referred to this committee, whose business it would be, carefully to examine and compare them, he was not without hope that much good might result from their labours.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as his right hon. friend had signified his intention of acquiescing in the proposition, he thought there could be but one opinion as to the propriety of abstaining from all discussion which might have a tendency to provoke the irritable feeling which already existed in Ireland upon this subject, and which, if awakened, was calculated to defeat the great object which all parties had in view. To him the best ground for preferring a parliamentary committee to a commission was, that 40,000
l.
1124
Mr. S. Rice
said, he should be ready to give the committee the power of examining witnesses, if, at a future time, that course should be found necessary; but he was anxious, in the first instance, to confine their attention to the reports of the commissions, in order, if possible, to avoid a mass of fresh evidence, which the desire to affirm contending opinions might multiply without end.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 12.
SAVINGS BANKS.]
Mr. Hume
said, that on a recent occasion he had moved for returns of the accounts of Savings Banks, from the period of their establish-
1125
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1126
Mr. Dawson
saw no objection to the consideration of a subject so important. The hon. member had stated the nature of the system fairly and correctly, and it certainly did seem to require some reform. But he thought there was no necessity for entering on any further details at present; particularly as the subject had been taken up by the chancellor of the Exchequer, who would bring forward some measure for the regulations of these banks during the session.
The motions were agreed to.
IRISH VAGRANTS.]
Lord Stanley
rose to move for a select committee to take into consideration the state of the laws relating to the passing of Irish Vagrants to their own country. The subject was one of great importance to the county of Lancaster, which was at considerable expense in passing Irish vagrants; and he thought the House would agree that it was hard that one county should be put to extraordinary expense, and feel the pressure almost exclusively, in consequence of its local situation. It would appear from the returns, that the numbers passed yearly were very considerable. In 1818, the numbers passed were 6,614; in 1819, 6,138. In 1823, there was an apparent reduction on the face of the returns; but it was only apparent, or if real was owing to temporary causes, as would appear from the subsequent increase. In 1823, the numbers were 1,337; in 1824, 3,043; in 1825, 3,358; and between June 1826, and July 1827, the numbers were 7,988. In fact, the evil had amounted to such a height, that something ought to be done to relieve the county of Lancaster from the burthen imposed upon it from this cause. His intention was, to move for a select committee, to inquire into the subject; and he thought the sooner they met the better, in order that they might decide what sort of returns they would require from the different counties, to enable them to enter into the merits of the case. His lordship concluded, by moving for the appointment of the said committee; which was agreed to.
PROMOTIONS IN THE ARMY.]
Mr. Hume
rose to call the attention of the House to the novel, injudicious, and ruinous mode of proceeding at present adopted with regard to Promotions in the Army. The House was aware that up to the 2nd
1127
l.
l.
1128
l.
l.
1129
Sir James Graham
said, the speed of his hon. friend had disclosed to the House a source of profligate expenditure and of corrupt influence, which required to be checked without delay. His object in rising, was merely to ask the noble lord opposite to give a negative, as he hoped the noble lord could, to questions which he was going to ask him relative to two particular circumstances. He had been given to understand, that a certain officer in the army, who had been employed in the civil service of the country for the last fifteen years, and so employed that he was not allowed, by the rules of the military service, to receive his half-pay, had been allowed, after a lapse of fifteen years, in which he never received a farthing in virtue of his military commissions, to dispose of his half-pay. By that arrangement, a charge, which had had no existence for the last fifteen years, had been thrown upon the public. Now, did, he wished to know, this gentleman still continue in his civil employment? The other question which he had to ask related to a similar transaction in Ireland, where a military officer who had been in the civil service for the last eight years, and whose half-pay had consequently been suspended during that time, had also been allowed to sell his half-pay? He was sure it would be most satisfactory to the House, if he should prove to have been misinformed; but unless the rumours he had alluded to could be positively contradicted, he trusted that some member would move for a committee of inquiry, with a view specifically to inquire into the state of the half-pay, and to ascertain the extent of these disorders in the army.
Lord Palmerston
said, he had no objection to grant the returns called for. He could not, however, but express his surprise that the hon. member for Montrose should seize the present opportunity for going into such details and calculations; for he should have thought that matters of that sort, connected as they were with the army estimates, would have been referred to that committee of finance of which the hon. gentleman was himself a member. He would leave it to the gentlemen who formed that committee, to deal as they thought proper with the opinion which the hon. member had expressed of them, if not in words, at least by inference—an opinion which went the length of telling the country, that they were not
1130
l.
l.
l.
1131
l.
1132
l.
1133
1134
1135
Mr. Maberly
recommended the House to refer this matter to the consideration of the Finance Committee, which he had no doubt would investigate it satisfactorily. He knew that this arrangement had been productive of great benefit to the army; but whether that benefit had been purchased by the country at too great an expense, he could not pretend to decide.
Mr. Calcraft
approved of the arrangements which the noble Secretary had spoken of, as he thought they were such as to increase the efficiency of the army. The army had been improved by the opportunity afforded to young officers to obtain promotion. If the system recommended by his hon. friend had been followed, when war had come, the army would have been officered only by old gentlemen. His hon. friend really put the House out of humour with economy, by his plans for beggaring the service under pretence of reforming it. He was as anxious as his hon. friend for economy; but he would first of all have the establishment on an efficient footing.
The motions were agreed to.
LIFE ANNUITIES ACT.]
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House went into a committee upon the Life Annuities Act, when the right hon. gentleman moved an instruction for leave to bring in a bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Finance Committee, by repealing so much of several acts as empowers the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, to grant Life Annuities.
Lord Althorpe
rose to support the motion, which was absolutely necessary. The facts were shortly these: a statement had been laid before the Finance Committee relative to the financial condition of the country, drawn up in a very able, clear, and satisfactory manner, by the right hon. the Master of the Mint. It appeared, by this exposition, that these annuities had been sold at a considerable loss to the country. The evidence on which this statement was founded, was a letter from Mr. Finlayson to the Treasury. By this letter, the toss to the public was represent-
1136
l.
l.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 14.
ANATOMICAL SCIENCE.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he had a petition to present, which related to a subject of great interest. It came from a body of surgeons, but it could only be presented as the petition of their president, he having signed it in the name of the whole body. It conveyed to their lordships the opinion of the surgical profession, with respect to the state in which that profession were placed, from the total absence of means of procuring bodies for the purpose of dissection. The petitioners stated that, by the law as it now stood, the profession of surgery was placed under the direction of corporations, which required persons engaging in that profession to go through a course of studies, in which the dissection of bodies formed a necessary ingredient;—that it was subjected to considerable penalties for resorting to measures to procure the means of attending that course;—that teachers of anatomy were subject to personal penalties; and that surgeons who had, by no fault of their own, but through the impediments thrown in their way, been debarred from the means of studying, were liable to action and to payment of damages, in consequence of ignorance, resulting from the embarrassments under which they had laboured in procuring the means of prosecuting their studies. The petitioners stated, with respect to the necessity of dissecting the human subject, that scientific men were agreed that no ingenuity which could be exercised in making models, could supply the place of the advantages to be derived from the inspection of the human subject. The moderate degree in
1137
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 14.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
Lord J. Russell
having moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir J. Shelley
opposed the bill, because he thought if this concession were granted, it would pave the way for the admission of the Catholic claims. His right hon. friend near him had come to the same conclusion upon somewhat different grounds. He (sir John) would not make a stepping-stone for Catholic emancipation; and if this bill were passed, the Catholics would be sure to complain that they were the only persons excluded on account of conscience. He had always opposed their applications because he thought them dangerous; and so did his constituents.
Mr. Huskisson
wished to set himself right with the House. What he had said was, that he believed there were a great number of the Dissenters opposed to the Catholic claims, and that they would continue so if the present bill was conceded to them. So far from thinking that this bill would be a stepping-stone to the Catholic question, he thought, on the contrary, that it would damnify it, and on that ground his opposition had been formed.
The bill was read a second time.
1138
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
Lord J. Russell
Mr. Manning
opposed the further progress of the bill; and, after referring to the evidence taken by the House upon the subject, contended that it was not sufficient to warrant the severe course now recommended. James, the petitioner upon whose recognizance the inquiry took place, had admitted, that the whole was a base conspiracy. He also complained, that the bill contained only ten lines referring to Penryn, and seventeen pages relating to Manchester; to which place, without the previous sanction of the House, it was proposed at once to transfer the right of election.
Mr. Stewart
contended, that the bill was contrary to the first principles of justice, and confounded the innocent with the guilty. The present generation was to be visited for the sins of the last, and offences of twenty years' standing were raked up to afford a pretext for disfranchisement. If the noble lord would bring in a bill to inflict an equal punishment upon the giver and the taker of a bribe, it should have his I hearty support: at present the visitation was quite unequal, or rather the most guilty part was allowed to escape. At all events, before the second reading of the bill, it was extremely improper to introduce the name of Manchester.
Mr. D. Barclay
expressed his desire to say a few words in defence of the borough he represented. He argued, that it would be preposterous to act upon the evidence already taken, especially after the proof since afforded that the petition against his hon. colleague originated in a conspiracy. New facts had come out since the last session, which not only justified, but imperatively required, every member, as an act of justice, to change the opinion he had previously formed against the borough of Penryn. A most unfair prejudice had been excited against the character of the borough; and in a petition recently presented from the burgesses, they were willing to place the disfranchisement of Penryn upon the issue of the proof that a conspiracy had existed, founded upon falsehood, and that out of it arose the petition against his hon. colleague. The hon. member (Mr. Manning) had read a letter from one of six conspirators, acknowledging the fact, and that the object was to extort money from the two members.
1139
l.
1140
Mr. Secretary Peel
said:—I rise at this period of the debate, partly because I believe I am already in possession of the various views entertained on this subject, and partly because it is not impossible the line I am about to suggest may meet with the acquiescence of the noble lord, and thus preclude the necessity of a protracted discussion. The bill introduced by the noble lord proposes to declare the absolute disfranchisement of Penryn, and the transfer of that franchise to Manchester. My hon. friend behind me (Mr. Manning), and the hon. gentleman who spoke last, contend, not only against that course, but against the whole of the bill. They deny that there is any ground for the disfranchisement of this borough, and consequently they oppose the transfer of the elective franchise to any other place. On the present occasion I shall speak with reference to that part of the question only. I am for taking an intermediate course. I am prepared to vote in concurrence with so much of the noble lord's proposal as goes to disfranchise the borough of Penryn; but I am not prepared to affirm the proposition of the transfer of that franchise to the town of Manchester. The bill the noble lord has introduced in the present year differs from that affirmed by the House of Commons last year, and sent up to the House of Lords. This bill embraces two distinct objects—one in which the execution of justice is concerned, and which inflicts a penalty on a borough assumed to be delinquent; the other, I which involves a consideration of mere policy, namely, the place to which the franchise shall be transferred. In making these observations, I propose to keep the consideration of these two objects as distinct from each other as they really are in themselves. I shall consider first, what justice requires to be done with regard to the borough of Penryn; and next, what policy suggests we should do with the forfeited franchise, if we should decide that it is to be transferred. 1 am not prepared to concur with the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, in denying the necessity of the disfranchisement of this borough. The question has been already decided by this House; and if we mean to put an end to litigation, we must adhere to the decisions of the House. This subject was under consideration last year; the bill did not pass tacitly through the House, nor without attention being called to it in
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
Lord John Russell
said, he was ready to consent to the course suggested by the right hon. gentleman. Certainly he did not wish to pledge the right hon. gentleman, to the proposition that the franchise should be transferred from Penryn to Manchester. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would have no objection to the bill being committed
pro forma
1146
Mr. A. O'Neill
asked, with what consistency the members of that House could vote for the disfranchisement of this borough on the ground of its corruption? Who of them could lay his hand on his heart, and say, he had never directly or indirectly, induced those who had not the benefit of his education, to commit these crimes for the sake of political power? Such members alone could vote for this bill without impugning their consistency. Of the one hundred and forty-five members who had voted for it last session, two-thirds at least had obtained their seats by the same means. This was not his sentiment, individually, but that of all England, which looked with indignation on the very sub-orners of this perjury sitting in judgment on the perjurers. No member could honestly vote for that bill, unless he could lay his hand on his heart, and declare that he had not expended a single shilling to purchase his return. He would himself vote for the bill, provided he was assured that every member would come forward and state as he divided: ' I, for one, have not been guilty of bribery or corruption; I have never induced a single individual to commit crimes similar to those of which the electors of Penryn have been guilty. But as long as such men sat as the judges, he would vote for the acquittal of the borough. What must be thought of the consistency of the members of the British House of Commons, who made their way into it with agents, bribing right and left? He was not the advocate of bribery, nor against the punishment of corrupt voters; but he would not countenance the inconsistency and injustice of suborning men to commit perjury and afterwards punishing them for it.
The bill was read a second time.
1147
PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Estcourt
wished the measure to be postponed until after the select committee appointed on the motion of a noble lord (Stanley) on the law relating to the passing of Irish vagrants, had made their report. As the law now stood, an Irishman residing in Scotland for three years had a claim for a settlement; but under this bill seven years were required. There was no reciprocity in the measure, it was entirely in favour of Scotland, and against England. Now, he thought that no bill ought to be passed until some general principle that would include the entire empire was agreed upon. He would therefore move, "that the bill be committed on this day six weeks."
Mr. James Grattan
seconded the motion. The House ought to proceed on a general principle, and not with reference to any particular part of the empire. If this bill was passed, it would have the effect ten or eleven years hence, of excluding all Irish labourers from Scotland.
Mr. Kennedy
denied any such intention. On the contrary, he regarded the Irish as a valuable class of men, who had conferred great benefits upon Scotland. The hon. member had declared that there was no reciprocity in this matter; but he seemed to forget that England possessed that which Scotland had not, namely, a law of removal. If he were to ask the House to grant him a law of removal for Scotland, he did not think it would be refused; but still he did not ask for it, because it could not be carried into effect without a parochial rate levied upon each parish. That remedy for the evil, therefore, he did not seek, because it would create another evil, which the people of Scotland were most desirous to avoid. They only asked for a better term of settlement; and he really thought the propositions of his bill both moderate and reasonable. The committee of the noble lord merely professed to inquire into the passing of vagrants; but as Scotland had no power to pass, he conceived that no good could result from delay. He did not wish to put a stop to the passage of the Irish into Scotland, but he wished to put an end to the migratory disposition of the Irish and, by compelling them to settle in one place instead of roaming through the country, to make
1148
Mr. S. Rice
said, that if he saw anything in the bill which could be rendered injurious to his country he would oppose it. No Subject, however, could be of more importance than the constant emigration of the Irish population. If left to follow its course unopposed, it must be attended with consequences the most calamitous. He was friendly to the present bill because he thought that this country should not add to the inducements which brought the starving population of Ireland from their homes, and hold out the temptation of settlement in England or Scotland, in addition to the high wages and means of living which they at present afforded them. He thought it but just and expedient, that an Irish family should not be able to acquire a right of settlement upon the same terms and with the same ease as a family of English.
Mr. Peel
wished the bill to be postponed until it should be seen what bearing it had upon a measure, somewhat similar, with respect to Scotland, which was about to be proposed.
Mr. Kennedy
acquiesced in the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and the further consideration of the bill was postponed to the 2nd of May; as was also the Scotch Vagrants bill.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that his hon. colleague had last session brought the subject of the Supply of Water to the western part of the Metropolis before the House, and he understood that a commission had been appointed to inquire into the subject. He wished to ask the right hon. Secretary what progress had been made in that commission. He begged also to suggest that its terms might be enlarged, and that if the commissioners found any defect in the supply they should be empowered to inquire into and suggest the remedy.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the commission was appointed by his predecessor, Mr. Sturges Bourne. The individuals composing that commission were Dr. Roget, Mr. Telford, a civil engineer, and Mr. Brande the chemist, three gentlemen of eminence in their respective professions. When he had come into office, he was applied to by the commissioners to know if he would sanction the taking of certain
1149
Mr. Hobhouse
concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Secretary, that the business of taking levels would be better left to individual speculation. But perhaps it would be as well to add so much new matter to the instructions of the commissioners as would authorise them, if they found the present system defective, to consult upon and suggest a remedy.
Mr. Peel
said, that the commission already possessed that power, and the right hon. gentleman then moved for a copy of the commission and correspondence, the production of which was agreed to.
LICENSING SYSTEM.]
Mr. Estcourt
rose in conformity with the notice which he had given. It would, he said, better answer the object which he had in view not to enter into any discussion on the present occasion. If the House would allow him, he would bring in the bill, for the purpose of having it read a first and second time, and committed
pro forma
1150
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had been a member of the committee above stairs upon the bill, and thought the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. gentleman for his exertions.
The bill was then read a first and second time.
1151
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 17.
TITHES' COMMUTATION BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had given notice, that before this bill went into a committee, he should move that it be an instruction to the committee, that they should have the power to limit the duration of any bargain or agreement entered into under the provisions of this measure to twenty-one years. He objected to this bill as it stood at present, because it appeared to him to be pregnant with injustice to the church of England. As it was now constituted, it enabled parties to enter into agreements to determine, for ever, the future stipend to be paid to ministers of the church of England. If this principle were acted on, it would be fraught with manifest injustice; for he could see no reason, why a calculation of the receipts of any given living for the last seven or fourteen years should be laid down as the allotted stipend of a minister of the church of England for all future time. Suppose such a system had been adopted two hundred years ago, what would have been its effect on the church of England? In what situation would that church have now been placed, if, two hundred years ago, provision had been made for fixing, on the ratio of the past receipts, the future stipends of the ministers of the church of England? Surely it would have created manifest injustice in many individual instances; and it would evidently have lowered the condition of its ministers as compared with other classes of the community. He might be told that the provisions of this bill would not be generally found unjust, because in several parishes, where perhaps cultivation might retrograde, the value of the produce would, at a future period, be less than it was at present, and that therefore the gains of the clergy in these parishes might be viewed as a set-off against the losses which they might sustain in other parishes where cultivation had been extended. Now, he did not wish any portion of the clergy to gain in this way, because he did not think it would be satisfactory to any party. He would suppose the commutation of a certain parish fixed at 500
l.
l
1152
l.
l.
1153
l.
Mr. Benett
said, that this bill was founded on the same principle as the inclosure bills, by which corn-rents were reserved to the clergy; the amount of which were not fixed beyond seven years, and generally not for so long a period, and which changed with the value of corn. Bills of this kind had been passed in numberless instances, with the consent of all parties, including the bishops. The cultivation of waste lands could not be attempted in this country, without giving one third of the money expended to the tithe-owner. This was not the case if the same money was applied to burning bricks; and thus an inducement was held out to build houses and factories in preference to cultivation. If the limitation proposed by the right hon. gentleman was carried, no man would venture to expend his money in cultivating waste land. Though the tithe-owner would receive nothing additional from him during the twenty-one years of the agreement, before the profit resulting from the improvement commenced, yet when it did commence at the end of that time, the tithe-owner would enter and take one third of the produce of the land. That was the ground of his objection to the Irish act, and he was sorry to hear it had been acted upon to such an extent as the right hon. gentleman had stated. The consequence would be, that an enormous property would be sacrificed, which would prevent any future attempt to cultivate the bogs and waste lands of that country. He had been personally attacked, because he had suggested that it was desirable to have the tithes of this country commuted. Now he was sure no party
1154
Mr. Secretary Peel.
But not according to the improved value of the land.
Mr. Benett.
Certainly not: and he contended that the tithe-owner had no right to any share of his capital. If the instruction was carried, he trusted the hon. gentleman would withdraw the bill; for so limited, he feared it would do a great deal of mischief.
The Attorney-general
said, he agreed entirely with his right hon. friend in the view he had taken of this bill. The object of the measure was a perpetual, irrevocable alienation of the inheritance for a money-rent, to be regulated by the price of corn. He admitted that there was some ground for the topic so generally urged, that the agriculturist would not improve his land, because he could only make an agreement with the existing incumbent for his life; but he thought the period of twenty-one years would be satisfactory to the tenant, and that was the principle of the Irish act, of which he entirely approved. By that measure, there was an alienation of the tithes for twenty-one years for a money-rent. But this bill introduced a new principle, going beyond the Irish act. Another very important question related to the difficulties which would attend these commutations. Taken as accurately as they might be, how could they be definitively ascertained? Who could, in every instance, decide exactly what the church was entitled to? There might be some
1155
Mr. Greene
could not help thinking that the right hon. Secretary's opinion had been somewhat biassed by the sentiments of his constituents; but he must submit to the House, that the members of the two Universities knew less about parochial tithes than any other persons in the kingdom. Living in their respective colleges, they knew nothing about the bargains which were made with farmers, and the painful situations in which clergymen and their parishioners were placed in consequence of those bargains. Nothing would be more likely to induce clergymen to reside upon their livings than the removal of the present system; nothing more likely to increase the number of non-residents than the continuance of it. This bill merely went to reduce to a system the powers which the House had so given by other bills. A considerable number of Commutation bills had been passed; but they were so mixed up with Inclosure bills, that fee had not been able to ascertain their
1156
Mr. E. Davenport
stigmatised the present system of taking tithes, as one of the most oppressive that could be devised. After stating some instances which had come to his knowledge of the vexatious methods by which lay proprietors had, at various times, attempted to alter the modus upon hay, and other articles of produce, the hon. member proceeded to observe, that length of possession, which, in all other cases, tended to strengthen a right, had a directly opposite effect in any contest with the church; for although the contract under which a person paid his tithes might be of even two centuries' duration, the person who defended his right upon the strength of its terms was bound to the production of the deed. This, too, had another bad effect; for if any ancestor of any landholder had been guilty of any act of generosity, and had raised the amount of an incumbent's tithes without wishing it to continue beyond his life, the church immediately turned round upon him, and exacted that sum as a positive and direct modus. Great and numerous as were the evils in our legal system, in his opinion, the evils of the system of taking tithes exceeded them all; and he hoped that the proposition of the right hon. Secretary, which went to smother the principle of the bill, would not receive the sanction of the House.
Mr. Estcourt
did not think it fair in his hon. friend, to infer that the mind of the right hon. Secretary had been warped by the sentiments of his constituents. He was quite sure that his own was not. Nor could he admit that the University of Oxford was incompetent to decide upon a
1157
Mr. Hume
said, it had been asked by the right hon. Secretary, what would be the state of the Established Church now, if the stipends of the clergy had been fixed two centuries ago? He would answer this question by a reference to the Church of Scotland, where a settlement for the payment of a fixed stipend to the clergy had been introduced two centuries ago. There the clergy were nevertheless respected, and in the enjoyment of moderate affluence, although they had not the power which the clergy in this country exercised of imposing tithes on every acre of waste land that was brought into cultivation. The people were contented and happy; they paid cheerfully an ascertained sum, and were not brought into the unpleasant collision with the clergy which prevailed in this country. The evil of the tithe system in this country was, that tithe was not chargeable on the soil only, but on every improvement which might be made upon it. This was a tax upon capital as well as land. It operated, besides, to prevent persons from bringing waste lands into cultivation, which would give employment to the people, and supersede the necessity of concerting plans to
1158
Colonel Wood
denied that the exaction of tithes had been any bar to the cultivation of waste lands in England, for no such lands could be enclosed without acts of parliament; and in all the acts passed of late years, the tithe had been commuted. He hoped that the temporary course would be acquiesced in, as the measure was likely to be highly beneficial to the country, and would fall to the ground if the original plan was inflexibly adhered to.
Mr. Baring
said, it never was the feeling of that House to propose any bill that would have for its object any advantage over the church; but it was a principle felt throughout the country that some arrangement should be made to prevent, if possible, the perpetual wranglings between the clergy and their parishioners. The right hon. gentleman did not recommend
1159
Mr. R. Grant
approved of the instruction to the committee proposed by the right hon. gentleman. It was expedient, in his opinion, to limit the duration of any agreement; otherwise the measure would be an injustice both to the clergy and the parishioners, and, of the two, he doubted if the injustice would not be greater to the parishioners. The Tithe Commutation bill in Ireland, corresponding to the measure now before the House, had been attended with great advantage to that country, and he anticipated the same benefit from the present one. There was such difference only between the two measures as was rendered expedient by the difference in the situations of the two countries. The hon. member expressed his concurrence in the adoption of the average price of corn as the modus for regulating the tithe in this country. He could have no objection to a more comprehensive measure which might pour a healing balm on the animosities that too frequently existed between a clergyman and his parishioners. But he thought it impossible that they could adopt a permanent commutation on the
1160
Sir J. Newport
rose principally to guard the House from conceiving that what might be applicable to the state of Ireland on this subject was,
ex necessitate rei
1161
Sir M. W. Ridley
recommended to the hon. member who introduced this bill to adopt the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. As to the machinery of the bill itself, he thought that unless it was made more advantageous to the payers, the bill would be altogether inoperative. At the same time he agreed that it would be better to have this bill with the proposed limitation than none at all.
Mr. Secretary Peel
wished to make a few observations. The hon. member for Newcastle had expressed his apprehension, that if the bill was passed as it stood, the provisions of it would seldom be carried into execution. That was precisely what he (Mr. Peel) wished to avoid. He wished to have a bill that should frequently be acted on, because it was founded on the principles of justice. The hon. member for Callington had said, that the House ought not to allow themselves to be dictated to by a University. Now, nothing had fallen from him which rendered such an observation necessary. It was his duty to state to the House any opinion which might be entertained by his constituents. The hon. member would no doubt act in the same way by his constituents; and he really did not know what there was in the University of Oxford to disentitle it to be heard in that House by its representative. On the contrary, if any body was entitled to be heard with favour it was the clergy, when the subject under consideration related to the interests of the church.
The House divided: For the instruction to the committee 81. Against it 29. Majority 52.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 18.
SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF
Lord King
said, it was with great satisfaction that he saw so large an assembly of reverend prelates, as he
1162
l.
l.
l.
1163
l.
l.
l.
l.
1164
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1165
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1166
The Bishop of London
said, that the petition was incorrect in many particulars, and a spirit of misrepresentation pervaded it throughout. Hemustsay, that the great misfortune of the society was, that it had been chosen by the government to be the means of conveying aid to the clergy of the established church in America. It was in 1813, that the government had first given pecuniary assistance through the society. The noble lord might imagine that 70
l.
l.
1167
l.
1168
Lord King
said, that the real question to consider was, whether the society did or did not mismanage the funds it received from the public. He would, on Friday next, move for a committee to inquire into the conduct of the society.
Earl Bathurst
said, there was no ground for the imputations which had been cast upon the society. From every opportunity he had had of examining into its conduct, he could bear witness to its zeal, probity, and discretion. The service of North America constituted but a small part of its duties. The society held an extensive correspondence with all parts of the world, and the charge of 600
l.
1169
l.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that, from all he knew of the society, it had no reason whatever to shrink from any inquiry that might be instituted into its conduct. He should rather be the advocate for the inquiry proposed; but he thought the House, after what they had heard from the noble lord opposite, must be satisfied, that it would be dealing most unsparingly to refuse to judge of the real merits of the society, merely upon what had passed in that House. With respect to the proceedings of the society in North America, he was by no means sufficiently informed to speak in a satisfactory manner; but from what he did know of the general management of the funds by the society, he should be inclined to think that its resources were applied in North America usefully, beneficially, and with judgment. There were a hundred millions of individuals who had claims upon this country, and when this was considered, the House might form some idea of the immense field of labour on which the religious societies had entered. They were diffusing spiritual assistance to people who were living, not in the practice of harmless immoralities, but in habits of
1170
Ordered to lie on the table.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.]
Lord Holland
said, he rose to present a petition, numerously and respectably signed by the Protestant Dissenters and other inhabitants of Norwich, praying for a repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. He had several other petitions of a similar description. It was not his intention, in presenting them, to anticipate any discussion which was likely to arise when the most important subject to which they related should be brought before their lordships. It had been his fate for twenty years to present similar petitions. His feelings on those occasions had not been different from what they were at the present moment with respect to the merits of the petitions, and the course which ought to be pursued. It had ever been his opinion, that the prayers of those petitions were founded upon justice, policy, and reason: it had always been his conviction, that the persons interested had claims upon the indulgence, and even upon the gratitude, of the government. Hitherto he had presented those petitions doubting of any great advantage in presenting them; but now, when he looked to the votes of the Commons of England, he did say that he presented the petition with a perfect feeling, that the time was not far off when this great measure would receive the sanction
1171
CRIMINAL LAW.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne
pari passu
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
The bills were then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 18.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Sir F. Burdett
rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress had been made by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the State of the Supply of Water to the Metropolis.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that, upon a former occasion, when the same question had been put to him by the hon. baronet's colleague, he had endeavoured to give a plain and intelligible answer. He had stated, that on his return to the office which he had then the honour to fill, he had found that one of his predecessors, Mr. Sturges Bourne, had appointed a commission to inquire into the supply of water to the metropolis, and that a question had arisen as to the extent of power bestowed on the individuals appointed as commissioners under it. He had been called upon to decide that question, and his answer was, that he should be governed entirely by the view which had been taken of it by the right hon. gentleman who had appointed the commission. Upon inquiry he found that it was the opinion, not only of Mr. Sturges Bourne, but also of the marquis of Lansdowne, who had succeeded to his office, that the powers which had been conferred on the commissioners were sufficiently ample for all the objects contemplated in the commission. It gave them power to examine witnesses upon oath, and to make all such inquiries as they should deem necessary, to show the present state of the supply of water to the metropolis, and to determine its quality, quantity, description, and salubrity. A question had likewise arisen, as to whether the
1178
1179
Mr. S. Bourne
rose merely to confirm the statement of his right hon. friend. However, as he was upon his legs, he could not help expressing his surprise that the report of this commission had not been presented long ago. He thought that all that the commission had to ascertain was, whether the quality of the water now supplied to the metropolis was good, and whether its quantity was sufficient. He imagined that the labours, which they were appointed to discharge, might be discharged in so short a period that he had nearly limited in the commission the time within which they were to make their report; and he had only been prevented from so doing by a petition having been presented from Southwark, praying that the labours of the commissioners might be extended, to inquire into the supply of water on their side of the Thames. He had appointed on the commission one of the most able physicians, and one of the most eminent chymists, of the present day, in order that the public might have the benefit of the ablest opinions on the salubrity of the water; and he had added an excellent engineer to their number, in order that they might avoid the expense of employing individuals to take levels for them, and might have in their own body a gentleman who could give them the most satisfactory information upon all such matters.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that if the commission was merely appointed to analyze the water which was supplied to the metropolis, it was wasting its time in a very idle
1180
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
The order of the day was read for going into a committee on this bill. On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
1181
Mr. Sturges Bourne
said, that, from the unavoidable absence of his honourable friend, the member for Devonshire (sir T. D. Acland) it had fallen to his lot to undertake the task of laying before the House a proposition which, he trusted, would have the effect of uniting the suffrages of both parties on this great question, and which, while it extended the liberties of the Dissenters would amply provide for the security of the church. He regretted the absence of his hon. friend, because it had deprived the proposition of the influence which it would have received from his talents and weight of character. On the former discussion of this question, there had been so much ability displayed, and, he was happy to add, so much temper and moderation shewn by the noble lord and his supporters, as materially to add to the effect with which they pressed their considerations upon the House. They had already determined, by no equivocal majority, that the Sacramental tests now in existence ought to be abolished. He knew that there were among the members who composed that majority, very different feelings on that subject. Some considered every sort of test as improper; others thought it a desirable object to have some tests, but agreed, that Sacramental Tests were at least inefficient, while all concurred in opinion, that it was bad to continue a system which led to a revolting profanation of a most solemn rite of religion. That such were the opinions of those who formed that majority he had no doubt. He believed he might say with the same degree of confidence, that his right hon. friend, and those who supported him, would not think he was doing them an injustice when he stated, that he did not suppose they were opposed to the abolition of the Tests now in existence if others could be substituted, that would afford a proper degree of security to the church. He had little doubt that they would be thankful to him or to any one else, who should propose a step by which they might be exempted from a course that would seem to lay them open to such an imputation. These circumstances had induced him to hope, that some proposition might be made which would put an end to all objections, and render the abolition of the existing Tests in every way feasible. To those who had resisted the motion of the noble lord on a former evening, he would beg leave to say a few words, in or-
1182
1183
Lord Eastnor
, in seconding the motion, said, he could assure the noble lord, that though he had formed one of the minority
1184
1185
Lord John Russell
said, that he was ready thus early to offer himself to the notice of the House upon the new question submitted for their consideration. The noble lord who spoke last was right in saying that neither he nor any of his friends had either proposed or prepared any test as a substitute for those which they were anxious to revoke. On the contrary, they had asked for the total repeal of the existing law, on general principles of justice and policy, without having it in their contemplation to propose any substitute in lieu of the oath required by the Established Church. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, he could not help thinking that unqualified repeal was what was meant by the great majority who had pronounced their opinions upon this subject on a former night. There had been, undoubtedly, an opinion expressed by an hon. friend of his, that it would be better to have a bill of suspension than one of repeal; but he could not bring himself to believe that many had concurred in a proposition of that nature. Before, however, he went further in his allusions to the general subject, or entered upon the specific proposition of the right hon. gentleman, he hoped the House would allow him to congratulate them upon the different condition in which this great question was now placed, from that it had occupied on any former occasion. They had no longer to inquire into the essential differences which formed the barrier between the established and dissenting churches, or whether or no Dissenters were worthy of holding places of trust and office. They had no longer to combat any of those theological distinctions or subtleties, which had been interposed in the form of striking difficulties, and most improperly, as he had always thought, where the question really was the adjustment of civil duties. They had no longer to grapple with that ancient principle, which provided, that no man was worthy to serve the state, of which he was a social member, unless he belonged to the creed of the dominating church. It was a source, he thought, of real satisfaction, that the question now came before them stripped of these incumbrances. It was put fairly and plainly in a different form by the right hon. gentleman, who had, in his amendment, proposed no assertion of the obsolete principle of inherent re-
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that when this question was last under the consideration of the House, he had asked the noble lord, with the most perfect sincerity on his part, as well as for those who thought with him on this subject, for a short delay, to obviate, if possible, his final resistance to some general and fair arrangement. He had, in fact, merely asked the noble lord to give those who had" at first opposed him a reasonable opportunity of maturely deliberating on the course which it was most important they should pursue to attain a satisfactory adjustment, an opportunity which, even under ordinary circumstances, he could have hardly thought would have been refused. That request he had made with an earnest determination to apply his mind for the fair purpose for which he had asked it; namely, to consider what arrangement could then be made to settle this important question. He was induced to make the request, because he found that a considerable majority of the House of Commons had, upon fair and full debate, pronounced their opinion, that an alteration in the existing law was desirable. He repeated, that this delay he had asked with the sincerest disposition to apply his mind to the consideration of what way any arrangement could be effected with the general consent of those whose consent was indispensable for the success of the measure, and with the intention also of conciliating the feelings of the Dissenters themselves, and the other great party in the country who felt themselves concerned in the result. He wished, in fact, to see how far he could reconcile the sincere adherents of the Church of England, who must feel a deep interest in any change of this nature, to the change which the Dissenters were, under favourable auspices, desirous of accomplishing. The delay he had asked for this purpose had, however, been refused him; and refused, too, with a degree of injustice and indiscretion which he could hardly, under such circumstances, have expected. It was said that his motives were not honest, and that he wanted to get rid of the question by an artifice [cries of "No" and of "Hear"]. Most assuredly such motives had been imputed to him on the occasion to which he alluded, but he begged now to assure the noble lord, that whatever injustice had been personally inflicted upon him, and whatever motives had been unfairly imputed to him, it was impossible that any thing which had passed could seriously affect
1191
in limine,
1192
pro tanto
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
Lord Sandon
said, he was one of a large majority who had voted the other evening for the unconditional repeal of these Tests; but if the measure could not be carried without some condition, he would assent to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman rather than endanger the final success of the bill.
Mr. Fergusson
said, that no reflections had been cast on the Church of England; on the contrary, every one had admitted that the conduct of the laity, clergy, and prelates, of that Church had been, on this occasion, signally liberal. He was ready to adopt the Declaration proposed, and more if it were required; but he must first be satisfied that it was necessary to the security of the Church of England. What the House had now to decide was, whether any instruction should be given to the committee to impose any such declaration as the right hon. gentleman had moved. Now, he would ask any hon. member whether the security of the Church of England was not greater at that moment than at any antecedent period since these acts had been passed? The Church had received all the safeguards it could possess, by the solemn national compacts
1199
Mr. Wynn
said, that when he had voted in the majority on this bill, he had not voted for the repeal of these acts, in the expectation that any declaration, oath, or security, whatever, would be required from the Dissenters. His reason for having no such expectation was, not that he did not feel as ardent a zeal for the maintenance of the Church of England as any man—and he trusted that the great majority of those who had voted with him shared the same sentiments—but that he diet not see the danger to be provided against. He did not believe that any real security had ever resulted to the Church from the existence of these acts;
1200
Lord Althorpe
also objected to the proposed Declaration. He was an advocate for simple repeal, unaccompanied by any conditions, and would object to adding any new oaths or declarations to those prescribed to be taken by the people of this country. They were in this instance unnecessary, and afforded no security whatever to the Church. After, however, the pledge given by the right hon. gentleman, he should be sorry to oppose his proposition; and he preferred the Declaration introduced by the right hon. gentleman, to the other, for this reason, that it was simple and more moderate. He would, however, have opposed this provision, if it had been accompanied by any penalty similar to that now incurred by the omission of the Sacramental Test; for, in that case, in
1201
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that if he felt any wish unsatisfied with respect to this question, it was because any declaration was called for. If the proposition of his noble friend had been acceded to in its original form, he should have considered it the greatest possible triumph of liberal principles and opinions. But, when he was told by high authority, that in pursuing the course recommended by the right hon. Secretary, they might indulge in the hope of final success, he was ready to unite his recommendation with that of others to the noble lord, in order to induce him to agree to the proposition which had been made.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he had come down to the House on a former occasion as on the present, to enter on a full exposition of the great principles of Protest ant dissent, and to vindicate them from every
1202
Mr. William Smith
likewise rose amid loud cries of "question." He observed, that he felt it would be ill taste in him to take up much of the time of the House, and he would therefore endeavour not to detain it beyond a few minutes; but when those who had known him long recollected that he had for a term of forty years been looking forward for what he now saw almost, as it were, within his grasp, and likewise within the grasp of thousands with whom he had been long and intimately connected, he trusted that they and the House would rather give him credit for not having sooner obtruded himself on their notice, than for an unfair wish to utter a few words, which, he was happy to say, would be very much in unison with what had fallen that evening from the hon. members who had preceded him. In the first place, he was willing to treat with the respect due to them honest and ancient prejudices; and he would also say, when he saw those prejudices wearing away day after day,—whether in consequence of the march of intellect or from what other cause—he thought that what still remained of those ancient prejudices did not require much to be sacrificed to them, and he could not but
1203
1204
1205
1206
Lord John Russell
begged leave to remind the right hon. Secretary, that he had, on a former occasion, declared that, at the time when the bill was about going
1207
1208
Mr. Peel
said, the Declaration he had proposed was applicable to none, except those who were about to fill offices. If the Declaration was extended to Scotland, which he did not propose to do, it would have the effect of placing members of the Church of England in the situation of Dissenters.
The Speaker then left the chair, and the House went into a committee, Mr. R. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. Peel
said, that he had drawn up the Declaration, but as to the machinery of the bill he could say nothing. He entertained a confident hope that the insertion of that condition would ensure the success of the measure. He had drawn up the clause on his own view of the case, but he had not had an opportunity of consulting any professional person on it.
The bill went through the committee.
PASSENGERS' REGULATION BILL.]
On the motion, that this bill be read a second time,
Mr. Warburton
said, that when he first heard of this bill, he supposed that if a few comforts were added to the passengers while on board the vessels, all the objections to the present system would be obviated; but, on reading the papers laid before the House, he found that the objections did not relate solely to inconveniences of the voyage, but to the principle on which voluntary emigration was now conducted. The complaints of the colonists against this principle resolved themselves into two points; first, that the emigrants were paupers; secondly, that they were chosen from the disaffected classes. Every page of this correspondence contained allegations of this nature. Now, the reasons assigned by the colonists, why unlimited emigration ought not to be thus allowed, were the very reasons which were urged by English and Irish gentlemen before the committees of 1824, 1825, and the committee of last year, and by the Roman Catholic priests, in order to prove that emigration ought to be encouraged as much as possible. The former object to receiving paupers and persons from disaffected districts, and the
1209
l.
s
s
1210
Mr. V. Stuart
said, it appeared to him that this bill merely consisted of regulations which secured sufficient space for the passengers during the voyage; he could not, therefore, understand by what party, or on what ground, so useful a measure was to be opposed. As to the Irish shipowners, if they meant to do what was right, they could have no objection to do it under an act of parliament, and if they did not, then the sooner they were made to do it the better. In his opinion the bill encouraged rather than retarded emigration, and he therefore should support it.
Mr. Robinson
perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Waterford, who in a few words, had placed the subject in the right point of view. If the hon. member opposite would carefully examine the information which had been received from the different governors—information which put speculation at defiance—he would find that a case had been made out so strong as to warrant the House in restoring the provisions of a bill which had unfortunately been repealed a year or two ago. He could not understand why the hon. member, in arguing against the provisions of this bill, should have gone into the great question of emancipation. The bill certainly had a bearing on that question; but the hon. member had argued as if it
1211
Mr. J. Grattan
considered the present measure to be one designed more for the benefit of the colonies, than for the advantage either of England or Ireland. In his opinion it was calculated to impede emigration rather than to promote it. He was desirous of affording every facility to the purposes of free emigration. The inspection of the vessels was a measure to which he had no objection, but he did not think it necessary to sanction a bill imposing such restrictions as the present. At all events, it was desirable to go into a committee on the bill; as it certainly was one which should not be hastily adopted.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the real question before it. He was not disposed to enter into a discussion upon the general question of emigration: that was a subject which would require a more extended line of argument than hon. members would be inclined to listen to at so late a period of the evening. He could not agree that the question of emigration was so extremely simple, that the House would be justified in saying, "if it be right to encourage emigration, then it is unnecessary to take any care of the manner in which the parties emigrating are transported to the country of their destination.' The hon. member for Bridport had spoken of those parties as if they had no claim upon the consideration of the country in which they had been born, and in which they had devoted many years of their lives to labour, until peculiar circumstances in the condition of that country rendered their further services superfluous or inapplicable. Under such circumstances he could not consent to speak of these people—the most helpless and uninformed of the community—as of a mere commodity which was the subject of export from one locality to another. It had surprised him to hear the hon. member lay down those doctrines of political philosophy and medical science which he had brought
1212
1213
1214
Mr. Hume
said, he was surprised to find the professed advocate of free trade supporting a bill like that before the House. Honourable gentlemen seemed to forget that the object of emigration was, not to send out of the country the choicer portion of its inhabitants, but to provide for those who were in a state of excessive poverty, and had no means of obtaining employment. The whole of the provisions of the Passengers' acts had been calculated to do nothing but mischief, and the trade of carrying emigrants must have stopped if they had not been evaded. The stores required to be put on board were perfectly unsuited to the habits of the persons who were to use them. The Irish were made sick by the diet of beef ' and pudding; and the right hon. gentleman talked of providing biscuit on board. Who wanted biscuit? For the Scotch he would answer, that oatmeal and water was all that was necessary. The business of emigration had gone on very well without any restrictions until the year 1817, and then, because one or two cases of abuse arose, the trade was cramped with laws which, if they had not been evaded, would have put an end to it entirely. He could not see the consistency of this conduct on the part of the right hon. gentleman, the advocate of the principles of free trade. It was an odd change in the tactics of the right hon. gentleman; but it was not quite his first, and he went on wavering. He had begun well; now he was going on not quite so well; and it was difficult to say where he would land at last. For himself, he was against the bill altogether. He would have no interference whatever with the Irish who might wish to emigrate. Every arrangement by legislation would be only injurious to them. He trusted, therefore, that the House would reject the measure altogether.
Sir J. Newport
said, he considered the present bill as an innovation on the freedom of trade. For fifty years the system of emigration had been going on without any legislative interference; and no evils had arisen from the want of such regulations as the present. He thought it was unfair
1215
l.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he could easily explain the difference of opinion between himself and the right hon. baronet on this subject. If the right hon. bart. thought that the colonies would gladly receive the forced population of Ireland, which some gentlemen of that country encouraged for the purpose of raising their rents, if he thought that redundant population, no matter how wretched and destitute in its condition, would be gladly received on their arrival in the colonies, he was right in opposing any regulations as to the mode of their transfer from the country. If the right hon. baronet thought that every man ejected from his small farm and miserable hut, by the system of law now in force in Ireland, was to be willingly received, the moment he reached the shores of our colonies, he might be right in opposing any measure which, in his opinion, would tend to restrict emigration; but the right hon. baronet was wrong in assuming that such would be the case. The whole of the information laid before the committee on emigration proved that the colonists had no
1216
1217
1218
Mr. Stanley
admitted the great zeal and perseverance of his right hon. friend on the subject of emigration, and the readiness with which, in the course of his labours in the committee, he had attended to every humane suggestion that had been made. He was sorry, however, that he had on this occasion deviated so much from the question before the House, and mixed up a theoretical question with one; which was purely practical. With the opinions of his right hon. friend on the bill, he fully concurred. The right hon. baronet, and the hon. member for Montrose, had argued the question as if their only object was to get rid of the superabundant population, no matter how, but at the cheapest possible rate. The representations on which the government had acted were, he contended, such as they could not refuse to attend to; and all these had concurred in stating, that the colonies would not receive the miserable and almost unserviceable crowds who went out in search of employment. The consequence was, that some such measure as
1219
Mr. P. Thompson
contended, that his hon. friends did not oppose this billon the ground of particular restrictions. All they asked was, that it should go to a committee up-stairs, to inquire whether any restrictions were necessary, and if any thing could prove that the House was not the best place where such inquiry should be made, it would be the tone and temper in which the Secretary for the colonies had addressed the House upon it. He gave great credit to that right hon. gentleman for his principles of free trade, and wished him joy of his steady adherence to them. The maxim of the right hon. gentleman on this occasion seemed to be,
"— Video meliora proboque,
Deteriora sequor."
1220
Mr. S. Worthy
said, he had been a member of the Emigration committee, and from all that had there appeared, there was no one who could doubt that some regulations were necessary, and more particularly as the season was now approaching when emigration would take place. He therefore would give his support to the bill.
Mr. Baring
said, that the only question was whether there ought to be a committee up stairs to examine further into the subject, or whether they should at once decide the question.
Sir J. Beresford
said, he had had frequent opportunities of conversing with governors and admirals stationed in the colonies, who all concurred in bearing testimony to the sufferings of the miserable emigrants whose necessities had driven them to seek shelter in a foreign country.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 20.
BUENOS-AYRES AND BRAZIL.]
Lord Strangford,
seeing his noble friend the Secretary of State in his place, wished to solicit his attention to a matter of the utmost importance to the commercial interests of this country. He alluded to the fatal operation upon those interests, of that most absurd and mischievous warfare which had so long been permitted to subsist between the states of Buenos Ayres and Brazil. Some time ago his noble friend had given hopes to the merchants connected with the South American trade, that the influence of the British government would be used to put an end to the state of things under which the commerce of this country had so long suffered. He could not doubt of the zeal and earnestness with which that influence had been employed; but he feared that hitherto it had produced no effect in restoring peace, for at least one of the parties to that war continued to commit acts, in some instances of such atrocious barbarity against the persons of English merchants, as, he verily believed, were never equalled, unless by the deeds
1221
l.
l.
Earl Dudley
said, it was undoubtedly true, that war had been going on for a considerable time between Buenos Ayres and Brazil, which had been attended with great mischief to the commerce and navigation of his majesty's subjects. He could assure their lordships, however, that almost from the beginning of that war, and ever since he had the honour to hold office, no endeavour on our part had been omitted to produce peace, but on the contrary, efforts to obtain that object had been anxiously made with zeal and diligence, both by his majesty's ministers at home, and his envoys at Buenos Ayres and Rio. Hitherto, unfortunately, those efforts had been without effect, but he could assure their lordships, that he was fully justified in the hope which he held out on a former occasion of the approaching' reconciliation of the parties. Of course it was impossible for him to speak on a subject of this nature with complete certainty; but he could say, that that hope, which had never been entirely extinguished, had been strongly revived by the last accounts which had been received from South America. At the same time he wished to be understood as making that statement with that caution with which all such statements ought to be made. He hoped that in a short time peace would be concluded, and
1222
1223
Lord Strangford
thanked his noble friend for the communication; and though he would think him very ungracious, he must say, that on one of the powers his noble friend could not expect that his recommendations would have any effect. He happened to know, that many of the ministry of that power had become partners in these privateers; and they probably found them too lucrative to put an end to their occupation. They had an interest in keeping up the war. He hoped his noble friend would bear in mind, that of all the new States of South America, only one had been of any service to England. Looking at their acts, and the facts connected with them, from first to last, and seeing that they had swindled us out of twenty-two millions, he must say, that if they were our creation, we had no earthly reason to be proud of them.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 20.
IRISH PARISH VESTRIES ACT.]
Mr. Hume,
in presenting a petition from the Catholics of Ireland against this act, observed, that it had affixed to it the names of peers, merchants, and the leading private Catholic gentlemen of Ireland; and although it had no more than five thousand signatures, he had no doubt that it contained the sentiments of the whole Catholic population of that country upon this subject. He complained of the injustice of the Vestry acts, and recommended the House to take advantage of the example held out to them by the Hungarians, to whom the petition referred. The prayer of the petition was to beg the attention of that House to this—that where those of the Catholic persuasion formed seven eighths of the whole population, as regarded the church, and ninety-nine in a hundred of the actual population in many parts of the country, they were justified in entreating the legislature to re-consider the laws which authorized such oppressions and exactions as those enforced against them; they expressed their hope that the House would relieve them from the heavy charges to which they were obliged, by the existing laws, to submit; and they recommended to the con-
1224
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
condemned, as highly inconvenient, the custom of discussing questions of great importance on the presentation of a petition. He defended the existing measure as being a great improvement on that which had preceded it. If persons were aggrieved by assessments under the act, a remedy was provided for them, since they had the power to appeal. When he found that those who complained, chose rather to put their petition into the hands of the hon. gentleman than to seek for relief from the proper tribunal, he was inclined to doubt the correctness of their representation.
Sir John Newport
said, he was convinced that the bill afforded the Catholics no protection, and gave, as a proof of the correctness of his opinion, an instance in which, on a rate having been imposed by a Protestant bishop on the Catholic inhabitants of a parish for the supply of some articles to a church, the Catholics appealed to the Quarter Sessions, and the magistrates decided, that the act gave them no power to interfere with a rate so imposed. In some parts of Ireland, the Catholics were actually in such poverty, that they could not afford to repair their own chapels, and worshipped God almost in the open air. In one parish in the north, the Catholic chapel had been four times burnt down within twenty, years; the last time only five years ago; and while the Catholics were unable at present to rebuild that chapel, they were heavily taxed for the erection of a Protestant church. The injustice of the present state of the law was therefore manifest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to this discussion, because it put a stop to what he considered more important business. Now, he knew of no business that could be more important than listen-
1225
l.
l.
Sir R. Inglis
admitted that there had been irregularities and infractions of the law under the old system, but contended that they were not enough, either in kind or degree, to warrant an enactment which would have been attended with greater evils than those it proposed to remedy. He complained that on occasions like the present, the right hon. baronet, and others who thought with him, brought forward a certain number of stock-stories, ready cut and dried, for the purpose of making out their case, and that the Catholic Association had done its utmost by its quackery to aggravate and inflame a wound at first of little importance. He then read a passage from a letter from Mr. O'Connell, and an extract from one of his speeches, in the latter of which that gentleman insisted that "the grievance of church rates was a grievance exceeded by no other that was felt in Ireland." The hon. baronet went on to examine, in some detail, the extent of this grievance, and adverted to several distinct cases, as made out by the petitions and returns upon the table. The first was that of Drogheda, which he argued was inapplicable; and the next was that of Thurles, where 32
l.
1226
d.
Mr. J. Grattan
denied that any stock-stories had been brought forward, or that the Catholic Association had been guilty of quackery. The former collection and disposition of the rates were most discreditable to all parties concerned, and it was highly important that the legislature should interfere to remedy the evil. The great objection was against the unwarrantable charges under the heads of "Sundries and Contingencies," in some parishes amounting to 20
l.
l.,
1227
Mr. Spriny Rice
supported the prayer of the petition. The cases of complaint under this act were not imaginary, as the hon. baronet had supposed. No church could be built in this country without the consent of parliament; but in Ireland the question was settled by a select vestry, consisting exclusively of members of the Established: Church, and they were generally parties interested in the disposal of the rate to be levied on the Dissenters and Catholics. The worst enemies of the Established Church were those who wished to prolong these abuses, by which the feelings of the people were excited against it.
Mr. A. Dawson
urged the necessity of an amendment of this act; otherwise he feared the abuses already committed would be aggravated, and spread throughout all the parishes in Ireland.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ELECTION EXPENSES—USE OF RIBBONS.]
Mr. Fyler
presented two petitions for the repeal of the act of last session, to prevent the use of Ribbons at Elections. One of them was signed by 5,000 silk-weavers, inhabitants of Coventry; and the other by between 1,700 and 1,800 silk-weavers of Spitalfields. He concurred with the petitioners that their apprehension was well founded, that this act would do great mischief to the silk trade. The hon. gentleman then rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to repeal so much of the act of last session as prohibited the use of ribbons at Elections." It would be in the recollection of the House, that this bill was introduced by the noble member for Northamptonshire. In its original shape, the bill merely went to deprive the counsel, agents, and attorneys, employed by the candidates, from voting at the election; but, from the use of the word "flagger," he concluded that it never could have been the intention of the noble lord to interfere with the silk trade. He was the more disposed to think that the House could have no objection to review its decision, when he recollected that the bill was brought in at a late period of the session, when many gentlemen had left town; and that it was finally passed through the House at two o'clock in the morning, when there were only thirty-six members present. The hon. member "then proceeded to take a review of the laws passed against extravagant expense on
1228
1229
Colonel Wood
seconded the motion, on public and private grounds. His private reasons, if the House would allow him to state them, were, that he had had some hundreds of Coventry men in his regiment; and when he parted from them, he promised, that if ever it was in his power to do them a good turn, he would recollect them. This was the first opportunity he had had to fulfil his promise, and he therefore seconded the hon. member's motion. The bill itself he considered, indeed, in a public view, to be calculated to do much injury to the trade in fancy ribbons, without producing any great advantage. He considered a measure prohibitory of the use of ribbons at elections as one partaking too much of minutiae for legislation. If there were any part of the law relating to Elections which he was desirous to see repealed, the Treating-bill was one that called for repeal far more than any enactment respecting the use of ribbons. The most wasteful extravagance was incurred by out-voters going from London and other places to Yorkshire and other remote places, at the expense of the candidates. Many persons took advantage of this opportunity of paying a visit to their friends once in seven years. This was very severe upon candidates, who
1230
Mr. S. Rice
said, he would decline to follow the hon. mover over the various irrelevant topics which he had somewhat strangely introduced into a discussion upon moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal an act of last session, prohibiting the use of ribbons at elections. He would meet the motion of the hon. member at once, by announcing his intention to vote against it. It was the duty of the House to cheapen the expenses at elections. This was the only effectual mode of restraining bribery at elections, and of making them free. The most extravagant expense was incurred frequently at elections by the use of ribbons. At the last election for the county of Northumberland, the expense laid out on ribbons was 6,000
l.
Lord Lowther
opposed the motion. He had some experience of contested elections, and he could give his testimony, that the act of last session was expedient to check the extravagance which prevailed in the wasteful distribution of ribbons at elections.
Mr. Fyler
replied. The opposition which had been offered to his motion was, he said, to be traced to one principle— self—nothing but self. He hoped he should have a majority in favour of the bill, and that the House would not, under the influence of such considerations, toss the poor weavers of Coventry overboard.
The House then divided: For the motion 9; Against it 91; Majority against it 82.
RIGHT OF ELECTION IN COUNTIES
Mr. Sykes
rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to declare the Rights of Freeholders in separate districts or counties, to vote at the election of Knights of the Shire of the counties from which they shall have been separated." The hon. gentleman, after adverting to the conduct of some
1231
1232
Colonel Sibthorp
said:—I rise to second the motion. From the most mature investigation of this question, involving the rights and privileges of so many, and feeling as I do for them, as affecting all, I may perhaps be more particular in my application to those whom I have the honour to represent—comprising the populous city of Lincoln, of upwards of ten thousand inhabitants, and the villages annexed thereto, of full twenty miles in circumference, and containing in the total near four hundred and sixty freeholds. These individuals ask and seek no new privileges, no novel rights, but the restoration of those rights which they once exercised in common with others, and of which heavy impositions and exactions of former times have deprived them. The learned Attorney-general said, on a former night, that the freeholders of the city and borough alluded to had made a bargain with the
1233
The Attorney-general
said, that he still held the sentiments which he had so lately expressed to the House on this subject; but he would not now repeat them, but reserve himself for a future stage of the bill.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
ASSESSMENT OF LESSORS (IRELAND).]
Mr. James Grattan
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to render Lessors liable for county and parish assessments in all future lettings of land in Ireland." The hon. member observed, that complaints had been made from all parts of Ireland of the hardship of making the occupiers of land liable for permanent assessments. They were not only called upon to pay for roads and bridges, in which it might be said they were inter-
1234
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, he would not oppose the principle of the bill, but he could not consent to so wide an extension of that principle as the hon. member proposed.
Mr. W. Lamb
would not object to the introduction of the bill, but he would not stand pledged to go the whole way with the hon. member, in a measure which would make so great an alteration in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland.
Sir J. Newport
defended the necessity of the present measure. More than half the amount of grand-jury assessments in Ireland were not for objects in which the occupying tenant could be said to have a direct interest. It was a hardship on a tenant to be called upon, perhaps in the last year of his lease, to pay a share of a tax for a public building in which he was in no way interested.
ADMISSION OF FREEMEN IN CITIES
Mr. Ross
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to regulate the Admission of Freemen in Cities and Boroughs." The objects he had in view were, to diminish the expenses candidates were put to at elections, by being made to pay for the admission of freemen, and for bringing them down from town to the election. There were many towns which had a far greater number of non-resident freemen than resident freemen. Dover had one thousand two hundred resident, and one thousand eight hundred non-resident freemen; Lancaster had only five hundred residents and three thousand non-residents. For all these non-residents the candidate was obliged to pay the expense of coming from London to the city or borough to which they belonged, and not only that, but often the expense of taking up their freedom. It thus happened, that, in years of contested elections, from five hundred to one thousand two hundred freemen were admitted, whilst in other years there would not be more than a dozen. He proposed, therefore, that all persons entitled to take up their freedom should be bound to do so twelve months from the time of their becoming entitled
1235
Lord Nugent
doubted whether the bill would effect the objects of the hon. member; namely, the correction of the abuse of the creation of freemen during the poll or immediately before it, and the expense of bringing up voters. It might injuriously affect the rights of persons at present out of the country. He had himself, last session, introduced a bill on the subject; but he would rather see the matter in the hands of the hon. member than his own, and he would give him every assistance in his power in framing the provisions of the bill.
Lord Lowther
said, they had so many election bills at present before the House, that he thought it would be impossible to do justice to them all. Besides, he thought the bill now proposed would be perfectly ineffective. He considered it to be one of the many attempts at petty legislation respecting the right of voting, which the House was almost daily in the habit of witnessing. He should oppose the introduction of the bill.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
opposed the bill, as not only inadequate to the object proposed, but as greatly aggravating the evil it was designed to remedy. He was far from believing that all admissions were at the expense of the candidate; at least his own experience falsified the statement. But if it were so, the proposed bill would increase the expenses of an election; for as every man who claimed the right of admission would be anxious to possess it, he would go to the place in which it originated at an expense, the reimbursement of which he would expect whenever a contest arose, and thus throw on the candidates the charges of two journeys when one would suffice. But he was chiefly opposed to every measure of this sort because it began at the wrong end. If it were really an object to prevent the payment of admissions by candidates, why did not the hon. mover propose a bill by which the candidate should be compelled to swear that he had not by himself, nor his agents, paid or promised to pay, and that he would not hereafter by himself, or his agents, directly or indirectly, pay for the admissions; and, further, fix a high penalty on the detection of the offence, of which the mere receiving the money should be evidence? This would be an intelligible remedy. But it was quite the fashion of
1236
The motion was negatived.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 21.
SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF
Lord King
said, that before he proceeded to make the motion of which he had given notice, he begged leave to set right the character of the person from whom he had, on a former occasion, presented a petition. He had understood the right rev. prelate to object to the petitioner, that he was a man of so irritable a temper that it was impossible to agree with him, and that other persons had complained of him so much, that it was impossible the Society could continue to employ him as a missionary. Now, he held in his hand a copy of a memorial which had been sent to the Society in favour of Mr. Griffin: it was signed by fifty-four inhabitants of Bridgetown, where Mr. Griffin had formerly resided, and the first signature was that of a justice of the peace. It expressed the satisfaction of the memorialists with the conduct of Mr. Griffin, and requested that he might be appointed to officiate at a chapel, as the memorialists were fully persuaded that by so doing, the best interests of the church of England, and of religion and virtue would be promoted. It was dated in 1826. He believed there did exist, as was stated, bitter contentions in the colonies, and that they were aggravated by the proceedings of the Society. Nor was it at all unnatural, that it should be so; for a very great proportion of the people there were presbyterians, who had a strong feeling of dislike against the exercise of any kind of patronage in the appointment of clergymen, and who liked to appoint their own ministers. The people had very strong objections to the person who had succeeded Mr. Griffin, and not liking him, they had deserted the church. The Society had aggravated the natural causes for these contentions. He was sorry to give so much trouble to the pure body which he saw opposite; but he was sure their
1237
1238
1239
l
1240
l
l
l
l
1241
Earl Bathurst
said, he had formerly stated, that he conceived the allegations of the petition did not justify the appointment of a committee, and he had heard nothing, in what had fallen from the noble lord, to make him alter his opinion. The noble lord had not rested his case solely on the petition. The noble lord said, that the public money distributed by the Society was made over to the Society by the government, in order to provide for the members of the church of England. The noble lord objected to this country being charged with the expense of maintaining the clergy of the church of England in the colonies; and he seemed to think that this was a new principle, first introduced into practice in 1813, when he (lord Bathurst) was Secretary of State for the Colonies. But he must tell the noble lord, so far was this from being a new principle, that ever since 1702 grants have been uniformly made by the government to the Society, for the ministers of the church of England in the North American colonies. Within the last sixteen years those grants had been considerably increased. In 1811, 1812, and 1813, the grants had been 2,600
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1242
l
1243
1244
1245
ex officio
1246
1247
l
l
l
Lord Goderich
said, it would be unnecessary for him, after what had fallen from his noble friend, to trouble their lordships with any extended reasonings upon the subject; but he must say that he thought
1248
1249
The Bishop of London
said, he would deny that he had evinced any disposition to shelter the Society from an inquiry into the distribution of its funds. He had never said any thing of the kind. He
1250
l
l
l
l
1251
Lord King
said, he had not given any guarantee for the good temper of Mr. Griffin; indeed, he could not have done any thing of the sort, for he had never seen him but once. All he had stated of the rev. gentleman's character was, that he possessed a certificate of the inhabitants of Bridgetown in his favour. The manner in which he had been treated by the House had not evinced the best possible temper on the part of their lordships. The course taken against him was not by any means unprecedented; for whenever a person appealed to the House for redress, or attacked a public body upon public principles, the course of the ministerial bench was, to use every exertion to blacken his character. But much less turned upon the character of the petitioner than the opposite side wished to believe. He (lord King) had said, that the rector of Halifax was an ecclesiastical commissary and a missionary, The noble earl replied, that this assertion was true, but that the rector got nothing from his parish, for his glebe yielded nothing, But this assertion was not correct; for although the rector got nothing from the glebe, he received between four and five hundred pounds a year from his pew rents and other parochial fees. The rectory was, in fact, a valuable church preferment. It was a decided misapplication of the funds of the Society, to bestow any additional gifts on a clergyman in possession of such preferment. The Society was instituted for far different objects; and its real friends would feel sorry if its funds were to be so applied. The right rev. prelate had said, that the Society did not decline the investigation; but the right rev. bishop bad declined it for them, and the result was the same. He begged to say, that he did not rest his motion upon the petition, but upon the ground of what had fallen from the right reverend prelate, that the money of the Society was wasted, by being bestowed upon persons already provided for.
The motion was then put and negatived without a division.
1252
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 21.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
The order of the day being read,
Mr. Tennyson
stated, that he rose to move that this bill be re-committed. He understood his hon. friend's purpose was, to move an Instruction to the Committee; if so, it was clear that such motion would be irregular until the House had resolved to go into a committee, and after the demonstration made by his hon. friend it might be expedient for him (Mr. T.) to explain the course which, in his judgment, ought to be followed in the further discussion of this bill. That discussion would naturally divide itself into three distinct parts. The first question was, "whether sufficient evidence of the Corruption of the Borough of East Retford had been produced, to justify the interference of parliament?" This question he conceived would be decided in the affirmative by the House resolving to go into a committee on the bill, and should be so decided before his hon. friend's proposition could be entertained. This was his apology for interrupting his hon. friend. The second question was, "What should be the measure of that interference?" This would have to be determined in the committee, subject to any instruction which it might receive from the House, and he understood the object of that to be moved by his hon. friend was, to limit the measure of such interference. This imposed upon him (Mr. T.) the duty of stating more distinctly than he should otherwise have deemed necessary, the position to which the borough of East Retford was reduced by the evidence before the House, in order to shew that no measure of interference short of utter disfranchisement could meet the justice of this case. He should however abstain from offering, at present, any observations on the third point for discussion; namely, "the ulterior disposition of the franchise in case East Retford should be deprived of it,"—as he was anxious to observe that delicacy which the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Secretary Peel) had recommended on this subject before it was decided, that the borough should in fact be disfranchised, but he trusted that the House would allow him the earliest opportunity for stating his views respecting it, when the proper period should arrive. If, after the ample
1253
1254
1255
l
l
l
1256
l
l
who had not promised,
l
l
l
1257
payment
Mr. Brown
, the town-clerk, had endea-
1258
a general
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
Mr. George Bankes
said, he considered; the evidence not sufficient to justify the House in taking steps so strong or severe as those to which the hon. gentleman had directed their attention. He did not deny that there was some matter that deserved the consideration of the House; but the proof of corruption had been brought home to so few electors, that he could not consent either to the proposition of the hon. gentleman, or the mitigated proposition which the House was led to expect from the hon. gentleman (Mr. N. Calvert) behind him. On a former night he had called for further evidence; but finding the temper of the House against him, he had yielded to it. Though he had no right to assume the character of advocate for the borough of East Retford, he was desirous that it should receive no injury at his hands. He felt himself in the condition of a judge, who, by the rules of our criminal courts, was bound to act as counsel for the accused, when he had no other defender. He disagreed wholly with the hon. gentleman, in his view of the two cases of Shoreham and Grampound. In both those cases, the inquiries which had ended in the disfranchisement of the boroughs originated with petitions against the returns at the last election. On opposing the disfranchisement of Shoreham, Mr. Fox made the first display of his eloquence in that House; and in twenty-two years afterwards, in 1793, that great man, in opposing the proceedings against Stockbridge, referred to his exertions in the case of Shoreham, and re-stated the same objections in principle. Mr. Fox styled it a bill of pains and penalties, and said, that except on the clearest evidence, he would not deprive any borough of its rights and privileges. In the case of Grampound it was equally certain, that the bill for disfranchising that borough had originated in the proceedings of the
1268
l
1269
Lord. Howick
said, that he looked upon this bill as a penal one, and his principle was not to consent to capital punishment, unless for the purpose of getting rid altogether of a crime. But would such be the case in this instance? He, for one, would say, that, under the present constitution of the House of Commons, bribery in borough elections was neither disgraceful nor blameable. Every body must see that, on the principle on which boroughs were now carried on, the self-interest of the electors was the point always consulted; and while such was the fact, it mattered not; whether their vote was paid for in money, or in situations under government, or in East-India patronage, or in letting out lands to them at a price below their value. In fact, there was scarcely a mem-
1270
Mr. Alderman Waithman
thought the evidence so full and complete, that what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had spoken last but one had been matter of astonishment to him. His remarks could only have been made under the influence of the most inveterate prejudice or error. The evidence upon which the bill was supported seemed to be as perfect as the House could possibly desire. Nothing could be more consistent than the statement of the gentleman and his clerk; and he had never in the whole course of his life seen any paper drawn up with more nicety, or greater mercantile precision, than the list which was before the House with the names of the voters who had received money for their services. It was a Complete balance-sheet, stating with the greatest precision, the sums received and paid, and to whom those payments were made. He ought, indeed, almost to
1271
l
1272
1273
1274
l
l
1275
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought that the question now before the House; namely, the disfranchisement of the borough of East Retford, involved considerations of a general nature, nearly similar to those which were connected with the other question of the disfranchisement of Penryn. The first question was that of the measure of justice to be dealt out to the borough; the second involved the consideration of the policy and expediency of disposing of the vacant franchise either to the hundred, or to some populous town. For even supposing the delinquency of the borough to be partly made out, and that enough was proved to justify the forfeiture of the franchise, the question to be considered was, not to what place it might be just, but to what place it might be also politic and expedient, to transfer that right. He proposed to consider, first, the justice of the proceeding itself, and next, whether or not there had been a sufficiency of evidence to warrant any interference with the elective right of the borough which had been accused. And first, with respect to the question of justice. In approaching that part of the subject, he wished to draw a
1276
1277
1278
ardentia verba
Mr. Alderman Waithman:—
I said no such thing.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. gentleman had referred to a quotation which, if he had fully brought forward and strictly applied, would establish that doctrine. If taxation without representation was absolute tyranny, and if tyranny justified resistance, would not all those be justified in resistance who were under the age of twenty-one? Again, to cite an illustration adduced on a former occasion by a right hon. Secretary of State, now no more, in reply to this argument, what would become of the whole female sex, or of the large body of freeholders not qualified as 40s. freeholders to vote at elections in this country? In short, if such a doctrine were to be enforced, it would lead to the widest plan of universal
1279
republica Platonis
fœce Romuli
1280
1281
1282
1283
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, it was, no doubt, desirable that the House should be in possession of the opinions of the right hon. Secretary as to the course which it was his intention to recommend for their adoption; but he thought the better course, and the one most consistent with the usages of parliament, was, to consider each case on its respective merits. With respect to the corruption of the borough of East Retford, and the expediency of disfranchising that borough, those points had been established on evidence so incontrovertible, that it was unnecessary for him to say a single word upon the subject. As to the other point
1284
The motion was then agreed to. On the motion that the Speaker do now leave chair,
Mr. N. Calvert
rose to move the instruction to the committee of which he had given notice; preparatory to which, however, he begged leave to say a few words. It had been admitted by the right hon. Secretary that it was desirable that the elective franchise of one of the boroughs to be disfranchised should be given to the agricultural interest. He should, therefore, propose, that the right of voting in the borough of East Retford should be extended to the hundred of Bassetlaw. In that hundred there was a population of two thousand freeholders, possessing a rental of 191,000
l
Sir J. Mackintosh
then addressed the House to the following effect;—Sir, I
1285
1286
1287
"—quæ
Desperat tractata nitescere posse relinquit."
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
General Gascoync
was altogether op-
1295
Mr. Benett
thought that there could be as fair a representation from the hundred, as from any other place. He was of opinion that the landed interest was not at all too powerful, and was satisfied that the commercial interest was fully represented in that House.
Mr. Wynn
said, he did not wish to obtrude himself on the House at that late hour, particularly after the very able and eloquent speech of the right hon. and learned member for Knaresborough. The question, however, was of such importance that he could not reconcile it to himself to give a silent vote upon it. In the three former cases in which the House had interfered, the right of election was only extended, and not absolutely transferred; the reason of which was, that in all of them a portion of the voters were found not to be corrupt. Here, however, the right hon. Secretary had admitted, that bribery had been proved to be tolerably general, but he differed upon that point, as it was rather proved to have been intolerably general; for he never had seen a case in which the practice was proved to have been more universal. With respect to what might be done in another place, he thought they had nothing to do. It was for the House of Commons to adopt that course which they deemed proper, and to leave it to the other House to do as they pleased. There were, he perceived, three modes of obtaining freedom in this borough—by birth, by service, and by redemption. Now, by this latter means, a person possessing great power and influence might create so many votes as to overwhelm his antagonist. Another reason, too, why he wished to transfer the franchise to large populous towns was this, that in large towns which were represented, there was always an action and re-action of public feeling; while in large unrepresented towns the popular feeling was generally on one side, and opposed to those who, they conceived, deprived them of their privileges. Upon these different grounds he would support the original motion.
Mr. Secretary Hushisson
said, he was perfectly ready to agree with those who
1296
1297
A Member.—
The fourth part of a representative.
Mr. Huskisson.—
That might be said of any town or county, that it had but the fraction of a member. Nevertheless, he would repeat his assertion, that Glasgow had a representative in that House. If they departed from the principle to which he had before adverted, they would be establishing a precedent, which might carry them lengths far beyond what they first contemplated, and far beyond what they might, receive external support in carrying into effect; whereas, if they adhered to it, they might improve the
1298
Lord Althorp
contended, that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department must admit, that, although all the strict rules of evidence observed on a penal proceeding were not applicable to the present proceeding, yet that it was still in some degree a punishment. In the question, whether the elective franchise hitherto enjoyed by East Retford, be or be not transferred to the adjoining hundred, he confessed he had a personal interest; for if the former of these courses were adopted, it would confer upon him a vote. Now he humbly conceived that that would be giving him more than he could justly lay any claim to. What right had he to vote for four members. He certainly had no desire to do so. He would rather see the privilege, in both instances, conferred upon such towns as Birmingham and Manchester. He earnestly called the attention of the House to the importance of the principle which the present discussion involved, and the expediency of guarding chiefly the interest and feelings of the people.
Lord John Russell
said, he thought that some of the reasoning of hon. gentlemen on the other side told quite differently from what they intended it should do. The two right hon. Secretaries opposite, so far from supporting each other, were opposed; the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies having actually given a conclusive reply to
1299
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
agreed that, generally, that House ought in its proceedings to look merely to its own judgment, without being swayed by what might be conjectured to be the views of the other House of Parliament. It was their duty to decide for themselves; and yet, when they considered what had before happened in several cases of this description, they might, even on the principle of being governed only by their own judgment, look to the circumstances which were most likely to promote or retard the effect of their own measures. He regretted that the authority of his right hon. friend opposite should have been applied in a manner so calculated to lead the House to an erroneous decision, and so inconsistent with the sentiments expressed by him on a former occasion. Then he was a decided advocate for conferring the forfeited rights upon the landed interests; now he was the warm supporter of what was called the popular side; then, he thought the manufacturing body sufficiently represented; now he was for giving them additional strength.
1300
Mr. Wynn,
in explanation, said, that in supporting the proposition for conferring rights upon the adjoining hundred, he had never denied that a case might not arise where a different course could advantageously be adopted.
Mr. W. Horton
said, that if they had been at present considering the case of Penryn, he believed there would be little difference of opinion. He had no objection to the transference of the elective franchise to large towns; but he did think that it was proper to consider what was likely to be the result of the measure which they had before them. He himself would have had no objection to transfer the franchise to some great town, instead of throwing it open to the hundred; but he must look at the probable effects which their proceedings were likely to produce in another place.
The House divided: For Mr. Calvert's Amendment 157; Against it 121. Majority 36.
List of the
Althorp, viscount
Fremantle, W. H.
Barclay, D.
Fyler, T. B.
Baring, A.
Gascoyne, gen.
Baring, F.
Gilbert, D.
Baring, W. B.
Gordon, R.
Bentinck, lord G.
Graham, sir J.
Birch, J.
Guise, sir W.
Bouverie, hon. D.
Gurney, H.
Boyle, hon. J.
Harvey, D. W.
Bradshaw, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Brougham, J.
Howard, H.
Burdett, sir F.
Howick, lord
Buxton, John
Hume, J.
Buxton, T. F.
Jephson, C. O.
Byng, G.
Kekewich, S. T.
Calcraft, J.
Kennedy, T. F.
Calthorpe, hon. A.
Kerrison, sir F.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Labouchere, H.
Carrington, sir E.
Lamb, hon. G.
Carter, J.
Lambert, J. S.
Cave, R. O.
Langston, J.
Cavendish, H.
Lascelles. hon. W.
Clive, E. B.
Lawley, F.
Corbett, P.
Lester, B. L.
Colborne, N. R.
Leycester, R.
Davenport, E. D.
Littleton, E.
Dawson, A.
Loch, T.
Dugdale, D. S.
Lucy, G.
Duncombe, T.
Macdonald, sir J.
Dundas, hon. sir R.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Easthope, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Ebrington, viscount
Marshall, J.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Martin, J.
Farquhar, J.
Monck, J. B.
Fazakerly, J. N.
Morland, sir S. B.
Fergusson, R. C.
Morpeth, viscount
Fortescue, hon. G.
Newport, sir J.
Fitzgerald, M.
Nugent, lord
1301
Ord, W.
Stanley, lord
Palmer, C. F.
Stanley, hon. E.
Pendarvis, E.
Stuart, lord J.
Phillimore, Dr.
Stuart, Villiers
Philips, G.
Sykes, D.
Philips, G. R.
Thompson, ald.
Ponsonby, hon. W.
Thomson, C. P.
Powlett, lord W.
Townshend, lord C.
Poyntz, W. S.
Tomes, J.
Price, R.
Waithman, ald.
Protheroe, E.
Wall, C. B.
Ramsbottom, J.
Warburton, H.
Ramsden, J. C.
Webb, E.
Robarts, A.
Whitmore, W.
Robinson, G.
Wilbraham, G.
Robinson, sir G.
Wilson, sir R.
Rumbold, C. E.
Wood, ald.
Russell, lord G. W.
Wood, C.
Russell, lord J.
Wortley, hon. J. S.
Russell, lord W.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Sandon, viscount
Wynn, sir C. W.
Sefton, earl of
Sebright, sir J.
TELLERS.
Smith, J.
Tennyson, C.
Smith, W.
Normanby, viscount
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 24.
GREECE AND TURKEY.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee of Supply.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that he rose for the: purpose of obtaining information from the right hon. Secretary opposite, with respect to the Treaty that had been entered into on the 6th of July, and the right, hon. gentleman might be assured, that a satisfactory answer to the questions which he was about to propose, would not only be grateful to that House, but to the country generally. He wished to know whether the Treaty of the 6th of July was to be maintained by his majesty, under all circumstances? He knew that various declarations had been made on this subject by ministers in that, and the other House of parliament, to the same effect as those which had been delivered from the throne; but since those declarations had been made, new events had occurred, which induced many persons to believe that some change was about to take place, and made it desirable that further explanations on the question should be entered into by ministers. The new circumstances that had induced this supposition were notorious. A manifesto, or, at all events, a document which bore an official character, had been promulgated by Russia, and had produced such a line of conduct in the Ottoman Porte, as to induce the Russian
1302
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he hoped the hon. member would excuse him if he
1303
1304
PUBLIC BUILDINGS—OFFICE OF
Sir James Graham
said, he rose for the purpose of requiring some information with respect to the object of a motion which was made by the hon. member for Dorsetshire, between twelve and one o'clock on Saturday morning. The hon. member on that occasion moved for a select committee to inquire into the state of the Public Buildings in the Department of the Office of Works, and into the application of part of the land revenue of the Crown, under certain statutes. He certainly expected, that the hon. member would have stated the reason which led him to institute such an inquiry. His surprise was therefore very great, when the hon. member made his motion, without assigning a single reason for it, or pointing out the precise object which he had in view. He hesitated at the moment, as to whether it was his duty to ask for an explanation; but believing that nothing unsatisfactory would result from the committee, he did not deem it necessary to say any thing in opposition to the motion. But a little reflection had convinced him that it was necessary to come to a right understanding of the motives which had induced the hon. member to move for a committee. He certainly was of opinion, that this subject would naturally come under the inquiry of the Finance Committee, Promises had been made of a reduction of expense in this department; but although those promises had not been kept, yet he believed the public were content to wait for the result of an inquiry, to be instituted by the Finance Committee, with reference to this subject. In those hands he
1305
1306
Mr. Bankes
said, that his reason for not entering into an explanation on the former occasion was, because he was not aware that any was required. As to his having made his motion at so late an hour he could not avoid it: if he had postponed his motion to Monday, it was very doubtful whether he could have brought it forward. After listening with great attention to what had fallen from the hon. baronet, he could not see what the object was for which the hon. baronet wished him to give an answer. The hon. baronet seemed to complain of his having taken a particular subject out of the hands of the Finance Committee. Was the Finance Committee to embrace every subject of inquiry before the House? Was it not competent to every member to take up any particular subject, if he thought it could in any other way be more fairly considered, than it could be before the Finance Committee? Did the hon. baronet know what a mass of business was at present before the Finance Committee. He was not aware that the subject to which his motion referred would come before that committee. He did not think that they would have time to entertain it before the next session. The hon. baronet had objected to the manner in which the committee was constituted, and there seemed to be a sort of oblique insinuation, as if he had moved for the committee, for the purpose of screening some individuals whose conduct was likely to be overhauled in the Finance Committee. Now, what purpose had he to answer—what advantage was he likely to receive in moving for this committee? What benefit would it be to him to screen persons who were guilty? The hon. baronet asked what was the object of the committee? There were two principal views connected with the formation of the committee—one related to the public expenditure, and the other to national taste. Both were fit objects for the consideration of parliament. If they saw a large ex-
1307
l
l
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that as allusion had been made to him, it became necessary for him to state that he had nothing to do with the formation of this committee; but he would, as head of the Woods and Forests Department, do every thing in his power to give effect to the inquiry. He had no desire to screen himself from any investigation. He had only to ask the committee fairly to do its duty. He should not have been placed in his present office if there had been any thing in his conduct that would not bear the strictest scrutiny. If it were allowable for a man to speak of himself, he would say that twenty-one years ago, he had obtained, not through great connexions, nor by ministerial influence, an income under an act of parliament, fully equal to that which he now possessed. He might also be permitted to observe, that on the present occasion he had not sought for office.
Sir J. Yorke
said, it appeared to him very extraordinary, that, after they had been told that the Finance Committee could
1308
Mr. Bankes
said, that the committee for which he had moved would only sit on two or three days in the week, when the Finance Committee were not sitting.
Mr. R. Colborne
said, that when they saw the encroachments which were daily making upon the park, it was high time that there should be no doubt as to the intention of government. He had seen numbers of trees railed round, and it appeared to him to be intended to cut them down. He thought these were fair objects for the investigation of a committee. The Treasury board had very little leisure to bestow upon such subjects, and he had never known a chancellor of the Exchequer who did not pray to be released from such an addition to his labours. It was, therefore, become absolutely necessary to have a committee of some kind, under whose authority the matter might be fairly investigated, and who might be able to apply some timely check to the present extravagant proceedings. They saw every where extensive and costly buildings erected, as it was supposed, upon regular estimates, but when they were completed it frequently turned out that there had been no estimate at all. Much good might arise from an inquiry. At all events, he deprecated any attempt to take these things out of the hands of a committee, in order to place them under the control of the office of Woods and Forests.
The Hon. G. A. Ellis
said, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question or two to the first commissioner of Woods and Forests. First, he wished to know whether it was intended to cut down the north row of trees in the Mall in St. James's park? It would be in the recollection of the House, that in answer to a question put last session, it was affirmed, that government would keep to the inten-
1309
Mr. Arbuthnot
denied any responsibility on the score of the execution of the plans for the improvements in the park; for though they were sent to his office, they were proceeded on after he left it. Both from the government and Mr. Nash he had received the most positive assurances, that it was not intended to cut down the trees in the Mall. He did not think it quite fair to talk of encroachments upon the parks. When he had waited upon the king to take his commands upon the plan of improvements, his majesty expressly desired that a carriage road should be opened from Pimlico to Storey's Gate, that the whole of that part of the park where the cattle grazed should be opened to the public. Upon the subject of the foot-way through the buildings at Waterloo-place, it was not in his power to give any answer. He believed there was no such path in the original plans.
Mr. Herries
said, that when a question was put to him last year, he had stated distinctly that it was not the intention to cut down any of the trees, except one which projected so as to interfere with the wall. At that time, the plan shewing the new alterations was before the House; and there was no intention on the part of the Treasury to make any alteration in it. He had even taken the trouble to see the architect; for the purpose of
1310
Sir J. Graham
disclaimed any intention to impute improper motives to the two right hon. gentlemen.
WAYS AND MEANS.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that in agreeing to the vote which he was about to propose, the committee would not pledge itself to any opinion whatsoever. The House was only called upon to vote the appropriation of money which would be paid on the 5th of April and the 6th of July next. What was to be done with the money would be matter of after-consideration, but this preliminary step was necessary. With this observation he merely proposed calling on the House to vote for the appropriation of the sum of 2,164,000
l
1311
Mr. Calcraft
took occasion to allude again to the slow proceedings of the Finance Committee, and expressed a wish that there was some statement laid before the House of the actual income and expenditure of the country. An hon. baronet the other evening had stated, that he did not expect much from the Finance Committee, because, although our income was above fifty millions, more than thirty millions were absorbed by the debt, so that they had not more than nineteen or twenty millions to deal with. Now, he confessed this alarmed him very much as to the results to be expected from the examination. He looked, not to the nominal amount paid into the Treasury, but at the sum drawn from the pockets of the people. That sum was nearly fifty-eight millions, but more than eight millions were spent in the collection; so that the nett amount to be applied to the public expenditure was only fifty millions. If, therefore, the difference between the nett income and the gross income was added to the sum the committee had to work upon, there would be, instead of nineteen or twenty millions, a sum of twenty-seven millions, out of which the Finance Committee was to labour in the work of reduction. He recollected hearing, some years ago, that a proposition was made to lord Liverpool, of uniting the Boards of Customs and Excise, and it was said that by this union 1,500,000
l
Sir J. Yorke
wished to ask the chancellor of the Exchequer, who he knew was not like Mr. Pitt, an heaven-born minister—indeed, his right hon. friend had come into office without knowing much more than that two and two made four, or at all events knowing very little about Treasury affairs—he wished to ask his right hon. friend, whether in his opinion Mr. Finlayson, that modern Cocker, had not taken very exaggerated views on the subject of these life annuities?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said,
1312
Sir J. Newport
did not know how it was possible for the Finance Committee to do more than they were doing. They sat three times a week, from twelve to four, and the sub-committee sat on the alternate days. He hoped the committee would not suffer itself to be hurried forward by the anxiety, however commendable, of individuals; and that it would abstain from making any report, until it could make one which would be satisfactory to the public.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that too sanguine expectations of reduction should not be held out, when it was considered that 30,000,000
l
l
l
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that the Finance Committee, would not be the worse for being reminded of particular duties as it proceeded. With reference to the measure, however, which had already emanated from it—the bill for repealing the power of granting life annuities—he did not quite agree in the course which had been pursued, and wished that Mr. Finlayson's letter should be laid before the House. As it seemed to him, the table of rates, subject to which these annuities had been granted, ought to be changed, rather than the practice of granting them discontinued.
Mr. Baring
bore testimony to the constant exertions of the Finance Committee, and particularly to those of the hon.
1313
Mr. Hume
said, that the money named in the vote was money to be received from the Bank in the way of loan; and he entirely objected to applying borrowed money to the support of the Sinking-fund. The statement of the right hon. Home Secretary a few nights ago had shown that at most there was only a surplus of 50,000
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the suspension of the appropriation of this money would not alter the arrangement relative to the Sinking-fund; but it would deprive the government of supplies which were wanted for the purposes of immediate necessity.
Mr. Herries
said, that the hon. member had greatly under-stated the amount of surplus over expenditure, when he stated it to be only 50,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
1314
Sir J. Wrottesley
protested against the continuance of a Sinking-fund on the principle of that now sanctioned by parliament. What could be more absurd in private life, than for a gentleman to spend the whole of his income, go into debt, borrow a sum of money to pay it, and then exclaim, "See what a job I have made of it, I have paid off a couple of thousand pounds with one hand, which I have borrowed with the other!" The question for the House to consider was, whether they would continue the absurd act which obliged them to maintain a fund for the redemption of their debt, when all their income was absorbed by their expenditure.
The resolution was agreed to.
LIFE ANNUITIES REPEAL BILL.]
On the motion for the further consideration of the report of this bill,
Mr. Calcraft
suggested, that it would be more expedient to suspend this bill, than to repeal it.
Mr. Herries
said, that the objection was to the tables and not to the principle of the bill itself. Any loss which might have, been sustained would not be remedied by the repeal of the act now. The only thing that could be done would be to prevent the granting of other annuities until new tables were prepared. In this view of it he concurred in the suggestion of the hon. member, that they should not at once repeal the act, but rather suspend it, in order to afford time for considering what; other tables could be got ready, which might put an end to the apparent loss; for he was not convinced that the loss was a real one. He admitted that they had good authority for saying that there was a loss; and on that ground the committee had recommended an immediate; consideration of the subject, and that other tables should be adopted. He concurred in the suggestion for suspending the act, but whether it were suspended or repealed, it would amount to the same thing; for the repeal would be on the understanding that it was to continue only till new tables could be prepared. It appeared: from Mr. Finlayson's letter that a loss had been sustained by the public, amounting to about 8,000
l
1315
Lord Althorpe
said, it was clear that a considerable loss had been sustained by the public from the annuities granted under the act. Blame might not be attributable to government for what took place before they received the communication alluded to, but he understood that annuities had since then been granted on the same disadvantageous terms to the public. If that were so, blame must rest somewhere. The communication of Mr. Finlayson was a sort of debtor and creditor account. He showed the amount paid by the purchaser, the amount of stock cancelled, and the amount which
1316
l
Mr. Herries
, in explanation, observed, that the letter of 1819 did not speak of the great loss to which the last letter adverted, but merely announced that the tables were unfavourable to the public. The subject was one of such extreme difficulty, that it ought not to excite surprise that no step was taken on it immediately.
Lord Howick
said, that when the letter should be before the House, it would, he had no doubt, be seen, that blame attached in some quarter for not having acted upon it earlier, as great loss had accrued to the public from the mistaken calculations on which the annuities had been granted. He agreed that it would be proper to suspend the act for the present.
Mr. Huskisson
said, the noble lord seemed to think that the public would gain on the contracts already made by the
1317
l
1318
l
Mr. Baring
admitted the great benefit which the public had derived from the system of granting government annuities; but expressed his surprise, that, after the communication which had been made to government on the subject of their disadvantageous bargain, no steps had been taken to correct the error. The public seemed to have been well informed of the advantage which the government terms gave them; for on looking at the list of annuities, it would appear, that two thirds of them were on women's lives. Now it appeared by the report of one of their committees last year, that the lives of women were, on the average, longer than those of men. It appeared to him, however, that Mr. Finlayson, in his estimate, had not taken into his calculation the interest of the money paid by the purchasers of the annuities.
Mr. Hume
said, that Mr. Finlayson had been directed to make a calculation on fifteen thousand lives. His work was a work of figures, and he did not deserve blame for exaggeration, for he expressed no opinion one way or the other. As to the letter sent to the Treasury, he could state that great remissness must have existed somewhere on this subject; for in the same year in which Mr. Finlayson's first letter was written, a similar representation had been transmitted to government. He had no doubt that on inquiry
1319
Mr. P. Thompson
rose only to correct an error into which the Secretary for the Colonies had fallen. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was impossible that the calculation could be correct, because a loss of 8,000
l
l
l
l
The report was agreed to.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. Tennyson
said, that, after the course which the House had thought proper to adopt with respect to this bill, he was rather at a loss to determine what course to pursue. As, however, the Penryn Disfranchisement bill was to come under discussion that evening, and as any ulterior proposition which he might have in view with reference to East Retford would, in a great measure, depend upon the fate of that bill, he would move, "that the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill be read, for the purpose of postponing it to Monday" [cries of no, no !].
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, it appeared to him, that, after the course which had been pursued with reference to this measure by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the hon. member had better give up his bill altogether. Although the hon. member for Hertfordshire had brought forward the proposition, it could not be considered in any other light than as the proposition of the right hon. gentleman opposite. Of this he was sure, that if it had not been so considered, the House would have come to a very different determination upon it. Now, he must say, that the whole statement of the right hon. gentleman, when the subject was last discussed, rested on an unjust view of the question.
Mr. N. Culvert
said, that whatever might be the merit or demerit of the proposition, he took the responsibility of it upon himself.
Mr. Peel
said, that the proposition for which he had voted had been made and seconded by two hon. members, who were
1320
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that if reform did not take place where such positive delinquency was proved, the House would get into the deepest disgrace with the country.
The motion was agreed to.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
On the Order of the Day for further considering the Report of the Committee,
Mr. Manning
hoped that, after the House had determined to extend the privilege of East Retford to the adjoining hundred, at least the same course would be followed in the case of Penryn.
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, he had abstained from taking any part in the debates which had passed upon the subject, as he was connected with most of the gentlemen and with the interests of the district concerned. At present, however, he was desirous of doing away with a
primâ facie
vice versa
1321
1322
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that when he saw a president of the Royal Society rise to read them a memoir or paper, for the purpose of showing that Cornwall was not over-represented, and that Nottingham was, he thought it would puzzle that learned person not a little to accomplish such an object, and the result had justified his anticipation. He thought the measure supported by the right hon. Secretary, of transferring the franchise to a great commercial community, was called for by the: increase of wealth, the progress of civilization, and the march of intellect. When such a number of these great towns had grown up to be so many Londons, it was time they should be represented. Manchester should not be allowed to remain longer without a member in that House. He hoped the right hon. Secretary would persevere in the course which he had indicated it to be his intention to pursue. He rejoiced to see a minister of the Crown not afraid to look a moderate reform in the face.
Mr. C. Pallmer
said, that, having been one of those who last year voted with a right hon. gentleman whose voice, unhappily, the House would never hear again, that the elective franchise of this borough should be thrown into the adjoining hundreds, he could not with any consistency now give a contrary vote. Instead of seeing any thing to induce him to alter, he had had his opinion confirmed by the remarkable fact, that, with respect to East Retford, where the guilt had been more universal, and the population of the adjoining hundreds less numerous, the House; had, but a few evenings ago, resolved upon the same measure of justice. Surely it was not fair to visit the smaller degree of guilt with the greater degree of severity ! With respect to the argument of the different counties in which the places were situated, he never could admit that guilt was more punishable because it was in one county than it should be in another. He professed himself as anxious as the noble lord could be to punish corruption; but he would never agree to reach it through injustice. The corruptors were worse than the corrupted; and though he refused to go with the noble lord, in punishing the many for the guilt of the few, in: the present instance, he assured him, that if he would make his attack upon the cor-
1323
Sir C. Burrell
seconded the amendment, because he was of opinion that the corruption had not been so general as to justify a transfer of the franchise.
Mr. G. Bankes
concurred with the hon. member for Surrey, that it did seem a little hard that Penryn should suffer for the delinquency of another borough; and it further appeared hard, that, according to the proposition which had come from the other side of the House, both boroughs were to be punished more severely than they would otherwise have been, owing to the delinquency of each. With respect to Penryn, he understood the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say, that he declined adopting a different measure of punishment, entirely in consequence of the corruption of another borough, and yet he could not reconcile it with this declaration, nor with his own notions of any principle of justice, that a change should have taken place in the determination avowed by gentleman of that House. With regard to the delinquency of Penryn, the present was not a time to speak of it, but it was a proper opportunity to consider of the measure of punishment; and he was sorry that this measure of punishment should be altered, in consequence of circumstances wholly foreign to the borough and its offence. He thought that a better derision might be come to as to their punishment, by considering separately and severally the two cases; and he, therefore, regretted to hear a proposition which did not appear to him accordant to the principles of justice; namely, that punishment was to be awarded, not in proportion to the demerit of the offending party, but to the guilt of another wholly distinct; not only was Penryn to be more severely punished in consequence of the delinquency of East
1324
Mr. Batley
said, he would not vote for the absolute disfranchisement of Penryn. He could not consent to punish the innocent with the guilty, and should, therefore, support the amendment.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that his hon. friend (Mr. G. Bankes) had completely mistaken what had fallen from him on a former evening, when he expressed his wish to postpone the declaration of his sentiments as to the transfer of the franchise of Penryn, until after the question respecting East Retford was disposed of. He then stated, that the transfer of the
1325
1326
1327
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that opposed as he had generally been, on the question of reform in parliament, to many who had taken a part in the debate, he still thought that, in the present instance, a case had been made out for disfranchising this particular borough. He felt it his duty to defend his right hon. friend from the charge which had been made against him, by the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who described his right hon. friend as having waited to make up his mind upon the question, until the case of the delinquency of East Retford arose, so as to furnish himself with an argument to aggravate the offence of the former delinquency. Such an inference was unauthorized in fact, and unjust to his right hon. friend. The cases of these delinquent boroughs resembled very strikingly the cases of two persons found guilty of offences, which rendered them liable to the severest penalty the law could inflict. If, pursuant to that sentence, they were doomed to die, it was of little consequence to themselves how that sentence was executed, provided it were speedy, and un-
1328
The House divided: For the original motion 213; Against it 34: Majority 179. The House then went into the committee. The preamble of the bill, transferring the right of electing two members from the borough of Penryn to the town Manchester, was read and agreed to.
Colonel Davies
objected to the clause by which the deposit for defraying the expenses of the hustings, &c. was to be returned to the successful, but not to the unsuccessful candidates.
Lord J. Russell
said, the object of the clause was to prevent vexatious contests. If such a provision were not introduced, a person possessed neither of property, nor a chance of success, might, by setting himself up as a candidate, throw the town into an uproar.
Mr. Wynn
disapproved of the clause in question. Either none of the candidates should be called upon to pay any share of the expenses incident to the election, or they should all defray them in an equal proportion.
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought the fairest provision under the circumstances would be, that no party should be considered qualified as a candidate, unless he was prepared to defray his proportion of the necessary expenses of the election; which he certainly was of opinion ought to be exacted from all the parties, successful as well as unsuccessful.
Mr. Ross
wished to know why Manchester was only to be allowed three days to poll, when other places were allowed fifteen.
Lord J. Russell
replied, that Manchester was a very populous town, and his object was, by limiting the period, to prevent those riots which frequently took place at elections.
1329
Mr. Huskisson
said, there was scarcely one clause in the bill which could be reconciled with the provisions of the general law regulating elections. In fact, the provisions of some of the clauses were so inconvenient, that it would be impossible to reduce them to practice. He therefore suggested, that it would be advisable to go no further with the bill at present.
Lord J. Russell
observed, that he and those who acted with him were anxious to preserve order at the elections, and it was possible that they might have gone further than was necessary in the pursuit of that object. He could not, however, adopt the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, as it would be productive of delay.
Mr. Sugden
thought it would be advantageous to postpone that and the remaining clauses, until the other two bills were brought before the House.
Dr. Phillimore
admitted that the suggestion would have been a good one if they could be sure that the other bills would pass; but as they could not be sure of that, it would be wrong to make the present bill depend on a remote contingency.
Mr. G. Lamb
thought the machinery of the bill was altogether too cumbersome. He did not see why, if it should be decided to give the franchise to Manchester, they should not subject the elections in that town to the same general laws which affected other elections.
Lord J. Russell
consented to withdraw the clause, as the sense of the committee appeared to be decidedly against it.
The bill, with the amendments, was then reported to the House.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
On the order of the day being read,
Lord John Russell
said.—In rising to move that the House do now go into a committee on this important bill, I feel it necessary to say a few words. When it was last under discussion, upon the proposition of a right hon. gentleman opposite, seconded by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, for inserting a Declaration in it, to be taken by all Dissenters on their entry into office, I agreed to the principles on which they rested it, not because I thought it either necessary or important, but because I believed it to be likely to render the bill more satisfactory to all parties, and to prevent
1330
The House then went into the committee. On the second clause being read,
1331
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, the only objection which I have heard urged against the course which I recommended the House, on a former evening, to follow, arises out of this clause; and I am informed that it appears to some persons, to give the king a power to dispense with this Declaration. My opinion is, that it gives no such power: at any rate, I know that I did not intend that it should. The question, as far as it refers to this point, is not without its difficulties. By the law as it now stands, any one who enters into the king's service, or receives the king's wages, or acts as his menial servant, is compelled to take the Sacramental Test. He is relieved, however, from that compulsion by the Annual Indemnity act. If that act were not to be passed, he would be under an obligation to take the Sacramental Test, however menial the office might be in which he served his majesty. If I am entitled by the Test and Corporation Acts to call upon every person who enters his majesty's service to take the Sacramental Test, I am entitled, by the proposed act to make every person who would now be compelled to take that test make the proposed Declaration. Now, in many cases, the performance of such a ceremony would not only be superfluous, but absurd. For instance, what could be more useless and absurd than to make a man, who is going to enter upon office on a foreign station, make a declaration that he will not, by virtue of that office, attempt to subvert the privileges of the Church of England? It would be difficult to specify in words all the cases in which it would be imperative that the party should make the Declaration, and equally difficult to specify the cases where an exception to that rule ought to be allowed. The object of this clause was to enable his majesty at his discretion to specify those offices in which it would be necessary to exact the proposed Declaration. The object of it was, not to dispense with the Declaration entirely, but to allow his majesty to name what officers should and what officers should not be called upon to make it. This is all that I have to say on this subject at present. I will, however, repeat, that I am satisfied with the security which this Declaration offers. I am not prepared to make any alteration in it to please the wishes of any party. All that has passed since I proposed it, confirms me in the sanguine hope that the present session will
1332
Lord Nugent
said, that the proposed Declaration was one of the mildest and least offensive that could have been devised: and that the right hon. Secretary merited the thanks of the country, for the manner in which he had acceded to the proposition of his noble friend. There was one point, however, which he wished to suggest. He thought that the office of privy councillor was one which subjected the holder of it to taking sacramental test.
Mr. Peel.
—He is covered by the annual bill of indemnity.
Lord Nugent.
—Exactly so: a privy councillor would be compelled, unless he were covered by the act of indemnity. If that were the case, then he would be called on to make the proposed Declaration. Assuming, then, that a privy councillor was both to take the sacramental test under the old bill, and therefore liable to make the Declaration under the present bill, there might be cases, and those not extreme ones, in which a man, not nicely scrupulous, but only properly conscientious, might find the Declaration to be at variance with the oath which he had taken as a privy councillor. The oath which a privy councillor took, bound him to advise the king according to the best of his discretion, and to observe, keep, and do all that a good and true councillor ought to do to his sovereign lord. Now, cases touching the disposal of church property might arise, in which the Declaration, which bound him not to employ the influence of his office to weaken the church establishment might be in direct opposition with the oath of a privy councillor, which bound him to advise for the king's honour and the good of the public. It might be supposed in such cases by conscientious men, that the Declaration was to supersede and ride over the oath which they had taken. He did not know whether the right hon. gentleman would make any exception in this clause on behalf of privy councillors; but it did appear to him that, as the clause now stood, it might excite some uneasiness in the minds of persons of tender consciences.
The clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.
1333
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 25.
TURKEY AND RUSSIA.]
Earl Grey
, seeing the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, would ask him a question on a subject of the greatest importance. He had hitherto abstained from saying one word on the present situation of affairs in the east of Europe, not because he did not feel the utmost anxiety with respect to the determination of ministers relative to the state of affairs in that quarter of the globe, and the possible results which might issue from that state of things, but because he had been fearful of adding, by any thing he might say, to the difficulties in which he was too sensible ministers were placed on that subject;—difficulties of such a nature, that one false step might risk our being involved in a general war; and he was not prepared to pronounce with any confidence, even now, that with the most cautious policy, we should be secured from that calamity. Under the influence of that feeling, he had hitherto abstained from saying one word on that important subject, wishing that ministers should be allowed time deliberately to examine the situation they were placed in. The same feeling would have induced him to pursue on the present occasion, the same conduct, if there had not been made very recently, under the highest authority, a statement, which, if correctly reported, could not be too speedily confirmed; but which, if otherwise, ought, in order to obviate the inconveniences which might follow, to be as speedily corrected. The statement he alluded to was to the following effect,—"That ministers had received no information of any change having taken place in the relations existing between Russia and the Ottoman Porte, or any declaration of war between those parties." That there had been no actual declaration of war, either communicated to his majesty's ministers, or in fact issued, he certainly believed; but he could easily understand, that short of a declaration of war there might be a change in the relations existing between two powers not less material than if war had actually taken place. If measures had been entered into—if treaties had been broken—if troops had been assembled and placed in hostile positions, from which they might act—and if a declaration had been made to ministers of a determination to act immediately
1334
The Earl of Dudley
said, he was extremely anxious to give their lordships and the public all the satisfaction that he could consistently with his duty, on that most important subject to which the noble lord had alluded; but he trusted the noble earl would be satisfied when he told him, for the present, that certain intentions had been announced on the part of Russia, which very much diminished the chance of maintaining the existing peace between Russia and the Porte. Government, however, had as yet received no accounts of those intentions having been carried into effect. That the hope of maintaining peace between Russia and the Porte had much diminished since his Majesty's communication was made to their lordships on the first day of the session, there was no doubt; but no account had yet been received of peace having been actually violated.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 25.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
On the motion of Alderman Waithman, William Leadbeater was called in, received the following reprimand from the Speaker, and was discharged:
1335
DUTY ON INSURANCES.]
Mr. Alderman Thompson
rose to present a petition from the Insurance Offices of London and Westminster. It was signed by two chartered companies—the Royal Exchange and the London Assurance—and by fifteen other bodies of the same kind, which had been established with a capital of many millions. They contended, that the rate of duty on Fire Insurances had sensibly affected their progress, and lessened the amount of property that would otherwise have been insured; they confidently believed that a reduction of the duty would increase the practice of Insurance, and thus indemnify the country from any loss in the revenue. The duty amounted to a tax in some cases of one hundred per cent. The subject was of vast importance, not only to the petitioners but to the public at large; and when it was stated that an insurer to the extent of 20
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
s.
1336
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
s.
l.,
1337
l.
Mr. Alderman C. Smith
supported the prayer of the petition, and expressed his hope that ministers would find themselves warranted in reducing the duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as the hon. alderman had confined himself to requesting the full consideration of the subject, he had no hesitation in assuring him, not only that he would do so, but that he had already taken measures to ascertain the facts of the case as far as regarded marine insurances, in order to decide whether the duty could be reduced without injury to the revenue. The income derived from the duty on insurances exceeded a million, and it would be the height of imprudence to give the House or individuals an expectation that it would be possible to make any arrangement which might put in hazard that amount of revenue. As to fire assurances, when the hon. member stated, that the amount of duty at present was such as to impede the insurance of property, the data before the House did not warrant such a position. The amount of duty on fire assurances had been regularly progressive; and whatever the check might have been on the ordinary principles governing financial arrangements, it had not been sufficient to put a stop to the increase. In one year it was 600,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
1338
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Warburton
remarked upon the want of the relative proportion of property insured, to the general increase of property. Before the year 1814, the insurance duty amounted to 514,000
l.
l.
l.
1339
Mr. Sykes
called, the attention of the government to the marine insurances, from their manifest operation upon the shipping interest, which was already so seriously, and he feared dangerously, restricted.
Mr. Baring
said, he could not agree with the chancellor of the Exchequer in the propriety of this tax, which he had always looked upon as a grievance. It was a tax upon the prudence and providence of persons in trade, and as objectionable an impost as could well have been introduced. He believed that the amount of the rate imposed diminished the desire to insure. He, for instance, would never himself insure his own property on any large scale, because the price to be paid greatly exceeded the ratio of the risk. He wished to suggest to the chancellor of the Exchequer the risk he ran of having this business transferred to Ostend, or some of the opposite ports, where, through British capital and agents, it might be done so as materially to affect the revenue here.
Ordered to lie on the table.
REAL PROPERTY IN INDIA.]
Mr. Fergusson
rose to present a petition of which he had given notice, from the British, native, and other inhabitants of Calcutta, respecting the law of Real Property within that settlement, and particularly respecting the liability of such property in the hands of executors and administrators to the payment of the debts of the deceased. This petition, which was signed, he believed, by almost every person of respectability and opulence in Calcutta, complained of the imperfect and unsettled state of the law in that particular, arising chiefly from some late decisions of the Supreme Court, affecting property to the amount of many millions sterling.—The petition stated, that previously to the granting by his majesty Of the charter of the Supreme Court, in
1340
1341
fieri facias,
1342
1343
Mr. Hume
expressed his satisfaction at seeing the subject taken up by the learned gentleman, and proceeded to comment upon the want of attention towards the affairs of India in general. They had a Board of Control; but he was at a loss to discover in what respect that Board devoted their attention to India. The members of it were often turned out in the course of a year, not because they were unfit for the office, but because they belonged to one or other political party. His majesty's government, in looking back for a series of years, should take shame to themselves for the manner in which they had conducted the government of India, and for the way in which that Board of Control, which presided over a hundred million of men, had been constituted and maintained. He condemned the restrictions which existed upon the commerce and intercourse between this country and our Indian possessions. Those possessions were full of wealth, and abounded in large tracts of rich and unoccupied land. Why not remove these absurd restrictions, encourage emigration thither, and, instead of sending English capital to the various countries of South America, allow it to be employed freely and advantageously in India? He trusted that the learned gentleman would go on with the subject which he had taken up. He might look for the support of that House, and of public opinion out of doors.
Mr. Fergusson
said, that so far as he had communicated with the Board of Control, he had found on the part of its members, and particularly on the part of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn), its late president, the greatest facility and attention afforded to him. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman had upon all occasions exhibited the most sincere intentions and assiduous zeal for the promotion of the interests of India.
Mr. Trant
agreed with the hon. member in the propriety of the measure he wished to introduce. In his opinion there ought to be a discussion every year in the affairs of India, similar to that introduced by the late lord Melville when he brought forward his yearly Budget. Such discussions tended greatly to enlighten public opinion upon the subject of India.
Mr. T. P. Courtenay
defended the Board of Control from the reflections of the hon. member (for Aberdeen), and de-
1344
Mr. Wynn
said, that, during the time he had been connected with the Board of Control, he had commissioned a chief justice who was sent out from this country to collect information respecting the propriety of introducing the Insolvent Debtors' laws there. That learned judge, however, fell a victim to disease in about six months after his arrival in India, and consequently the desired information was not collected. Great difference of opinion existed on the subject in India. If it could be done, he was of opinion that it would be better effected by some species of regulations respecting debtors there, than by any legislative enactment here. The draught of a bill upon the subject had arrived in this country a few days previous to his leaving office, and he recommended to the noble lord, now at the head of the Board of Control, to have the matter laid before the law officers of the Crown. Perhaps it might be supposed that he (Mr. Wynn) would be most competent to introduce the subject to the consideration of the House; and if that were the case, he should be very happy to do so.
LIFE ANNUITIES REPEAL BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Althorpe
wished to offer a very few words upon this bill, because he
1345
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l. plus
l.
1346
l.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, it was quite apparent, from the statement of the noble lord, that Mr. Finlayson, like all other calculators, assumed something which experience taught us never happened, and which, in the end, invariably proved, that all their calculations were not worth a straw; and the greatest of all their assumptions had perpetually been, that by tricks with figures, they could reduce a debt which had gone on constantly increasing, and which, it was idle to hope, would ever be redeemed.
Mr. Herries
said, that no person could purchase an annuity who was under thirty-five years of age. It had been insinuated, that he had attacked the professional character of Mr. Finlayson; but he had done no such thing. On the contrary, he had borne his humble testimony to the merits of Mr. Finlayson. There was one important point connected with this subject, which was worthy the attention of the House. He alluded to the fact, that a very material and gratifying change had taken place in this country, with respect to the average duration of human life. The tables published by order of the House exhibited this in a remarkable degree. These tables proved the extraordinary fact, that, in the course of the last forty years, such a change had taken place in the condition of the people, that the decrease of mortality in Great Britain was from one in forty to one in fifty-six. This was one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced to show the improvement in the state of the country. No proposition to which statesmen or philosophers could have recourse could more decidedly manifest progressive improvement than an increase of the population, and a decrease of human mortality. He thought it right to bring this under the consideration of the House, because it was connected intimately with the formation of tables to which allusion had been made. The increased longevity of the people, so far as these annuities went, might in some degree interfere with the
1347
data
Mr. Hume
said, it was true that a change had taken place in the duration of life during the last thirty years; but the right hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten, that much of that was owing to the introduction of vaccination, and other modern improvements in medicine. But if they looked back to the forty years that preceded 1790, they would find, that there had always been some epidemic or other. In the year 1782, an epidemic had occurred, which spread itself throughout Europe, and had been felt most severely. For the last thirty years they had been free from such scourges; but that was no reason why such an event should not occur again. He hoped ministers would not allow much time to intervene without reviewing the tables upon which this, bill was founded. With the assistance of proper tables, the annuities' system would be a most effective mode of reducing a national debt.
Sir J. Newport
deprecated the system of annuities, as acted upon up to the present time, and called the attention of the House to the Irish Tontine of 1773, 1775, and 1777; of which, owing to the bad system pursued, not one class was yet extinct; which shewed how guarded government ought to be in taking a step of this kind.
Mr. Monck
said, that the chief error of the government in granting those annuities had been in following the Northampton tables; which certainly were those used by the Equitable Insurance office, but for a very different purpose from that in which they were employed by the state. That office used them for granting payments at the end of life, while the government used them for granting annuities during life; it therefore was clear, that whatever was gain to the Insurance office was loss to the country. He agreed, that it was quite necessary that new tables should be calculated; but at the same time trusted that the annuity system would not be abandoned.
The bill was read a third time.
1348
FREEHOLDERS' REGISTRATION BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading,
Lord Althorp
said, he had sufficient experience in that House to know, that if he put off the second reading until after the holydays, he could not carry the bill through afterwards. The most suitable way would be for those who objected to the bill, to let it pass the present stage, and take the discussion on the motion for going into a committee.
Mr. Huskisson
confessed he had not yet been able to give the bill all the attention it deserved. From what he had seen of it, however, he thought that many of its regulations would disappoint the expectations of the noble lord. Instead of saving expense he thought it would effect a perpetual system of taxation. In the present state of the House, he wished the merits of the bill not to be brought under discussion.
Lord Lowther
expressed his determination to oppose the bill, because it was a most impolitic measure, and would make the law more complicated and expensive than it now was. He was also greatly afraid of the noble lord's committee, when he saw the hon. baronet (sir J. Graham), the great reprehender of committees, upon it. Words had been put into the mouth of an eminent solicitor which he had never uttered. That gentleman was represented to have said, that, in a great contest, one third of the votes sent to the assessor were objected to, on the ground of the land-tax. Now he believed that the proportion of votes disputed was never even one tenth, and he had found that there was no instance in which one-tenth of the votes had been questioned. The only case that approximated to this calculation was that of his own election for Westmoreland, in which every vexatious objection that the ingenuity of man could devise was urged, and yet, in that case the proportion was only one twelfth; and in that of Devonshire, the next in degree, one twenty-eighth. The effect of this bill would be, to establish throughout the year one continued election contest. It would exclude all minor voters, and throw the representation into the hands of the wealthy freeholders. The bill was only a copy of Mr. Bearcroft's bill in 1788, which was just as complicated a measure as this. The payment of the land-tax had been found by experience to be the
1349
Sir James Graham
denied that he had ever treated committees with contempt. He thought no measure could be rendered perfect without the labours of a committee. The noble lord had referred to the evidence of an eminent solicitor. Now, he knew that solicitor to be a gentleman of unimpeachable veracity, and he had said, that one third of the votes that went to the assessor in the contest at Glocester arose out of the land-tax. At Westmoreland, that gentleman had said that one out of eleven were objected to on the same score. He must contend that this bill was much less complicated than the present law. Serjeant Heywood, a good authority, had said, that the land-tax bill had raised more doubts upon the law of election than all the other enactments put together. The noble lord had expressed the most fastidious jealousy lest this bill should increase the expense of election. He was bound to believe the noble lord sincere, but he was quite sure he was wrong. His noble friend, the member for York, had expended 120,000
l.,
s.
The Attorney-General
objected to the bill, though he admitted it was strongly recommended, as coming from the noble lord. But the principle was, that the constituent body should not be exposed to expense and litigation in defence of their rights. He admitted that, if any steps for that purpose could be taken preliminary to an election, much might be done to reduce expenses; but this bill did not profess any such intention. It established an operose course of inquiry into the validity of voters, which was to be repeated every year. No person was to be allowed to vote, unless his name was in the register. If
à priori,
1350
Lord Althorp
maintained that the bill, by lessening the duration of the poll at county elections, would materially lessen their expense. This was a result no less desirable to voters than to candidates, for at present the enormous expense of standing for a county often left the freeholders scarcely any choice as to their representative.
After a few observations from colonel Wood, Mr. Dickenson, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Hobhouse, the House divided:—For the amendment 17; against it 32; Majority 15. The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 27.
CANADA COMPANY.]
Mr. Alderman Waithman
rose to submit a motion for information regarding the Canada Company, but begged to be distinctly understood, as not meaning to cast any reflection either upon the company collectively, or upon the individuals composing it. His object was, merely that the House should be in possession of all the knowledge it could acquire, before it came to any decision on the subject of emigration. He believed that when the company was formed, the House was not at all aware of the terms: an act was passed to enable the government to grant a charter, but parliament was not made acquainted with the extent of the capital, or with any of the conditions. In the Prospectus, it
1351
l
l
l
l
s
l
d
d
s
s
s
s
l
l
l
l
1352
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that as he was connected with the Colonial Department at the date of this transaction, he would merely say a few words, leaving it to the Secretary of State either to give or withhold the account required. He might, indeed, incidentally mention, that the House was already in possession of half the information the hon. alderman wished to obtain: the terms of the contract with the company had been printed, and in the hands of members for some years. As to what the Canada Company had done, he did not know what power the House possessed to compel that body to disclose in what manner its business had been conducted. He had that morning read over four closely-printed folio pages of a Prospectus, detailing all the proceedings of the company, from its creation to the present hour, and from thence, he thought, the hon. alderman might have obtained all he desired on the second branch of his inquiry. The consistency of the argument of the hon. alderman he could not understand; first, he had contended, that the Canada Company had obtained an enormous profit, which ought to have come into the hands of government; and next he had insisted that the whole project was fallacious, and that the loss to the individuals engaged in it would be enormous. With respect to the high premium on the shares, it was quite cer-
1353
Mr. Bright
hoped that the members of the company would make fortunes, but recommended the government to take care that the terms of the bargain were exactly fulfilled. It was of the utmost consequence, that from time to time, the House should make itself acquainted with the proceedings of the company; especially with a view to the general question of emigration. He, therefore, hoped that no technical objection would be thrown in the way of the production of the account required. In Canada there was a proportion of land, called Crown and Clergy Reserves, and as they most injuriously interfered with the prosperity of the colony, by preventing communication between one part and another, he wished to know whether any of those Reserves had been extirpated.
Mr. W. Horton
replied, that there was already before the House a bill, which had for its object the progressive abolition of the Clergy Reserves. The Crown Reserves were also in a course of extinction.
Mr. Easthope
assured the House, on behalf of the Canada Company, that it had not the slightest objection to the fullest investigation of its concerns. The hon. alderman had spoken of the enormous profits of the company. He could inform the House, that the shares were at that moment at fifty per cent discount. Nothing could be further from the intentions of the company than a desire to avoid the bargain into which they had entered. It was not the purpose of the Canada Company to do more than to place the lands purchased from government at the disposal of such persons as might be inclined to take them. The company went through
1354
Mr. Warburton
insisted, that the House had a right to ascertain whether or not the company had fulfilled its part of the contract.
Mr. W. Horton
admitted the right, but denied the power, of the House to inspect all the private accounts of the company.
Mr. Warburton
called upon government to watch the proceedings of the company with jealousy; although he had no doubt, from the candid statement of the hon. gentleman, that at present there was nothing to be complained of.
Mr. Stanley,
injustice to the company, felt bound to state, that during the short time he had been in the Colonial Office, he had found that body ready to enter into the fullest explanations government had a right to demand. He believed that the whole of the terms of the contract had been definitively settled. Some misapprehension might arise out of the expressions used that night: the contract at one time was called a grant, at another a sale, and at a third, a bargain; but whatever it was, he was satisfied that no favour had been shown to the company, but that it had obtained a certain portion of land, that it might be put into a state capable of cultivation. The payments were made by annual instalments, and no title was given to the company until they had fulfilled all the preliminary parts of the engagement: when the money was paid the title was given, and not till then. He did not mean to use the words in an opprobrious sense; but the fact certainly was, that the company was a body of land-jobbers. If the proprietors ever derived any profits from the scheme, it could only be at a very remote period, and they must lay out of their money for many years. In the mean time, heavy expenses must be incurred; and, before it would be taken by settlers, the company must confer on the land a value that could only be given to it by the disbursement of a large capital. As one part of the motion was already satisfied, and another could not be complied with, he wished it to be withdrawn.
1355
Mr. Hume
said, that, being one of those who were anxious to promote emigration, he was far from viewing this company with a jealous eye, or from reproaching government with the contracts they had entered into with it. On the contrary, he should like to see similar bargains made with a dozen other companies, on the same terms and with the same objects. This company had purchased a million or two of acres at a certain price, and as this sum was received, it was to be applied to defray the expenses of those colonies, which had been hitherto paid by that House. The company assisted emigrants who found their way across the Atlantic, with the means of removing themselves to the place where they were to be located; and it supplied them, besides, with provisions for a year or a year and a half. Thus the company forwarded emigration in the best possible manner, without calling on the government for any assistance. By its exertions large tracts of soil, which would otherwise remain barren, had been brought under cultivation. He was sure, if other companies could be induced to employ their capital in the same way, they would be amply repaid in six or seven years, and would render great benefit to the public, by finding employment in the colonies for multitudes of people who could find none in their own country.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that the hon. gentleman had taken a correct view of the utility of these companies to the country. In other parts of the world there were immense tracts of wild land which were totally unproductive; and if, by any company, they could be brought under cultivation, so as to make a return to the parties employed upon them, the result would be, not only beneficial to the colony, but to the general interests of this country. He was glad that he could state, that companies on the same principle had been formed in New South Wales and at Van Diemen's Land. He trusted they would be all successful; for to the extent in which they reclaimed lands from the state of nature, they contributed essentially to the increase of the power and resources of this country. By the contract with the Colonial Department, the Canada Company had given for what it had purchased the full rate at which land was selling in the market. The company was paying down ready
1356
1357
After a short reply, the worthy alderman consented to withdraw his motion.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 28.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.]
Their lordships having gone into a Committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdowne
proposed, that the words in the different clauses, which went to give the "bodies of murderers and other criminals to be dissected," should be left out of the bill. His object in proposing to leave out these words was, to remove the stigma which now attached to dissection. He had had some correspondence with medical men on the subject, and they were of opinion, that the little assistance they derived from this source did not counterbalance the effects which the stigma of condemning criminals to dissection had in deterring people from giving their bodies for dissection. If this stigma were done away, he thought something would be done to promote the improvement in a branch of knowledge which was essential to the public.
The Earl of Rosebery
supported the amendment. He had been a commissioner to inquire into the state of the University of Edinburgh, and had an opportunity of knowing that the difficulty of procuring subjects caused numbers of students to go abroad, and prevented those who remained at home from obtaining a complete education.
Lord Tenterden
concurred in the amendment, and said it had been his intention to propose it. In assenting to it, however, he wished it to be considered that it was of great importance to encourage a respect for the dead, and that any thing which lessened that respect would be highly improper.
The amendment was agreed to.
LAW OF EVIDENCE BILL.]
Their lordships having gone into a committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that one of its objects was to take the affirmation of Quakers in all cases, criminal as well as civil. He knew many respectable members of that body, and he assured
1358
A clause to this effect was then agreed to; as was also a clause for excluding the testimony of persons attainted of perjury.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 28.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
On the motion of lord John Russell, the order of the day was read for the further consideration of the Report of this bill.
Mr. J. Stewart
rose to propose a clause. In the course of the various discussions that had taken place on this bill, the fact of the corruption of the borough of Penryn had been assumed to be so notorious as to admit of no doubt, and for that reason the elective franchise was to be transferred to the town of Manchester. The clause he proposed to introduce would make it imperative on the members returned for Manchester, to subscribe a Declaration before they took their seats, that their return had not been procured by bribery, or by any other corrupt or improper means. This, he thought, was the most conscientious mode of reform that could be adopted, and it would necessarily have the effect of saving Manchester, the adopted child of the noble lord, from falling into the errors and offences which, had proved so fatal to the independence and franchise of Penryn. The clause was to the following effect:—"Be it further enacted, that the Burgesses to be elected and returned for the said borough of Manchester shall each, at the table of the House of Commons, and before they take their seats, make and subscribe a Declaration in the following words: I, A. B., do solemnly declare, that I have neither given nor promised to give, nor do intend to give, either by myself, or by any other person for me, directly, or indirectly, any fee, reward, or other gratuity, to any one of the electors of the borough of Manchester, in consideration of his vote, in order to my being returned or elected as a Burgess to
1359
Sir J. Newport
said, he could have no possible objection to the introduction of this clause, if it were made part of a general measure of reform. He remembered that, many years ago, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Curwen) had a bill before the House, in which there was a clause to nearly the same import. That was a general measure, and it had his support; but he had a decided objection to place the representatives of Manchester on a different footing from other members. Those who thought it likely that the elections for Manchester would be more corrupt than those for other places, knew nothing of the state of that town. If the hon. gentleman would make his Declaration part of a general measure, it should have his hearty assent; but he would give his decided negative to it, if it applied to any particular borough.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
was surprised at the opposition offered to this proposition by the right hon. baronet, who was so uniformly the advocate of reform. If the hon. member had made this proposition in a bill which would have applied to all the members, though the right hon. baronet might have urged no objection to it, he was sure an abundance of members would have protested against it, as a measure too sweeping and general. It was the fashion to sanction none but partial reforms. The House was to deal with every particular case as it arose; but no principle was to be laid down for general application to delinquent boroughs. How, then, were partial benefits to be gained, but by proceeding on the same principle? It was said that there would be something peculiarly invidious in placing the members for Manchester in a situation in which they would appear more pure than the other members of the House; or turning the argument the other way, in apprehending them to be less pure. But that was not to him a sufficient reason for not taking advantage of the opportunity of recognizing a valuable principle, which, if they found it work well in this instance, would present an example worthy of imitation, and might gradually spread,
1360
Mr. Warburton
objected to the proposition, because it included no protection to the poor and dependent voters. If it had been founded on the principle of secret voting, which would afford a real protection to the labouring classes, that would, indeed, be an improvement in the system of voting at elections. But this Declaration would be a cloak—a mere pretence of purity—leaving the great objections to the present system as strong as ever.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he should have been astonished if any hon. member had attempted to introduce into this bill a proposition that votes should be given in secret. He trusted he should never see the day when that principle would be applied to the electors of this country—when those electors would be so lowered in character, that they durst not state their objections openly to the candidate, and make known their reasons for voting against him. That, however, was not the proposition which the House had to discuss; but if it were made, he would decidedly oppose the introduction of any principle into a single bill, which, if good, should be made a general measure of legislation. He objected to the proposed Declaration, because it did not seem to him consistent with good sense or sound policy, to confine regulation to any particular borough, which, if right, should be generally established.
Mr. Hume
believed the right hon. gentleman's words did not convey his real meaning. Did voting by ballot lower the character of the members of that House? Was it not deemed a wise and just mode to choose the members of committees by ballot? This had long been the practice of that House, and the right hon. gentleman, therefore, had carried his condemnation of the proposition a little too far. He concurred with his hon. friend, that this Declaration ought to be a general measure; but if the hon. member went to a division, he would vote with him, though he would advise him not to press his proposition on the present bill, but to intro-
1361
Lord John Russell
said, he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. member. Nothing could be more absurd than to see the two representatives of Manchester subjected to a process not required from any other members of the House.
The House divided: For the clause 1; Against it 120: Majority 119.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Mr. Hobhouse
, seeing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, begged to call his attention to the Correspondence just laid on the table, from the Commission appointed to inquire into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis. He must say, in the outset, that this correspondence was any thing but satisfactory; and there were one or two points in it on which he felt it his duty to ask for some explanation. It appeared that the commissioners imagined that their powers extended, not merely to an inquiry into the present state of the supply of water to the metropolis, but that they were bound to suggest the means of making up the deficiency in the supply, if there was any, and of finding a remedy for the insalubrity of the water, if they found it to be so. Under this impression, they had entered upon a very extended examination, and had collected a large mass of evidence. After stating that they "had been occupied for four months in collecting a large mass of evidence relating to a much more extended inquiry than was comprised in the questions to which the right hon. Secretary had limited their commission," they proceeded to say, "this evidence, we hoped, would have prepared the way for our recommendation of a practicable and efficacious plan of supplying the whole of the metropolis with pure and wholesome water—an object which we cannot but esteem as of considerable importance, and which, as it appears from the several petitions to parliament giving occasion to the present commission, has been so loudly and so earnestly called for by the public." The right hon. gentleman objected, that great expense would result from taking levels and making surveys; but if those proceedings had not been originally intended, he would ask why an eminent engineer, Mr. Telford, had been appointed a member of the com-
1362
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that when he returned to office, he found that a commission had been appointed by a former Secretary of State, enabling certain persons named in it to institute a full inquiry into the state of the supply of water in the metropolis. He found that the three eminent persons named in the commission had power to administer oaths to the witnesses who gave evidence before them; and it certainly did appear that in other respects they were furnished with ample powers to conduct their inquiry. As to taking levels and making surveys, he had required an estimate of the expense before he would give his consent, but that had not been furnished him; and he could not agree to embark in any scheme without some limits being assigned to the expense that might be incurred by the country. The correspondence proved, that the commissioners had full powers to conduct their inquiry. He had not told them that they had nothing to do but to make an analysis of the
1363
Mr. S. Rice
said, that the delay which had occurred in the prosecution of the objects of the commission arose, as he believed, from the following causes:—At the time when the commission was appointed, they nominated a person as secretary, whom they afterwards found to be incompetent to the performance of its duties. The principal objection was, that this person was not versed in the science of engineering; and they applied to the noble lord, then at the head of the Home Department, to order the appointment of a practical engineer. Lord Lansdowne expressed some doubt as to the power which he possessed to interfere in the selection of such a person; but he informed the commission, that if they felt themselves embarrassed in their proceedings by the want of an engineer, and were disposed to make a selection of any gentleman acquainted with the science of engineering, he would
1364
Mr. Hobhouse
again asked whether the right hon. gentleman had any objection to the production of that part of the evidence which had already been taken.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had no objection to the production of the evidence, if the commissioners consented. It might be that they had taken evidence upon only one side of the question in some cases; and if they were to publish that evidence without taking the evidence which might be opposed to it, their conduct would seem to be influenced by partiality. If, however, the commissioners were not opposed to its immediate production, he had no objection whatever.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 31.
CORN LAWS.]
The Duke of Wellington
said, he rose for the purpose of moving for certain papers, which would tend to show their lordships the operation of the act of the last session, relative to the introduction, for home consumption, of Corn warehoused before the 1st of July, 1827. In performing that task, he would avail himself of the opportunity it afforded him of stating to the House, the nature of the measure to regulate the introduction of foreign corn, which it was the intention of government to propose to parliament, and the principle upon which that measure
1365
1366
1367
s
s
s
s
s
1368
s
1369
s
s
s
s.,
s.
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1370
s
s
The Earl of Falmouth
said, he had entertained a sincere hope that what the noble duke had to bring forward would have been so entirely satisfactory to parliament and the country, as to give occasion for no observations whatever. He confessed, however, that though the outset of the noble duke's speech had afforded him the hope that those expectations would be realized, he had been disappointed with what had followed; and though he could assure the noble duke that he thought every thing which emanated from him entitled to the utmost consideration, he could not but make known his disappointment. Circumstances had changed since a bill of a nature similar to the one now proposed was discussed last session. Their lordships were aware that circumstances had changed most favourably, notwithstanding the arguments which had been urged in favour of that bill, and the evils pointed out as likely to arise from a moderate harvest. Those anticipations
1371
s
s
Lord King
said, he could not allow that opportunity to pass, without expressing an opinion upon the present proposition. He had heard it rumoured a day or two ago, that the pivot price would be raised 2
s
s
s
s
1372
s
s
s
s
s
Lord Goderich
said, that though this was not the proper time to discuss the proposed bill, he wished to express his anxious desire that this question should be brought, if possible, to a satisfactory termination in the course of the present session. It was high time that the country should know how it was really to stand respecting these laws; for he could not imagine a greater evil than the continuance of the present incomplete plan for two or three years longer. He assured the noble duke, that he felt the greatest anxiety to look with a favourable eye upon any approximation to a fair settlement of this question. If his noble friend had, however, through any views of policy or consistency, introduced his clause of last
1373
s
Lord Redesdale
was of opinion, that the country did not stand in need of a law, the effect of which must be to lessen the amount of agricultural produce, and consequently still further to diminish the employment at present afforded to agricultural labourers. The importation of one million quarters of foreign corn must, it was calculated, reduce the market-price in this country 2
s
1374
1375
1376
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March, 31.
MAUY-LE-BONE SELECT VESTRY
Sir F. Burdett
said, he had been intrusted with a Petition from about five thousand most respectable inhabitants of St. Mary-le-bone, in favour of the bill before the House, for opening the Select Vestry of that Parish. It complained, that that body was self-elected; that funds were raised under its authority by rates of different kinds, to the amount of about 200,000
l
l
Mr. Astell
hoped, that the House would suspend its judgment, until both sides had been heard. The affairs of the parish of Mary-le-bone were managed in a way to give general satisfaction; and for fifty or sixty years, the Select Vestry had enjoyed the confidence of the inhabitants, until certain persons assumed the existence of abuses they could not establish. With regard to the bill before the House, the Select Vestry had at first intended to introduce a measure, but abandoning that design, it was taken up by certain inhabitants, who put up notices accordingly, which had been held sufficiently to comply with the Standing Orders of the House. The forms of the House had not, however, been satisfied in the Committee on the bill; since the order of reference required the attendance upon it of four members besides the Chairman; yet the only person present on that occasion, was an hon. alderman opposite (Wood). One member of the Committee had been absent from London during the whole time. The second reading also had been got over in a very extraordinary manner; for, although
1377
l
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had presented the original petition for the bill, and he had the high authority of the Speaker for saying, that there was nothing informal or irregular in the proceeding. When the hon. gentleman said, that no complaint could be made against the Select Vestry, he seemed to have forgotten the very petition before the House, by which it appeared that five thousand inhabitants thought they had serious ground of charge. He knew also perfectly well, that the whole parish was in a state of ferment and discontent, from the conviction that a total change was necessary in the management of its affairs. But even if its affairs were well managed, that was no reason why rates should be imposed by men who were not in any way responsible: it was enough if it were alleged, that the parishioners were refused the opportunity of looking into the accounts. He hoped the subject would be thoroughly investigated. Let both parties have a fair trial, and he had no doubt the result would be a change in the management of the affairs of the parish.
Colonel Baillie
contended, that there was no pretence for the charges contained in the petition of the inhabitants. The number present at the meeting where the petition of the Vestry had been agreed to, was, he believed eighty, and it was signed by all who were not members of parliament. Into the merits of the case he should be happy to commence a full
1378
Mr. Hume
said, that nine out of ten of the parishioners were dissatisfied with the present state of things in the parish. Even the Select Vestry was not unanimous against the bill, several being in favour of opening the Vestry, and the inspection of the accounts by the parishioners at large. He had no hesitation, in stating, that all the allegations in the petition would be established, in evidence before the committee.
Mr. Alderman Wood
justified his conduct as chairman of the committee, and complained of the manner in which an hon. gentleman, one of the Select Vestry, had gone about canvassing members for their votes, previous to the second reading of the bill, contending that such conduct was unbecoming and indecent. He had not moved the second reading in any haste, nor until he was called upon by others to proceed.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
supported the petition on the principle, that no man had a right to tax another without granting an inspection of the accounts, to show that the tax was justly imposed. He had had some experience on this subject, having himself sustained the expense of a proceeding against a select vestry, by whom houses were most unequally rated. The fact was, that the whole business of the parish was managed by a junto.
Mr. Dawson
observed, that the question of select vestries was one which ought at all times to attract much interest. It was often impossible to control their expenses: parishes, in many cases, being entirely at the mercy of a few individuals. Whether in the metropolis, select vestries did more harm than good, he was not prepared to say, but in no case ought the vacancies to be supplied by the remaining members; and a control over the expenditure ought to be exercised by the parish at large. The existing regulations pressed most severely upon all classes, but especially upon shopkeepers: and an alteration in the system of paving and lighting seemed absolutely necessary, as thousands at present were taxed without limitation or inquiry,
1379
Ordered to lie on the table.
CORN LAWS.]
The order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee on the Corn-laws was read. The Speaker having left the chair,
Mr. C. Grant
said, that in rising to move certain resolutions upon the Corn-laws, he felt it incumbent upon him, first, to return his thanks to the House for the kind indulgence which they had shown towards him upon a late occasion, when he had been prevented, by indisposition, from calling their attention to these resolutions; and next, to solicit the indulgence of the House upon the present occasion, while he was treating upon a subject of such great importance, a subject affecting all interests and classes of the community, surrounded by so many theories, partly just and partly ill-founded,—surrounded, too, by errors so dangerous, and by opinions so conflicting, that it was a task of no inconsiderable difficulty to point out any good practical measure which, while it removed as much as possible the objections to the present system, would be likely to meet with the concurrence of all parties. If he were, called upon to develop the great principles which this question involved, and to detail the maxims upon which the trade in corn ought to be conducted, he should stand in still greater need of the indulgence of the House; but, fortunately for himself, and fortunately for the patience of the House, he had not so difficult a task to perform. He could not forget that, a few months ago, the House had given the fullest consideration to this subject,—that it had been deliberately discussed by them,—and that in the course of those discussions, the House had formed their opinion upon almost every measure upon the subject of the Corn-laws. He was bound, therefore, to assume, until the contrary was told him, that the House were prepared to concede the principle which had been acted upon last session; namely, that the corn-trade ought no longer to be regulated by an exclusive code of laws—that it ought no longer to be subject to prohibitions, but to a system of duties. Whether those duties should be fixed or variable,
1380
1381
1382
l
s
d
l
s
d
1383
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1384
Wheat—Imperial Measure.
s.
d.
52 and under 53
34
8
53 and under 54
33
8
54 and under 55
32
8
55 and under 56
31
8
56 and under 57
30
8
57 and under 58
29
8
58 and under 59
28
8
59 and under 60
27
8
60 and under 61
26
8
61 and under 62
25
8
62 and under 63
24
8
63 and under 64
23
8
64 and under 65
22
8
65 and under 66
21
8
66 and under 67
20
8
67 and under 68
18
8
68 and under 69
16
8
69 and under 70
13
8
70 and under 71
10
8
71 and under 72
6
8
72 and under 73
2
8
73 and under 74
1
0
s
s
1385
1386
Mr. W. Whitmore
said, he wished to take an early opportunity of protesting against, this measure. If he had differed from the measure of last session, it was impossible that he should not do the same now. The present measure was so complicated, so much at variance with the principles of commercial legislation, and with the real interests of the country, that it was with the greatest surprise he had heard it proposed; and he felt still more determined to oppose it than he had done to oppose the bill of last session. His right hon. friend had talked of the benefit which was to result from this measure, and of the difference between exclusion by law and exclusion by duty. Now, he did not think that it would be productive of any benefit to the country, and he must say, that he could see no possible difference between an exclusion by law and an exclusion by duty. If corn was excluded, except at high prices, he could see no difference between protection which re-
1387
s
l
s
d
l
Sir T. Gooch
said, it had always been his opinion, that of all the miseries to which the country could be exposed, the perpetual tampering with the Corn-laws was the most productive of mischief. He trusted, therefore, that before the present session drew to a close, something would be done towards a permanent arrangement upon that subject. He would confess that he was strongly prejudiced in favour of the law as it now stood, because he felt it was the best calculated to give that security to the corn-grower which it was necessary that he should have, because it was less liable to those variations which constituted the great evil of the other
1388
s
s
s
s
s
Mr. Benett
said, that the more he considered the question, the more he was convinced that the agriculturist was entitled to something above what was laid down as the protection in the former bill. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman was certainly an improvement on the bill of last year; the difference between which and the present was, that the present imposed the duty at 2
s
s
1389
l
s
Mr. Fergusson
said, he could not agree with those who thought that the duty ought to be low; neither did he think that a fixed duty was better than a variable one, the latter being more adapted to the fluctuating interests of the country. He could not help regretting that the low rate of the duty of last year had not been discovered and admitted, before the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Bridgenorth. Now, however, they had it at 60
s
1390
Mr. Robinson
said, he had heard with pain the resolutions proposed by the right hon. gentleman, especially as he had introduced the name of Mr. Canning, and had described the present measure as the modification to which he had alluded in the House. What Mr. Canning did say on introducing his resolutions in March last, bore a very different interpretation. Mr. Canning had said, that he did not think the resolutions were likely to conciliate ail parties, though the government had paid due regard to their conflicting opinions; but that the balance was in favour of the landed interest. After such an acknowledgment from Mr. Canning was it probable that he would have supported a measure which was still more favourable to the landed interest than that which he had so described? The fact was, that the present ministers, like all other ministers, found it impossible to carry any bill which was opposed by the landed interest. And though he objected strongly to the present measure, he had no hope of being able to carry any measure, or any modification more favourable to the general consumer, than that which was now before the House. An hon. baronet had said, that the landed interests were hardly dealt with, but the arguments on which he relied went upon the assumption that the re-sellers always sold at a profit, which was not borne out by the fact. As a commercial man, and the representative of a commercial town, he objected to the principle, that the landed interest were entitled
1391
Lord Morpeth
said, that though the measure before the House applied to the article of wheat alone, it would be unwise to consider it as of small importance to the community. The price of bread, the chief article of life, was at all times a subject of deep interest; and the slightest alteration which was likely to affect that price might be of considerable importance. He was of opinion last year, and he still retained the opinion, that if any alteration was made in the law, it should be one that would make bread cheaper instead of dearer to the whole body of the consumers. It was a fact unfavourable to the operation of the present bill that the price of wheat had fallen since the averages were taken. He did not see why the public should not have the benefit of the lower averages. Was it right that, after a succession of seasons not very remarkable for fertility, the people should be told that bread was too cheap? The hon. gentleman who spoke last did not appear to him to have made a fair use of Mr. Canning's language. He did not remember Mr. Canning to have described the measure of last year as favourable to the landed interest; but he did remember him to have said, that if the House of Commons had a spark of spirit, it would not prostrate itself at the feet of the other House of Parliament. Such a sentiment was worthy of the man by whom it was uttered. For his own part, he was willing to afford protection to the agriculturists, but not greater than to the other classes of the community.
Sir T. Lethbridge
observed, that as the fall of prices since July last had taken place under the temporary measure, they had a right to argue that the protection was inadequate. The law had expired on the 1st of May, and what was the average then? Wheat had fallen from 61
s
s
s
l
s
d
l
s
s
l
s
d
1392
Colonel Sibthorpe
concurred in opinion with the hon. members for Wiltshire and Somersetshire that it was highly necessary to keep up the price of barley and oats. The quantity of oats imported into this country from Ireland, in the short period between the 5th of January and the 22nd of March in the present year, had been one hundred and sixty-five thousand quarters; and, if he was not much deceived, the greater portion of those oats had been previously brought from foreign markets into Ireland, to the destruction of the grower at home. Unless a decided protection was given by the new law to oats and barley, a stagnation in the home production of those articles must be the consequence.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
observed, that although he by no means agreed that it was desirable to abstain from ail immediate discussion on the present occasion; and although he thought it an extraordinary anomaly, when a measure was brought forward by a minister of the Crown, that it should be unaccompanied by a full explanation of its merits and character; yet, as the propriety of such a course had been maintained, he would not eater into
1393
1394
l
s
d
s
s
s
s
1395
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1396
ipsissimis verbis
s
s
s
prima facie
s
s
1397
s
s
s.
s
1398
Mr. Baring
said, he thought that the complaints of the right hon. gentleman who had last spoken, as to the conduct pursued by some members in that committee, were rather unreasonable. The right hon. gentleman should consider that
1399
1400
s
s.
s
s
1401
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. gentleman having confessed the measure to be more favourable to his views than he had anticipated, he could not but be much surprised to hear the hon. gentleman afterwards declare his doubts whether the measure were preferable to the existing system, which it was meant to
1402
s
s
1403
s
d
s
d
s
1404
s
d
s
d
s
d
1405
1406
s
Mr. Hume
said, that, differing as he did with the right hon. gentleman, he could not give a silent vote on this occasion. The right hon. gentleman, in denominating this a just and equitable proposition, and. one which the country should receive with thanks, had omitted to show in what respect it bore that character. If the right hon. gentleman meant to say that its merit consisted in legislating for the benefit of one class of the community at the expense of the rest, he would be right. The right hon. gentleman considered the measure as constitutional, and of great importance— constitutional, because it tended to support the aristocracy of this country, which was subject to a limited monarchy. Now, what was he to conclude from this statement? That the aristocracy were, by this bill, to be insured a higher price than they would otherwise obtain, and that this increased price was to come out of the pockets of the poor. This appeared to him to be contrary to all constitutional principles. For what was the constitutional object of government? Was it not to promote the prosperity of the many? But the: right hon. gentleman would convert it into the aggrandisement of the few. The right hon. gentleman said, that if the House did its duty by agreeing to a certain rate of duty, they would have to apprehend that the Lords, as they had differed from them before, might again differ from them now. This, too, appeared to him an unconstitutional mode of legislating, and such as ought not to be allowed. It was true, that a measure, in order to pass into a law, must meet with the concurrence of the other House: but had it not often occurred that the other House, after having differed from the Commons on various points, had been obliged to come round to their views. He had heard with regret the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had introduced this proposition, because it was evident, from every sentiment he had uttered, that the measure was not one of which he approved. He
1407
ad valorem
1408
l
s
s
s
1409
Colonel Wood
maintained, that the interest of the agriculturists and manufacturers were closely identified, and could not be severed, without detriment to one or the other. He therefore disapproved of the attempt which was too often made in that House to set them in opposition with each other. As to the hon. member for Aberdeen's system of fixed duties, it never could be acted on, because, in years of scarcity, duties would be, as they had always been, set aside to meet the wants of the country. He was of opinion, that the scale proposed on the present occasion was a considerable improvement on that of last year. Such being his view, he would declare his intention of giving the bill founded on these resolutions his support. He apprehended little danger from any attempt to excite popular feeling with respect to this question. The lower classes were beginning to find out that they were not so materially interested in the question of cheap bread as it was wished to make them believe they were. They were now pretty generally convinced that low bread brought low wages.
Colonel Trench
was of opinion, that these resolutions would be very beneficial
1410
Sir F. Burdett
said, he was prepared to maintain that a free trade in corn would be found most advantageous to the agricultural interest as well as to all the other great interests of the country. After having listened attentively to the speeches of the Secretary for the Colonies, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary for the Home Department, he was persuaded that they were strongly inclined to take the same view of the question that he, did, though they, in their discretion, did not feel justified in avowing their opinions altogether so openly as he did, who was unconnected with office, and free from responsibility. He would not trouble the House further on this point at the present moment; but he wished it to be understood, that he would bring the question substantively under the consideration of parliament before the close of the session. It, however, appeared to him that most persons mistook the real nature of the question which they were called upon to consider. It was not so much a question of corn as of currency; and it was impossible to talk about the price that things would bear, unless persons were prepared to look at the state of the currency, which was the measure of that price. He was satisfied that the distress of the country was in a great measure, fictitious. He saw, that in the midst of substantial wealth, of improvements of every description, the agricultural, manufacturing, mercantile, trading, and shipping interests, were equally distressed,—were all affected by one and the same cause. There could not be a more mischievous mistake than holding out to the people at large, that different ranks of society, different professions and callings, had, in fact, a divided interest. That was not the case, and nothing could be so false as to imagine that the manufacturing interest could flourish if the agricultural interest were depressed. What was the manufacturing interest but the surplus produce of the agricultural interest worked up into various shapes? All other interests grew out of the agricultural interest, and all flourished and prospered together. The expenditure, the great debt of the country, had been framed on a high-price system. The country could only be raised to the state of prosperity from which it had fallen, by a de-
1411
Mr. Ward
declared his approbation of the bonding system, which had been objected to by an hon. member. That system had received the support of Pitt, Fox, and Liverpool. The whole question was, whether goods should be warehoused on this, or on the other side of the water. If they were warehoused abroad, they might, in case of war, be made: available to the purposes of the enemy. It was estimated that the goods warehoused in France last war would: have required one bundled thousand tons of shipping, and six thousand or seven thousand seamen; to transport them to this country. This, it should be observed, might happen, at the moment when the government was called upon to use the utmost exertions to man the navy, and when insurances would be high. He hoped the agriculturists would not be able to defeat the present measure, as they had done that of last year.
Mr. Monck
agreed, with the hon. member for Westminster, that the greater share of the difficulties the committee had to contend with, arose out of the last enactments relative to the currency. He also thought with, him, that if it were not for the national debt and the burthens it entailed on the public, it would be of comparatively little consequence whether a certain quantity of wheat were one shilling or ten shillings in price. The question was altogether one of price; and the state of the currency must determine the point at issue.
The resolution was agreed to, and the chairman reported progress.
CITIES AND BOROUGHS POLLS REGULATION BILL.]
Colonel Davies
1412
Mr. Baring
said, that, the bill made a complete alteration in the mode of taking the poll, and was an unnecessary piece of legislation. Instead of facilitating the taking of polls, it would complicate the matter, and throw a degree of power and influence into the hands of the: returning officer, who was generally a party man, which it was highly injudicious that he should possess. The erection of separate and additional places for polling would be of no benefit; for the delay at present was occasioned, not by the undisputed, but by the disputed votes. The proposed exanimations upon oath, especially of the voters as to their qualification, was a useless novelty. The hon. colonel bad framed a measure very applicable, perhaps, for Worcester, but totally unfit for most other boroughs in the kingdoms The bill would increase the intricacy and uncertainty of elections, while it offered no adequate advantage for the many disadvantages it introduced into the system. As an amendment he would move, that the report be taken, into further consideration on that day six. months.
Mr. Robinson
put it to his hon. colleague, if the bill were to pass the House as it now stood, what security, since the voters were obliged to go to a particular place to poll, was there given that the returning officers would not exercise their influence to induce the electors to give their votes to the candidate favoured by the returning officer? In. his opinion, great evils must flow from the measure, if carried into effect. Besides, he saw no reason for the candidates being put to the additional expense which this measure must entail on them, in the erecting of hustings. He did not see what use there possibly could be in the adjournment of the poll for forty-eight hours after the opening of the election. This would; be giving a convenient time for the exercise of bribery on the part of those who would be inclined to exert it. With respect, however, to the present system, he did not mean to say that it was free from objections; but he thought it better than the measure proposed, than which nothing could, be more obnoxious, to his constituents.
Mr. W. Smith
thought, that a postponement until after the holidays might be advisable, but could not consent to any amendment, the effect of which would be to defeat the bill. The subject was one
1413
Lord Lowther
said, he did not oppose the bill because it increased the number of polling booths, but because it introduced fresh confusion into a subject already sufficiently involved. Whenever this question had been discussed the example of Norwich had been adduced; but he saw nothing in the bill which would liken elections in other places to elections in that city. The reason why elections at Norwich lasted so short a time was, that no objection was ever taken to the votes of paupers, who were allowed to come up to the poll by hundreds. In borough elections, disputes regarding such voters were the chief cause of delay. They were admitted at Norwich and rejected at Worcester, and hence the reason why, at one place the election lasted a day and a quarter, and at the other it occupied fifteen days. The principal objection he felt to the measure was, the wide discretion it gave to returning officers. The duty of the officer was, now, to hold the poll where it had been usually held for the
1414
Mr. Alderman Waithman
approved of the principle of the measure; but as, in its present shape, he could not agree to it, he hoped it would be revised. He thought that every place ought to bear the expenses of the elections that were had in it; and recommended that the system which had been found for fifty years, to work well in the city of London, should be taken as the model for elections generally.
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
bore testimony td the corrupt conduct of returning officers; who often canvassed, and resorted to still more iniquitous practices, to ensure the return of their favourite candidate. If he thought that the object of the measure was to increase the influence of those officers, he would oppose it; but, as he believed it would have the effect of checking their unfair practices, he should give it his support, provided it received in the committee some of those alterations which, he thought necessary. He was particularly desirous to see some measure carried into effect which would prevent the mischievous protraction of elections. To instance one borough in which that practice was carried to a most injurious extent. In Reading, at the last election, 86 electors were potted on the first day; on the second, 354; oh the third, 374; on the fourth, 752; on the fifth, 37; of the sixth, 15; on the seventh, 16; and on the eighth, 12. Now, it was quite clear, that if so large a proportion could be polled in the three first days, the same period would be enough to poll all the electors; and if there were three polling places, then one day, or at the most two, Would be enough. There could be no doubt that the election to which he alluded might have been finished much earlier than it was; but the returning officer on being urged to do so, said he would not do any thing to hazard the return of Mr. Monck, before the day fixed for closing the poll. He did not approve of that part of the bill which gave the returning officers the power of keeping the poll open for forty-eight hours, because that gave them an opportunity of canvassing for their friends; but so much as tended to shorten the duration of polls he held to be not only expedient, but absolutely necessary to ensure the purity of election.
1415
The Attorney-general
said, that the; bill, however shaped, could not meet with his support. The measure might be calculated for Worcester, but he was certain it would not do in other boroughs differently situated. He thought six days were not enough for large boroughs, where the number of voters might exceed six or eight thousand. There would be great difficulty in fixing a period of time to suit all cases and all boroughs, however differently they might be situated as to extent and population. Another important objection to the bill was, the encouragement it held out for collusion between the two candidates. His objections were not to any one or more clauses in the bill, but arose from a full persuasion of the injury likely to arise from it generally, in addition to Its being a serious infringement on the privileges of the whole constituent body.
Mr. Wynn
was of opinion that the subject was peculiarly entitled to the consideration of the House. The period now occupied in taking the polls was unquestionably too long. Before the year 1784, when the period for elections was unlimited, they occupied only two or three days, with the exception of Westminster. It had been found, both in London and Norwich, that a short time was sufficient to poll all the electors; and thus it was proved that the difficulty of polling a great number of voters, on which so much stress had been laid, might be easily got over. He was not disposed to look so much to the convenience of out-voters, as some members did. If they chose to exercise their elective franchise, they had the opportunity of doing so. He considered the proposed regulation of the magistrates at Quarter Sessions having the power, under certain restrictions, of fixing upon a suitable place where the election should be held, would remove many inconveniences which now existed, particularly in small town-halls, where it had been contrived that one body of electors should resist the other in ascending the staircase to give their votes. He alluded to Weymouth on a recent occasion, as affording an instance arising from this evil. As regarded collusion between the candidates, he contended that such collusion was as easy to be discovered on the second or third day, as on the sixth. He considered the latter part of the bill most useful, and could not conceive how it could be considered as holding out an encouragement to, cor-
1416
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that if he was called upon to give his vote, it would be for the amendment of the hon. gentleman. It was desirable, indeed, that the poll should be shortened, so that electors in general were not aggrieved. The period should be fixed, with reference to the number of voters at each place. In Westminster, for instance, where the number of voters was twenty thousand, six days, which would suffice for other places, would be utterly insufficient. When he saw the bill giving additional power to that already possessed by the returning officers, he must withhold his vote from it. He objected also to that part of the bill which related to separate polling booths. This might be convenient in some respects; but it was a custom consonant with the principles of the constitution for the candidate to be present at the place of election, that he might, if necessary, be questioned by the voters; and he thought this was an advantage which ought not to be given up for other, perhaps fallacious, advantages. With respect to the duration of polls, there were modes and devices, under the present bill, by which the voting might be retarded. He was, however, not disposed to object to lessening the duration of polls in general.
Mr. Baring
observed, that so many gentlemen were of opinion that the bill might be improved by further consideration, that he should recommend the hon. member to withdraw it.
Mr. Sugden
objected to the bill. If it had passed before the last election for Weymouth, he should not have been there to offer his opposition to it. It was perfectly certain that force was used on that occasion; and, according to this bill, it
1417
Colonel Davies,
in reply, defended the enactments of his bill, and persisted in moving, that it be re-committed.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was ordered to be re-committed on; Wednesday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 1.
POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.]
Mr. James Grattan
presented a petition from the silk
1418
Sir J. Newport
thought that the Poor-laws and Poor-rates, if established in Ireland, would be productive of most extensive mischief, and that a very small portion only of the fund would reach the hands of the poor. He should protest against the introduction of them into that country, as the most dreadful visitation, that could be inflicted on it.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
said, that the public opinion in Ireland was not favourable to the introduction of that system. The statement of his hon. friend was calculated to turn away the attention of parliament, from the consideration of the real and practical remedies for Irish grievances.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that his attention had often been directed to this subject, but the only conclusion to which he could come was, that the introduction of the English system of Poor-laws into Ireland would be most injurious to that country. Indeed, he could scarcely imagine any new country, into which the system of Poor-laws that, under various circumstances, had grown up in England, could be planted with safety. Then, the peculiar state of the country should be considered; and, looking to the tendency to an increased population already in Ireland, he should rather think that the
1419
Mr. Wilmot Horton
, after declaring his entire concurrence in the opinions of his right hon. friend, took that occasion to deny that he had ever contemplated removing the unemployed poor to foreign countries; for he could never be brought to think that British colonies were foreign countries. If the poor could not get employment at home, what was to be done with them? Would it be said, that they should be supplied with work and subsistence at the expense of a parliamentary grant? If hon. members would say so, then he would join issue with them on that ground, and contend, that such parliamentary grant would be better spent in taking them to the colonies where there was much land unappropriated, than to expend it on them at home, where they could find neither cheap land nor profitable employment. The attempt to give parliamentary support at home to the unemployed men, women, and children, would cost no less a sum than 300,000
l
l
1420
l
Mr. Calcraft
approved of the principle of the Poor-laws, and had always ascribed the evils arising from them to the relaxed administration of them. The introduction of them into Ireland, he would oppose, as tending to produce more permanent destitution in that country than existed there at present; nor could he see what good emigration could do, as he was sure, if a hundred thousand paupers were transported to the colonies to morrow, the gap would be filled up, in a few years, with a hundred thousand more as needy as the former. Before the government adopted any measure of the kind, they ought to inquire into and remedy the grievances of the poor. There were many other remedies for the evils of Ireland. He was sure there would be neither peace nor happiness in Ireland until Catholic emancipation was granted. This should be the foundation of all remedial measures: then the expenses of government ought to be reduced to the lowest possible scale. In fine, he could not see how emigration could cure the evils of England; or the
1421
Mr. Monck
thought that the evils of Ireland arose from the fact, that her population was a nation of producers, and not of producers and consumers, like that of England. Absenteeism also was another cause. The Poor-laws of England were the sole partition between English comforts and Irish misery. If it were possible to reduce England to the same situation as Ireland now found herself in, the landlords of both countries would become mere exporters, instead of importers and consumers of produce.
Colonel Trench
was sorry to say that there was but too much truth in the statement which the hon. member had just made. He hoped, however, that the true remedy was about to be applied to the miseries and evils with which Ireland had been too long afflicted. He could assure the House, that there was an immense desire throughout the Irish population, to learn by their own exertions and labour an honest livelihood. The best proof of this fact was to be found in the constant emigration of the Irish poor to England; a grievance so much and so justly complained of. The true cause of the overpopulation of Ireland, and of all the troubles which ensued from it, was the infinite subdivision of the land; and he could not help saying, that the main spring of the immediate evils which oppressed her was a circumstance to which little or no allusion had been made; namely, the anxious desire of every body who was an Irish land-owner to produce a crop of free-holders of the smallest possible quantity of land.
Mr. Croker
said, it was his firm conviction, that the state of England and Scotland, labouring as they now did under what he must call the infliction of Irish emigration, would oblige this country to turn her attention towards the necessity of providing some great measure of relief for Irish pauperism.
Mr. W. Lamb
was of opinion, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated the most unanswerable reasons why it was impossible to extend to Ireland the Poor-laws of England, in any considerable degree. He was quite willing to allow, that much of the evil which had arisen in Ireland, might possibly be owing to the deficiency of Poor-laws in that country. But before parlia-
1422
Ordered to lie on the table.
WEST INDIA PRODUCE — DUTY ON
Mr. C. N. Pallmer
said, he had to present a petition to the House, and his great respect for the body who had intrusted it to his care, induced him to entreat their patient attention to its important contents. It proceeded from a great national interest—an interest at one time, and he hoped still, a cherished object of the country's favour—one of the principal sources of her maritime strength and commercial prosperity. It was from the West-India planters and merchants of London, and it prayed for a reduction of the tax upon their sugar. He presented the petition to the House, divested of any political expression or feeling, as a plain, argumentative appeal to their impartiality and their justice, founded upon figures which could not err, and facts which could not be denied. The petition described the rise and progress of the sugar duties from 3
s
d
s
1423
1424
s
s
s
s
s
Mr. C. Grant
declined at that moment to enter upon the important subject referred to in the petition. He was not insensible to its importance; but another and more fitting opportunity would arrive for discussing it.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SOUTH AMERICAN TRADE.]
Sir Robert Wilson
, in rising to bring forward his motion for a Return of the Official Value of Exports to the States of South America, said that he felt some embarrassment, because he had to reply to accusations against those states, which came not from unknown or irresponsible parties, but from those who, by their station, gave; greater weight to the charges they brought. He did so, however, because he was desirous that the South American States should see, that if there were persons who traduced them unjustly, and used harsh: and severe language towards them in this
1425
1426
l
1427
l
l
1428
Mr. C. Grant
said, he would very readily accede to the motion, at the same time he feared there might be some difficulty in making out all the returns called for. As to the remarks with which his gallant friend had accompanied that motion, they did full justice to the object of it.
The motion was agreed to.
FOREIGN TRADE—IMPORTS FOR HOME
Sir Henry Parnell
rose for the purpose of moving for several accounts respecting the Foreign Trade of the United Kingdom. The first account was similar to an account that was laid on the table of the House in the last session, on a motion that he had made: it was an account of the importation of a great number of articles of foreign manufactures, and raw materials, in the years 1824 and 1826. These years were taken, because it was in the year 1825 that the customs duties were altered with the professed design of establishing a free trade—and therefore, a comparison of the importations of 1824 with those of 1826, would show the practical effect of the alteration of the duties, and of what is called the Free-trade System. The account he now proposed to move for was of the importations of'1824, 1826, and 1827, for the purpose of showing what the effect of the alteration of the duties had been in 1827. The account which was presented last year proved that the prediction which he had made in 1825, of the effect of the new system, was well founded; namely that no considerable increased importation of foreign manufactures would take place, because the new duties had been fixed so high as to be prohibitory duties. In point of fact there was no other progress made in introducing free trade, except the changing a system of absolute prohibition into a system of prohibitory duties. The country, therefore, still suffers all the injury that belongs to a system of restriction and protection. The immediate evil of this system is the
1429
l
1430
Mr. Robinson
said, he was friendly to free trade, but should like to see foreign countries give us advantages corresponding; with those we yielded them. France and the United States had given us nothing in return for the liberal policy we had exercised towards them.
Mr. Hume
urged the expediency, if we wanted France to be liberal to us, of not giving such an unfair advantage to the wines of Portugal.
The motion was agreed to.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN NEW
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to provide for the Administration of Justice in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. The important colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land were now regulated, in what related to the administration of justice, by an act passed in the year 1821. His object, in the first instance, was to provide for the continuance of certain powers contained in that act, which were about to expire; and, in the next, to provide for future alterations in the administration of justice. From the peculiar situation in which the population of those colonies were placed, about two-thirds of the inhabitants having forfeited their civil rights, it was difficult to have the law administered in the manner which prevailed in this country, by means
1431
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 2.
STAMPS ON CARDS AND DICE.]
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Acts regulating the Stamp Duties upon Cards and Dice,
Mr. G. Dawson
said, that in submitting certain resolutions to the committee, for the repeal of the duty on cards and dice, he was induced to take that course from a conviction that the duties on those articles were too severe, and gave rise to much fraud in the manufacture and sale of the articles in question. His object would be to repeal the existing acts, with a view to a reduction of the duties. His motives were, a desire to take away the existing temptations to fraud, to simplify the duties, and to prevent, by the proposed reduction, the surreptitious importation of foreign cards, and the sale of home-made second-hand cards in the shops. The present acts on the subject were found insufficient to protect the public revenue or the public morals. The result of the duties was a fraudulent evasion of the law. In the reign of queen Anne, the first duty, 6
d
s
s
d
s
s
d
1432
s
d
d
d
s
d
s
d
Sir J. Newport
had no objection to the measure proposed, though he could not help thinking that while the enormous duties on fire insurance existed, the article of cards was an odd one to make the subject of an experiment in the way of a modification of duties; nor could he see how an encouragement to a more general use of cards was calculated to protect the morals of the people.
Mr. Hume
hailed the measure as a sign of the approaching prevalence of sound principles. As to the effect of this repeal of duties on the public morals, would it not remove the temptations to smuggling and forging? The measure was an excellent one, and he hoped to see the government extending the principle of it to other articles that were subject to high duties. He had no doubt there were establishments all along the coast opposite England, for the express manufacture of every article that was subject to high duty in this country. But those foreign manufacturers ere not to be blamed, but the govern-
1433
The resolutions were agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 3.
CONTROVERTED ELECTION LAWS.]
Mr. Wynn
said, that, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend the laws on the subject of Controverted Elections, he felt it necessary to offer a few observations. The House knew, that it was now fifty-eight years since a Select Committee had been appointed to inquire into those laws, and that since that period ten acts of parliament had been passed on the subject. It was his wish to consolidate all these acts into one. He had prepared the bill, and would state shortly to the House the material alterations which it was the object of that bill to make in the present laws. In the first place, great difficulty and inconvenience had arisen from that part of the law which rendered it necessary that, on the presentment of petitions, the parties should enter into two recognizances; the one, to prosecute the petition, and the other to defray the expenses of its prosecution. It was clear that only one of; these could be necessary; and it was his wish therefore to remove the other. It repeatedly happened under the present laws, that the very clay before the trial of a controverted election was to come on, when the petitioning party had made all the necessary preparations, summoned his witnesses, and brought them to town at a considerable expense, the sitting member declined I to defend his seat. Hence arose a new delay of thirty days, and the witnesses were sent back to the country. It was his intention to give the sitting member fourteen days to decide whether he would defend his seat; and in the event of his; not declaring his intention within fourteen; days after the presentment of the petition, to make him liable for the costs that might have been incurred. He did not think that this, which was merely an act of justice to the petitioner, could be considered as any hardship upon the sitting member. Another reason why this alteration ought to be made was, that supposing the contents of the petition to be substantiated, the sitting member was completely out of court, and a person re-
1434
1435
Mr. Croker
agreed in all that had fallen from the right hon. gentleman. He wished to say a word or two on the question of nominees. When the Irish parliament adopted the acts of the English parliament on this subject, they left out the part respecting nominees, and never found that the omission of it caused any difficulty, either from want of information or want of justice.
Sir J. Macintosh
said, he never was in a more unpleasant situation in his life, than when he had been appointed a nominee. He would throw out, as a suggestion to the right hon. gentleman, whether a convenient substitute for nominees might not be found by resolving, that the committee should choose a chairman, not from among themselves, but from the body of the House.
Mr. Bankes
entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. mover. In the course of his parliamentary life, he
1436
Mr. Secretary Peel
agreed, that the time was come when these laws ought to be consolidated, and thought the House was under great obligations to his right hon. friend. He was sure that great advantage would result from the measure. The constitution of committees ought to be altered with respect to nominees; and he thought eleven members quite enough for a committee. Besides, it might be necessary that many committees should be appointed, and therefore the more the number of persons in each committee was reduced, the greater provision there would be for committees. At the same time, the loss of the nominees ought to be compensated for by some other means, in order that ability and experience might be ensured to each committee. He thought great inconvenience would result, if the committee was allowed to select a chairman from the body of the House. He wished to suggest to his right hon. friend, whether some person might not be appointed by way of assessor. All he was afraid of was, that if there were only to be thirty-three names, with the power of striking off twenty-two, committees would be appointed which, from their inexperience, would not obtain the confidence of the House.
Sir J. Macintosh
said, his suggestion was, that it should be made imperative on the committee to select a chairman from the body of the House. This would do away with the reflection which the right hon. gentleman had alluded to.
Sir G. Warrender
thought there ought to be an assessor appointed. A committee of which he was a member had actually overturned a decision of the Court of Session; which decision was afterwards confirmed by the House of Lords.
Mr. Calcraft
agreed that nominees ought to be abolished. He had often been a nominee, but he would not plead guilty to all that had been said against them. He did not like the proposition of an assessor. He thought the suggestion of making it imperative on committees to select a chairman from the body of the House was a very proper one. The House and the country would, he was
1437
Dr. Phillimore
said, he had served as a nominee on the committee to which his hon. friend (sir G. Warrender) had alluded; and so far from that committee having' violated the law, he was sure that its decision was founded on the soundest principles of law. He agreed that nominees ought to be abolished; and thought that if a committee had the benefit of two expert counsel, they would seldom decide wrong.
Mr. S. Rice
thought the constitution of election committees bad. It was bad that their proceedings should be conducted with closed doors. Whatever the strict rule of the House might be, no gentleman would say, that the two Houses of parliament could perform their functions with effect, unless the public were made acquainted with their conduct, and the reasons and principles on which they decided upon public questions. But in a committee up stairs every thing was decided irrevocably, and in the dark; and though it was known what decision they had come to, the reasons of that decision were concealed. He would state one curious fact. A petition had been presented against the return of his hon. friend (Mr. Hume); but there was not the shadow of a case made out on the part of the petitioner, and it was therefore voted unanimously, that the hon. member should not be called upon for a defence: but, when the question that the hon. member should retain his seat came to be decided, four of the committee who had so voted unanimously, voted also, that he should not retain his seat. What possible reason could have actuated these four, it was not for him to divine; but he was sure that no such thing could have occurred if the doors had been open.
Mr. R. Colborne
thought if the hon. member's plan were adopted, that a little debate would be got up upon every question, however unimportant.
Mr. Warburton
said, that though long speeches might be an inconvenience, the benefit which would result from the doors being open ought not to be left, out of the consideration. Publicity was the true corrective for the evil.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that every committee should have a person of knowledge and experience to counsel and advise them. A committee,
1438
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
GREEKS—SLAVES FROM THE MOREA.]
Sir R. Wilson
said, he felt it his duty to address the House on a subject which deeply concerned, not only the interests of humanity, but the national faith. Official advice had now been received, that—he had heard even seven thousand persons, but certainly—several thousand persons, men, women, and children, had been forcibly taken from the Morea, put on board the Egyptian fleet, and landed at Alexandria, where they had been publicly sold as slaves. The sufferings of these unhappy persons had been highly aggravated, from their having been torn from their country at a moment when the blessings of freedom had just begun to dawn upon it. The right hon. Secretary had, on a former occasion stated, that orders had been issued that none of the non-combatting part of the Greek population should be removed. He would ask then, how it was possible, while such orders existed, that the Egyptian fleet, or rather that remnant of a fleet which had escaped the battle of Navarino, should have been allowed to commit this piracy; for, to tear women and children from their homes and consign them to slavery was the worst of piracy? He wished to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether any official advices had arrived in this country which explained this transaction? He wished, also, to ask the right hon. gentleman whether any measures had been taken by this country, by itself, or in conjunction with its allies, to redeem these unfortunate persons from their bondage? This reparation, at least, was due to Greece, which had a right, under the treaty of the 6th of July, to claim the protection of the allied powers from wrongs like these, and all the relief that could be afforded them when the infliction of such wrongs had been allowed.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had already stated, that in 1825, and consequently long before the protocol was signed by the duke of Wellington at Petersburgh, and long before the treaty of the 6th of July, his majesty's ministers had received an indistinct intimation, that the commander of the Egyptian forces intended to take away the inhabitants of the Morea to serve in Egypt; and before the treaty
1439
Sir F. Burdett
thought that the honour of the country, no less than the interests of humanity, was implicated in the question; but he was bound to admit, that the observations of the right hon. gentleman were so far satisfactory, that they displayed no want of proper feeling upon the subject. At the same time, he rejoiced that the question which called forth those observations had been asked; and trusted that
1440
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that in 1825 a project had been conceived by Ibrahim Pacha, of carrying off the whole population of the Morea into slavery in Egypt, and re-peopling the country with Arabs. As soon as that intention had been known at St. Petersburgh, a declaration of the strongest character had been issued, stating that the first attempt to execute it would be held to justify the most decided measures on the part of the powers of Europe for its prevention. The abominable outrage by which so many unoffending women and children had been carried into captivity, seemed to be a sort of remains of the project of 1825; and merited the promptest notice by this country. He could not doubt that the inquiry, in which the government was engaged, referred to the most convenient measures for restoring the unhappy victims to their country, and he trusted that every effort would be made, not only to disclaim any acquiescence in such an act on the part of England, but to repair, as far as possible, the consequences of it. With respect to the great general question connected with this subject, he should at present abstain as far as possible from making any comments on it, although it was a topic upon which he and those who thought with him observed silence with difficulty; and how much longer it would be possible for them to persevere in a silence which cost them so great an effort, and which might be liable to misconstruction, it was impossible for him to say. It was a little extraordinary, that, while the other powers, which were parties to the Treaty of London, had declared their intentions plainly, England alone should refuse to speak out. In, France, the full explanation of M. Peyronnet, left no question as to what the policy of that country would be. Russia, in a communication which was substantially official, had avowed to all the world the motives of her policy, and she was at that very moment probably on the eve of executing it. Even the Turks themselves had made known the whole course of fraud and delusion which they had been practising upon all the powers of Europe for a series of years. Under these circumstances, he would, shortly after the recess,
1441
Mr. Bright
said, he had never been convinced of the wisdom of the treaty upon which the learned gentleman had laid so much stress. He called upon ministers rather to revise their course of policy, than allow their feelings to hurry them into a war.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, there was one point of the speech of the learned member for Knaresborough upon which he must observe, lest he should be supposed to acquiesce in it. The learned member said, that he presumed the "inquiry," of which he (Mr. Peel), in a former address to the House, had spoken, could be nothing else than an inquiry into the best mode of restoring that part of the population recently carried from the Morea to their country. Now, he was not aware that it was possible entirely to go that length. Undoubtedly, if the instructions of government had been strictly complied with, the transportation of those persons would have been prevented. No blame was to be attached to the conduct of our fleet, the physical powers and means of which had been cramped by the battle of Navarino: but the orders, if it had been possible to have executed them fully, were to prevent any movement of the hostile fleet, unless one which should be sanctioned by the English admiral, and of which the object should be to transport the Egyptian forces employed in the Morea back to their own country. As the intelligence at present stood the extent of the spoliation that had been committed was uncertain. Unfortunately, too, those slaves had been landed in Egypt, and sold in the public market. If the ships which contained them had been taken at sea, there could have been no difficulty about their disposal; but now they were probably divided, and the property of private individuals. At present he would go no further than to repeat, that within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the news, the most active inquiry had been entered upon by government, as to all the facts connected with the case. Sufficient information had not yet been received; but the investigation was going on.
1442
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Sir F. Burdett
inquired when the Report of the Commissioners might be expected
Mr. Peel
said, he understood that the report would be ready about the 21st of the month.
Sir J. Yorke
thought that the commission looked very much like a job. That Mr. Telford, Mr. Brande, and Dr. Roget, should have been six months examining whether there was a sufficient supply of water for the town, and whether that water was of a wholesome quality, seemed to him inconceivable.
Mr. Peel
said, that the commissioners had not been employed so long as six months; and, in addition to an analysis of the water, they had to examine the books and affairs of the water companies. The commissioners were gentlemen of the highest character, and were incapable of being concerned with a disgraceful job.
Sir F. Burdett
doubted whether any analysis would satisfy the public: a given quantity of water might be perfectly clear, but unless it was drawn from a pure and wholesome source, the inhabitants of the metropolis would never be satisfied.
The House adjourned to the 14th of April.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 15.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne
Earl Grey
said, he had no objection to the passing of the bill, but he rose to object to one of its clauses. Their lordships would find in the clause directing the punishment for the crime of murder, the usual punishment of the dissection of the criminal's body was omitted, and power was given to the judge of ordering the criminal to be hung in chains. He was certainly not one of those who on common occasions contended for severity of punishment. It had, indeed, been remarked, that the law of this country was much too sanguinary. The punishment of death was unhappily extended to many offences of an inferior nature to the crime of murder; and the distinction made by dissecting the murderer's body appeared to him to give an additional terror against
1443
1444
Lord Tenterden
concurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble earl. When the bill was committed a first time, the noble marquis proposed the alteration in the law now alluded to. It was then understood, that he had no objection to the clause, though he desired another opportunity for further consideration on the subject, when the bill should be recommitted. Upon that occasion he happened not to be present, and had lost the opportunity of expressing his opinion. If it were not now too late to make an amendment, he should be desirous that the clause should be restored to its original shape. The object of omitting the punishment from the bill was, because it attached a stigma to the practice of dissection, which, if done away with, would give greater facility for a supply of subjects, and thereby promote the science of surgery. Whether that would be the case he had great doubt; and when it was a matter of doubt, he should be unwilling that any alteration should be made in the law as it now stood, which law he hoped would serve as an additional terror to induce persons, if any thing could induce them, from the commission of that most horrible of crimes. He perfectly agreed in what the noble earl had said, that when a man had made up his mind to the commission of murder, no consideration of the punishment could divert him from it; but
1445
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that the ground on which the punishment of dissection was omitted in the clause, was the statement of persons in the surgical profession, who represented that they would rather remain without the assistance of that small supply of bodies which the law afforded them, if by that means a stigma would be removed, by which removal they hoped to obtain a sufficient number of bodies for purposes of science, without being obliged to make use of a system, which had the effect of exciting crime in another direction: he alluded to the practice of body-snatchers, a practice which placed men in a situation, by which they were gradually led on to the commission of other crimes. So long as the present law afforded the only supply of bodies for surgeons, a road would be kept continually open to crime. As long as the supply of subjects was inadequate to the purposes of instruction, the medical student would be driven out of this country to complete his education. It could not, however, be an idle theory, that condemning the murderer to be dissected operated to prevent people from giving their bodies, after death, for the same purpose. As long as it was thought necessary to preserve this distinction between murder and other crimes, by adding dissection to death, so long would innocent persons have an abhorrence to submit to what was regarded as a great punishment. No persons would voluntarily expose themselves or their friends to that which was inflicted on murderers; though it was of great importance to science that persons should, after death, be dissected. He would not, however, persevere; and it was yet quite time for his noble friend to move his amendment.
The bill was read a third time, and, with earl Grey's amendment, passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 15.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL.]
Mr. Littleton
said, he rose to submit to the House
1446
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
1447
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.,
l.
s.,
l.
s.
l.
1448
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that with respect to the question of fees generally, he would only remark, that the propositions of his hon. friend applied to the principle on which fees were taken on all private matters brought before that House, and he thought it would be well for the House, before it acquiesced in
1449
Sir C. Burrell
approved of the principle of the resolutions, and quoted an instance where a very important road in the western part of Sussex was obliged to be neglected, in consequence of the great expense that would be incurred in procuring a bill to alter the provisions of the act now in being.
Sir T. Lethbridge
expressed his approbation of the resolutions. It appeared to him that Turnpike-bills, though treated as private bills, were, in fact, bills of a public nature.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, it was exceedingly unfair, that any portion of the expense attendant on the furtherance of public business should be defrayed out of fees paid by private individuals. The House was not perhaps aware, that there was no charge for engrossing public bills; the whole expense was charged on private bills. Why such a system should be adopted he knew not. Certainly it was very unjust.
Mr. H. Drummond
complained that the existing system pressed very heavily on Scotland. In some instances the whole income of a Turnpike trust was swallowed up in procuring the renewal of a bill.
Mr. Baring
could not see how any resolutions of that House could effect the object contemplated by the hon. member for Staffordshire; since the fees complained of might, and most probably would, still be exacted in the other House. The best way to remedy the evil would be by the introduction of a bill.
Mr. Littleton
could not conceive, even if the Lords did not choose to give up those fees, why the Commons should abstain from taking a step that would be satisfactory to the country. It was very probable, if the Commons agreed to the
1450
The further consideration of the resolutions was postponed till Monday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 17.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL
Lord Holland
Lord Holland
rose, and spoke to the following effect:—
*
*
1451
"A Bill for strengthening the Protestant Succession."
"Region mild of calm and serene air,"
*
—" semperque innubilus æther
"Integit et large diffuso lumine ridet."†
places of trust by this Revolution. I know you are sensible there is a necessity of some law to settle the Oaths to be taken by all persons to be admitted to such places. I recommend it to your cave to make a speedy provision for it; and, as I doubt not but you will sufficiently provide against Papists,
so I hope you will leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve."
*
1452
1453
*
*
1454
as did
"Rites and Usages of the Church of England as now practised,"
1455
"Valeat, quantum valere potest."
*
*
"He" (Ormonde) "had kept the discovery of the king's change a secret from his friend the chancellor all the time they were abroad together, but
now
some measures
prœmunire
1456
Oh Gloria !
1457
1458
1459
Lord Eldon
.—One year.
Lord Holland
.—I thank my noble and learned friend; one year, then, taken the Sacrament, according to the rites of the Church of England—and this provision was not to take place till two years after the passing of the act. Now, how could the legislators of that day anticipate future legislation any more than we can do? Unless they did, how could they know, before-hand, what the test they were prescribing would, two years afterwards, be? Suppose the act of Uniformity had not passed, what then would have been the effect of the Corporation act which passed before it? Why, it would have stood thus: All persons accepting office in a corporation must have taken the Sacrament according to the rites of the Presbyterian church, or rather according to the individual whim of the officiating parish minister, who might decide what those rites, in the particular instance, should be.—The general design of the Corporation act was to effect a purpose possibly salutary, possibly necessary, but certainly of a temporary nature. Many of its provisions have expired; others are repealed; and in those points, as in others, it forms a complete contrast to the Test act, and is as much at variance with it, in its subsequent fate and treatment, as it was in its original design, history and principle.
1460
1461
pari passu
1462
1463
—"Reward,
The part of Heaven in Kings; for Punishment
Is Hangman's work, and drudgery for Devils."
*
"Scorn'd delights and liv'd laborious days,"
*
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
in Banco Regis
Per Quods
1469
jubjectum Juris
Jus
Illud quod dicere nolo
*
*
1470
*
frequently threatened with vexatious law suits
*
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
the consequences whereof are much to be apprehended, though possibly they may not all be foreseen to their full extent."
1479
*
*
Opera et Dies
1480
1481
mutatis mutandis
1482
York
1483
The Earl of Winchelsea
said, he thought it imperative upon their lordships to insert in this measure some clause rendering the support and maintenance of orthodoxy necessary on the part of those Dissenters who were appointed to public offices. The Church ought to be protected against the machinations of persons who avowedly professed Deism and Infidelity. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the bill; but when it went into a committee, he should propose such alterations in the preamble as would, in his opinion, have this effect. Was it not, he asked, right to have some provisions made against blasphemy and irreligion? He hoped that if he should have the honour to propose any such clauses, he should receive the support, not only of every friend of the Established Church, but of every real friend of civil and religious liberty. It had been repeatedly used as an argument for
1484
1485
The Bishop of Lincoln
said:—My Lords, in expressing my concurrence in what has fallen from the most reverend prelate, I feel it necessary to advert to the origin of those laws which it is now considered expedient to repeal. I feel this to be the more necessary, because the noble baron, in urging their repeal, has dwelt at considerable length, on the circumstances in which the country was placed when they
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
The Bishop of Durham
said:—My lords, on a question of such a kind, and of such importance to the great interests of Church and State, as that which is now before us; your lordships will probably not be surprised that more than one of the episcopal bench should be desirous of offering their opinions; and although much of what I might have been disposed to say, has been anticipated by the most reverend prelate who spoke earlier in the debate, and by the right reverend prelate who has just sat down, yet, considering not only the magnitude of the question itself, but the manner in which it has been treated, both in and out of parliament, by its advocates on the one hand, and its opponents on the other, I cannot but feel
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
The Earl of Eldon
said, he did not think it consistent with his sense of the importance of the question before their lordships to give a silent vote upon it. To him it was most painful to witness what labour had been used by some persons to resist the principle that the Established Church was inseparable from the State, and that it was impossible to destroy the connection between the Church and State without destroying the constitution. The Roman Catholics were in the habit of saying, that they were unjustly deprived of the benefits of the constitution. Now, if they would say that their object was to secure the benefits of the constitution, and not to alter that constitution, he would come to issue with them on that point. It gave him particular satisfaction to think, that in opposing the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts, he was supporting the original intention of their enactment. Their lordships had learned, that though this measure was at first manfully opposed in the other House, yet those who had done so had ultimately acquiesced in it. To be sure there was a strong majority in its favour; but then, though there might be some elsewhere who thought it consistent with their own interests to give up the interests of the State, and that against their own opinions and in compliance with the opinions of a majority, that was no reason why he or their lordships, should yield up their opinion to the majority of the other House of parliament; on the contrary, he felt it to be his duty, and that of any other peer, to act on their own conscientious conviction and even though they should have a majority of their lordships' House against them. He had heard much of the march of mind and the progress of information, and of persons changing opinions which they had held for years; but he did not think it possible that the march of
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
The Duke of Wellington
said:—I did not mean to trouble your lordships with my opinions on the present measure in this stage of the proceedings, and I should have reserved what I intended to offer for a future opportunity, had it not been for the statements of my noble and learned friend, relative to the line of conduct adopted by government, when the present bill was first brought forward in the other House. It is certainly true, that my right hon. friends in the other House did oppose the bill when it was first introduced to their notice: and the principle on which they opposed it was, that although they did not approve entirely of the existing law on the subject, they had found it to conduce so much to the advantage of Church and State, without impairing the religious peace of the country—a peace which has been enjoyed by this country in a greater degree than by any other—that they conceived we might risk the loss of our present advantages, if the system under which those advantages had been
1503
1504
1505
Lord Goderich
said, that after the able, eloquent, and perfectly satisfactory, speech of the noble mover, and after the sentiments which their lordships had heard from several right reverend prelates—sentiments which did no less honour to themselves than to the assembly to which they were addressed, and the Church to which they belonged—it would ill become him to go at large into the general arguments which might be adduced in favour of the second reading of the bill. He felt great satisfaction at the opinion expressed by the noble duke at the head of his majesty's government, and the commencement of his intention to support the measure, which it might have been the original purpose of government to oppose. Little was he, who was favourable to the bill then before their lordships, disposed to quarrel with the determination of government. Of one thing he felt confident, that if his
1506
1507
1508
The Bishop of Chester
said:—My lords, I should not trespass upon your lordships' patience at this late hour, were it not that I feel it to be my duty, as a prelate of the Established Church, and as a member of the legislature, to assign to the public, and particularly to that part of it with which, by my station in the Church, I happen to be more immediately connected, my reasons for adopting the course which I think it necessary to take in relation to the subject now under your lordships' consideration.
1509
1510
*
*
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
The Earl of Mansfield
said, that the consideration for their lordships was, whether they would repeal acts which had hitherto proved the best bulwark of the Church, for the purpose of substituting a Declaration, of the effect of which, having no experience, they could not properly judge. If the present law was proved to be oppressive and offensive, let them calmly investigate the evil, and modify it as might, appear necessary; but the necessity should be clearly and distinctly made out: and he doubted whether it had been made apparent on the present occasion. If some sufficient declaration were substituted, he had no objection to the repeal of the laws; but as for the proposed Declaration, he looked upon it as insufficient and insecure. Had a motion been brought forward for a committee to consider what ought to be substituted for the existing laws, he would not have offered the least objection; but he felt himself called upon to oppose the bill as it then stood.
The bill was then read a second time. After which,
The Earl of Winchelsea
expressed his intention of moving, that the following clause be inserted in the bill—
"And whereas, many religious and conscientious persons having objected to the necessity of taking the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, for the purposes aforesaid, as tending to an irreverent use of the same; and whereas, experience for many years past having proved that many Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England and Ireland may be admitted to offices in corporations, and to offices of trust under the Crown, without injury to the Constitution in Church and State, it
1518
"And whereas, by the laws of this realm, constituting and confirming for ever the treaties of union between England and Ireland, it is solemnly enacted and declared, that the churches of England and Ireland, as by law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland; and that the doctrine, worship, and government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain, in full force for ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the said Union; and that, in like manner, the doctrine, worship, and government, of the Church of Scotland shall remain, and be preserved as the same are now by law established, and by the acts for the Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland:
"And whereas, it is just and fitting that all persons now required by law to take the Sacramental Test aforesaid should, on being excused therefrom, be required to give some other sufficient assurance of their being well-disposed to the continuance and preservation of the said United Church:
"Be it therefore enacted, that so much and such parts of the said several acts passed in the 13th and 25th years of the reign of king George 2nd, and of the said acts passed in the 16th of the reign of king George 2nd, as require, &c., be repealed. And be it further enacted, that in lieu of being required to take or receive the said Sacrament, as aforesaid, all persons who are at present by law required to take the said Sacrament, &c., either as a qualification for being admissible to any corporation, or to any office of trust, or as a condition subsequent to being admitted to any such corporation, &c., shall, except as hereafter excepted, immediately before their admission to such corporation, &c., make and subscribe the declaration following:—
"'I. A. B., being about to be admitted to (as the case may be), do solemnly declare, in the presence of Almighty God, and of his Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ,
1519
"And whereas, there are several offices of trust under the Crown, of too little power or influence to make it necessary to require the said declaration from persons admitted to the same; be it therefore enacted, that his majesty in council shall be enabled to enumerate and publish, by order of council, a list of such inferior offices as his said majesty in Council shall deem not to require the said declaration to be made as a qualification for admission to the same. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to empower his majesty, as aforsaid, to excuse from taking the said declaration, any person about to be admitted to be a member of his majesty's most honourable Privy Council, or any person appointed and named to be judge in any of his majesty's courts of King's-bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, or Judge of any Court of Record within this realm, or to be justice of the peace in a county of the same, or to hold any office of state under his majesty, his heirs, and successors:
"And whereas, there is an ancient and laudable custom, that the judges of assize, on their several circuits in England and Wales, do solemnly attend divine service, according to the rites of the Church of England, in the cathedral, or other principal Church of the city or town, wherein the said assize is holden:
"Be it hereby enacted and declared, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or taken to derogate from the said laudable custom:
"And be it further declared, that it shall be part of the duty of the said judges of assize to attend divine service, according to the rites of the Church of England, as aforesaid, unless prevented by illness or other unavoidable impediment."
Lord Holland
said, that with respect to the clause proposed by the noble earl, and which, by the bye, was more like a bill than a clause, if his lordship thought
1520
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 17.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.]
Mr. H. Maxwell
rose to present a Petition from certain Protestant inhabitants of the county of Cavan, praying that parliament would grant no further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The petitioners said, that while they were opposed to that species of emancipation which the Roman Catholics claimed as a right, they were willing to assist them in procuring the only emancipation which would be really serviceable, to them; namely, emancipation from the trammels of a factious and disloyal priesthood, who disseminated principles that were injurious to their flocks. The petitioners expressed their conviction, that to grant political power to the Roman Catholics; would be fraught with mischief to the Protestant establishment of this country. The petitioners, seeing that the Roman Catholics had changed their tone from supplication to threats and intimidation, put it to the House whether persons who thus endeavoured to effect their object by terror and menace were entitled to favourable consideration. The petitioners, further observed, that the existence of the Catholic rent, which was enforced by a bigotted and disloyal priesthood throughout the country, was calculated greatly to alarm the Protestants of Ireland. The organization of simultaneous meetings in every part of Ireland; the measures of threat and intimidation to which the Roman Catholics had resorted; together with the seditious and insulting language which on every occasion was vented against the Protestant establishment at the Catholic Association, induced the petitioners to make this appeal to the wisdom of parliament, to curb the proceedings of that Association, whose existence they considered incompatible with the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. They therefore, under all the circumstances, prayed that no farther concessions should be made to the Roman Catholic body. He agreed in the propriety of the prayer of the petition; But before he brought it up, he wished to put a question to the Home Secretary. During the recess, reports had gone abroad that negotiations had been entered into
1521
prœmunire
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he never heard of these reports until the other day, and could assure the hon. member that there was not the slightest foundation for them.
Sir J. Newport
said, that conceiving, as he did that all those acts which prevented any intercourse between this government and the see of Rome were injurious to the country, he would, on the 13th of May, move for leave to bring in a bill for their repeal.
POOR LAWS—PAYMENT OF ABLEBODIED LABOURERS OUT OF THE POOR
Mr. Slaney
rose to bring forward the motion, of which he had given notice, respecting the necessity of an inquiry into the state of the Poor-laws; and, in doing so, he could not avoid remarking on the very limited attendance of members on the occasion—a circumstance which he attributed, not so much to their want of interest for the subject in general, as to the claims of more important avocations on their time. He, however, was prepared on his side to perform the duty which he had assigned to himself. He felt it would be impossible for him to bring before the House the subject of his motion in a manner capable of exciting a due degree of attention, without trespassing on their time to an extent which otherwise he
1522
1523
1524
l
1525
l
l
l.
l.
l.
1526
1527
1528
l
l.
s
s
s
l
1529
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1530
1531
1532
1533
"Hang sorrow, cast away care,
The parish is bound to maintain us."
in loco parentis
1534
1535
1536
l
l
1537
1538
1539
l
l
1540
Mr. N. Calvert
seconded the motion, and said, that he concurred with the principle of the bill, but objected to part of its proposed machinery.
Mr. Portman
entered into a variety of details respecting the operation of the Poor-laws, and their effects in producing, on the part of the farmers, a particular selection of labourers. He then adverted to the mode of their administration in the country with which he was more immediately connected, and expressed his conviction, that the remedy proposed would, upon trial, by no means prove adequate. He should not oppose the hon. member's proposition, although he did not think that any legislative enactment would have the effect he proposed.
Mr. Cripps
said, that although he admitted the hon. mover had displayed considerable information in his address to the House, and was entitled to their thanks for the pains he had taken in investigating this difficult, subject, he entertained considerable apprehensions that no practical benefit would result from the bill proposed. If no regard were to be had, in the estimate of the claim of the poor, to the number of the individuals in their respective families, and the quantity of labour to be shared amongst those who were in want of employment, of what avail was any bill for that purpose? The remedy, in his mind, consisted in judicious arrangements by gentlemen in the country themselves, and could only be effected by applying their attention to the appropriation of the funds for the relief of the poor in their several parishes. It was in vain to attempt to draw the line as to the artificial distinction of able-bodied and other paupers. If the means of subsistence were withheld from the former during periods of scarcity, they would within a short time become of the latter class, and be strictly entitled to parochial relief. Even charitable donations or foundations were of no avail in stopping
1541
Mr. Burrell
doubted whether the proposed measure would prove of utility. There was one proposal, however, of the hon. member, which, he thought he would find it impossible to carry into effect. He alluded to that by which unmarried men were to lay up, or to have laid up for them, a fund saved from their labours when employed, from which they were to be supplied when unemployed. Now, it would be impossible for the labourer to lay up money, if, as he feared was the case, he never at any time earned more than enough to keep himself. Indeed, he saw no prospect of relief from the evil which oppressed them, except in emigration. When that was begun, the agricultural parishes could take care that the vacancies that were made should not again be filled up. If so extreme a measure became necessary, he should not hesitate, when emigration was begun, to pull down the cottages, as fast as they became empty.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he was disposed to agree most cordially with the hon. member for Hertford, that there was not much to be expected from the bill, in the way of general relief, although he concurred in the principles upon which it proceeded. As long as there was no restoration of the proportions between the two classes of society, and as long as they told the poor man that he had a right by
1542
Mr. Ridley Colborne
condemned the system of paying labourers out of the poor-rates. The hon. mover professed by the bill to give employment to none of the able-bodied men who did not comply with certain conditions; but he ought to recollect, that if an able-bodied man were refused relief, in forty eight hours he became weak and helpless. He believed that all regulations of this kind must be left to the discretion of those who were called upon to administer their provisions. He apprehended, too, that the hon. gentleman's bill could not be carried into effect without some alteration of the law of Settlement. If they took away from
1543
Mr. Monck
thought the House ought to recollect that it was not the free institutions, but the happy and prosperous condition of its people, which gave a character to a nation. A good deal had been said about the redundancy of population being one of the effects of the Poor-laws; but the condition of Ireland, labouring under the same redundancy without any Poor-laws, shewed that the opinion was founded in fallacy. Ireland, without any Poor-laws, presented the spectacle of the most numerous, increasing, and deplorably wretched population on the face of the earth. After some observations in condemnation of the system of paying labourers out of the Poor-rates, which, he said, took its rise in his county, from a recommendation of the magistrates to avoid any rise in wages, lest they might find a difficulty in lowering them again, the hon. member observed, that the pay tables then invented had given rise to all the miseries which the paupers had since suffered. The moment the harvest was over, the farmer reduced the wages to eight shillings, then to seven, and so on until every labourer in the parish became a pauper. A man, too, who had a wife and two children, found himself in no worse condition than a single man. He had bread and water, the liberal allowance of the parish, as a single man; and he had bread and water as a married man; so that the system gave no discouragement to the increase of the number of paupers. If they refused relief to all able-bodied men, they would give an increase to mendicity; for if a man could not get work, there was no law which could compel him to abstain from asking relief; and they would thus cure one evil by increasing another. The only remedy for all this was, in his opinion, the adoption of a minimum of wages: and that might, perhaps, produce a minimum of wretchedness. He would give every man the price of a bushel of wheat, and that would afford him all the comforts of life. If he married then, knowing the amount of his wages, he married at his own peril. It was a law of nature, that the single man should be better off than the married man; but we reversed that law, and made the single
1544
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he agreed in all that had been offered with respect to the vast importance of this subject. He agreed also, that it was highly desirable that government should form a decided opinion upon it; but, unfortunately, it was one of those subjects which the more it was studied, the more difficult it was to come to a positive conclusion. It was in vain to call upon government to pronounce a decided opinion; for it was impossible for any man who had a proper diffidence of his own judgment to come to one. He could not think that the want of employment for the people of this country arose from any cessation of productiveness; for within the three last years there had been a greater quantity both of agricultural and manufacturing employment, than in any other three preceding years in the history of this country. How, then, were the increased rates to be accounted for? Did it arise from the operation of the Poor-laws? If so, how came it that in Ireland, where no Poor-laws existed, they were much worse off? In Scotland there was an intermediate system between that of England and Ireland; but there also there was distress, though not great. His impression was, that no effectual remedy could be applied in the present artificial state of the country. Much of the distress arose from the improvement of machinery, and what remedy, he would ask, could be applied against the progress of human enterprise and ingenuity? He was prepared to give his assent to the bill, but he thought it was necessary to consider its bearing upon other regulations connected with the same subject. He thought the law of settlement was intimately connected with the provisions of the bill. Many of the evils of the Poor-laws proceeded from the law of settlement; but that only shewed the difficulty of laying down any laws which might be applicable to all conditions of society. If the provisions of the bill were carried into effect, he was convinced it would be necessary to make considerable alterations in that law. The House could not pass the two measures simultaneously, without considering the bearing of one upon the other. The hon. mover had said a great deal on the abstract principle; but looking
1545
Colonel Davies
regretted to hear the right hon. gentleman express his opinion, that there was no remedy for evils which were likely to absorb the prosperity of the country, and overturn its institutions. Certainly, if government would not take up the subject, nothing effectual could be accomplished; for as to any gentleman attempting to bring in any measure without the assistance of government, such was the magnitude of the question, that it was beyond the grasp of any individual. He thought the right hon. gentleman had taken a wrong view of it, when he stated it to be his opinion, that the two measures could not pass together. There was no difference in their principle. Nothing, indeed, could more usefully co-operate with the plan of the hon. mover for the amelioration of the condition of the poor, than an alteration of the law of Settlement. The right hon. gentleman asked, whether it was not a great hardship to refuse a pauper relief, and at the same time prevent him from carrying his labour to the best market? This was altogether a mistake. It was at present that the labourer was prevented from obtaining employment; because, under the existing law, the farmer was afraid, by employing him, of giving him a settlement. The man was thus driven back to his own parish; but if the farmer knew that by giving him labour, he did
1546
Mr. Slaney
said, it was not his intention to press the bill through the House this session.
Mr. Whitmore
said, he admitted that great evils existed, in different parts of the country, from a redundant population; but he believed there was by no means throughout Great Britain, such a redundancy as the right hon. gentleman had stated. There always would be a certain pressure on the means of subsistence, which it would be impossible to prevent by any system of laws that could be framed. This pressure was very general in this country, but there was not that great degree of distress among the labouring classes which some gentlemen assumed. No one lamented the distress that actually did exist more than himself. It had arisen, in a great measure, from the causes stated by the hon. member for Reading. The system commenced in the county of Norfolk; and when it originated, Mr. Burke had pointed out the evils that would ensue from it. To that cause he chiefly attributed the distress of the labouring
1547
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
EMIGRATION.]
Mr. Wilmot Horton
rose, to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to enable Parishes in England, under given regulations, and for a limited period, to mortgage their Poor-rates, for the purpose of assisting Voluntary Emigration." His hon. friend, who had just addressed the House, had stated, that a measure of
1548
1549
1550
l
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1551
1552
Mr. Warburton
bore testimony to the great industry and zeal of the right hon. gentleman, but could not concur in the reasoning upon which his motion was founded. The right hon. gentleman assumed that, if 1,200,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that he had not merely doubts, but an entire conviction that the plan proposed by the right
1553
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, he was at a loss to know on what ground the hon. alderman expressed his surprise, that whilst Ireland exported the articles which he had mentioned, a portion of her population was reduced to great distress. It was not new, surely, in the science of political economy, that a portion of a community should have an excess of production which they might export or dispose of as they thought proper, and that another portion of that same community should be, notwithstanding that excess, or even a sufficiency, brought to a state of suffering from want of proper sustentation. The subject before the House was surrounded by a difficulty which attended another subject which had been discussed that evening; namely, that as the poor-laws were passed at different times, laws which were applicable at one period were not applicable at another. This was no less true with respect to emigration: it might be suited to some times and places, and be quite unsuited to others. For instance, some time ago, when distress prevailed amongst the manufacturers of Glasgow and other places in Scotland, and
1554
data
1555
Mr. Calcraft
was favourable to the principle of emigration, but thought it would be highly injurious to introduce the funding system into our parishes. A bad principle had already been established; namely, that of making up the wages of labourers out of the poor-rates. If to that evil, the mortgaging of the rates were to be added, the consequences would be of the most ruinous description.
Mr. Baring
said, he thought that much credit was due to the right hon. gentleman, for the perseverance with which he had applied himself to the removal of that which was certainly a great evil, namely, excessive population. To the principle of enabling the parishes to borrow money on the poor-rates, he decidedly objected. He believed that, by a small expense on the part of the government, a number of emigrants might be advantageously located in Canada. He had no doubt, that with some assistance, the gentlemen and farmers, in many parts of the country, would associate to send out the redundant poor; and that many persons might thus be sent out without the present bill, the principle of which, even if not dangerous, was, at least, alarming to the agricultural population. This, however, should be moderately done; for if pushed to a great extent, the machinery would become clogged, and would not work. The emigrating principle was not suitable to the manufacturing districts; it was suitable only to the agricultural parts of the country; to the men
1556
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. gentleman had expressed so exactly the sentiments which he had always entertained on the subject of emigration, that it would be unnecessary for him to occupy the House for many minutes. He had always thought that emigration was an important consideration to a country like this, which had certainly a superabundant population, and at the same time possessed colonies of large extent and fertile soil. To such a country, so situated, good sense and prudence pointed out that encouragement ought to be given to voluntary emigration. It appeared by the evidence that a pauper, to whom 60
l.
1557
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he had always been an advocate for voluntary emigration, but objected to the advance of money by the government for the encouragement of it. If there was any one thing which more than another would render emigration objectionable, it was a mortgage like that now proposed. He considered this ten times worse than an advance of public, money. They had already seen the mischiefs which resulted from anticipating our resources: if this measure were adopted, it would place the whole of the landed proprietors in the same condition as the country was placed from the same cause. The measure was not voluntary but coercive; seeing that four fifths bound the rest. If emigration were to be coercive, he objected to it; and if not, they did not want any act upon the subject.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 18.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
The Earl of Carnarvon
1558
Counsel were accordingly called in, and the witnesses examined in support of the bill. After which, the further consideration of the evidence was postponed to Thursday.
1559
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 18.
NEW SOUTH WALES.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he held in his hand a petition from the gentry, merchants, tradesmen, &c. of the colony of New South Wales, agreed to at a meeting called by the sheriff, and sanctioned by the government of that country. The prayer of the petition was, for popular representation, and for trial by jury. He had been informed by persons well acquainted with the subject, that the two Australian colonies embraced a population of from fifty-five to sixty-thousand persons, of which number, from thirty-five to forty-thousand were free settlers. The amount of the revenue derived by government from these persons was 60,000
l.
l.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that according, to the latest returns, the total amount of the population was but forty-nine thousand, and of that number eighteen thousand only were free settlers, the rest having forfeited their civil rights in this country, and being sent there as a punishment. He thought that this fact would not fail to have weight with the House, when it came to consider, whether it would be prudent to grant these two great benefits to the colonies. When an opportunity should occur, he would state to the House the reasons that induced him to think, that, instead of such a concession being a blessing to those colonies at present, it would operate to their disadvantage.
Ordered to lie on the table.
1560
EAST INDIA COMPANY—CASE OF MR. MILES O'REILLY.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he held in his hand a petition containing the application of a private individual for redress. It was the petition of Miles O'Reilly, of Dublin, who had lost a large sum of money, in consequence of certain transactions which occurred at Madras; and he conceived he had a right, in fairness and in conscience, to claim a reparation from the directors of the East-India Company. Mr. O'Reilly had put this petition into his hands several years ago; and he had then told him, that his best course would be, to endeavour to procure redress by quiet and peaceable means. In consequence of that recommendation, he had succeeded in keeping Mr. O'Reilly from having the petition presented for three or four years; and he had done so from a hope, which was not yet extinguished, that the Court of Directors would, in that spirit of justice and fairness which characterized their conduct, attend to the claim of the petitioner. But as that body, no doubt from a sense of public duty, had refused to interfere, all he could do was to lay the petition before the House; and he hoped that the statement contained in it, and the discussion upon it, might have the effect of convincing the high and honourable men to whom one very important branch of the public interest was intrusted, that there was, in this instance, if not a legal at least an equitable claim on them, to pay to Mr. O'Reilly, out of the funds of the company, the sum of which he had been deprived. There was, in a statute passed in the 39th and 40th of the late king, a clause which directed the registrar of the king's court to sue out letters of administration, when any person residing in the presidency happened to die intestate. That clause was intended, and, he believed, had the effect of preventing property thus left from suffering that havoc and destruction, with which it might otherwise be visited; since it was placed in the hands of those whose duty it was to take care of it, and to see that it was given up to the right owners. But when the property of individuals was thus, by a legal enactment, taken out of that course and channel in which otherwise it would naturally flow,—when the care of private money was intrusted to a public officer, —then, not only that public officer, but all the agents of the government by whom he was appointed, were bound to
1561
l.
1562
1563
Mr. Denison
said, that a friend of his, a Mr. Sinclair, had a brother who, after residing many Years in India, died without a will. This registrar, who took possession of his property, which amounted to ten thousand pagodas, died insolvent, and his friend had never been able to obtain redress, tie petitioned the Board of Control, who referred him to the East India Company; but they told him that Mr. Ricketts was no officer of theirs, but was appointed by the King's Court at Madras. It was extremely hard that people should thus be deprived of their property, without any fault or neglect of their own. In his opinion, the persons concerned in these two cases had, by every consideration of law, equity, and liberality, a claim upon the East India Company.
Mr. Wynn
said, that the deficiencies of Mr. Ricketts amounted to 40,000
l.
1564
Mr. Courtenay
observed, that in speaking of this case, he would say, as he had said upon another which had been referred to a committee, that where there was a wrong for which there was no remedy, the proper course was to appeal to that House. He was therefore glad that the subject had been brought before them.
Mr. L. Foster
contended, that the money having been lodged in the hand of the Company's own treasurer, this was an appeal to something more than to their liberality. The attention of the Commons of England had been called to a gross wrong, and he hoped that the appeal which had been made to the feelings of the Company would not be lost upon them.
Mr. Lindsay
did not think the Company liable for the actions of an officer whom they had not appointed. The more the case was looked into, the more clearly it would appear, that the Company were not liable for the misdeeds of an officer over whom they had no control.
Mr. Trant
said, if it could be shown that there had been the slightest neglect on the part of any of the officers of the Company, then it was quite clear that the petitioner had a fair and equitable claim.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
protested against the supposition, that the petitioner supposing his case to be made out, could have any claim upon the government. If it were found that any thing was due to him, the payment must come out of the territorial revenues.
NEW SOUTH WALES BILL.]
Mr. Huskisson
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that at a future day he should move two instructions to the committee. The first would be, that the committee should introduce a clause into the bill, extending the trial by jury to criminal and civil cases in the Colony; and the second, that a clause should be received, providing the election of a cer-
1565
l.
Mr. N. Calvert
doubted whether the colony was yet in a state to profit by those institutions which the learned member proposed, though there could be no doubt that, as soon as it was in such a state, it ought to receive them.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the regulations with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency were omitted in the bill, because he thought the colonial legislature better calculated to regulate those subjects than the House of Commons. His great object had been to meddle as little with details as possible, which were always much better arranged upon the spot. As to the trial by jury, the system had been tried in quarter sessions, and, from the peculiar state of society in that country, found altogether inapplicable. The time was not yet come in which the machinery of that valuable institution could be extended to New South Wales with effect; and to attempt to introduce it would only be to destroy a system which was suited to circumstances, and practically worked well already. No person could be better inclined than he was to give the colony the advantage of every institution which the mother-country possessed; but by attempting to go too fast at first, the progress of the good work would be retarded.
Mr. Bright
complained that the bill threw too much power into the hands of the Crown and of the privy council, and needlessly limited the other branches of the legislature in their power of interference. There were certain provisions, too, in it, to which he particularly objected; and amongst others, to that which took away the present Court of Appeal, and enacted that all appeals should be direct to the privy council in England. He particularly
1566
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the present measure would not take from the House of Commons the power of future legislation on the subject. As to the intermediate appeal, at the present moment, there was a supreme court of Law in the colony, consisting of barristers of a certain standing, appointed for the purpose of administering the English law. From their decision there was an appeal to the military governor, who could not be supposed to be well acquainted with the principles of law. If his decision confirmed the judgment of the court it would be unnecessary: but if he reversed it, no person would consider that full justice was done, and therefore that absurd practice was to be put an end to, and the appeal would lie in the usual way of appeals from the colonies to this country.
Mr. Spring Rice
agreed that it would be desirable to make the measure a temporary one. The colony of New South Wales must be considered in a double light: first, as a penal colony, and then as a colony of increasing wealth and importance, and which ought to be dealt with as a society of free, unpolluted men, of course not subject to that peculiar legislation which befitted a penal colony, Such were the present advantages of the colony, that he had seen many letters from, persons, who had been transported thither, inviting their friends in this country to join them. It is evident that the time must come when New South Wales could no longer be considered as a penal colony, and, therefore, when the whole course of government and legislation with respect to it, must undergo a change. It was on that account that he wished the measure to be a temporary one, in order that a more enlarged and liberal course might in future be taken.
Colonel Davies
said, it was a mockery to hold out that colony as a place of punishment, seeing that the convicts wrote to their friends to leave no means untried,
1567
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that nothing could be more erroneous than the belief that the present state of the convicts in New South Wales was such that they no longer considered it a place of punishment. The very reverse was the fact. So far were the convicts from wishing to induce their friends in this country to qualify themselves for being sent out, by the commission of crime, that their letters were filled with complaints of their altered condition, and of the severity of their treatment. Their condition might have been different before the establishment of the internal secondary punishment.
Mr. Marryat
expressed his satisfaction at finding that the inhabitants of New South Wales were, in the estimation of government, so improved in morals and good conduct as to be deemed worthy of being intrusted with such political privileges as were proposed in the bill. He trusted the new council would restrain those acts of arbitrary power which had too generally characterized the conduct of the governors of our distant colonies; and he hoped that this measure was the commencement of a new and improved system of colonial legislation. He would, however, call the attention of the House to the state of our other foreign possessions, and put in a claim to their being admitted to similar political privileges. The colony of Trinidad had been specially reserved as a field of experimental legislation, and though it certainly was intended to apply merely to the point of the melioration of the slave population, yet that unfortunate colony had been subjected to every possible species of experiment. English governors and judges had been sent out to execute and administer Spanish laws without any previous knowledge of the Spanish language. Orders in council had been issued to adapt English laws to Spanish jurisprudence, and such confusion existed, that on the examination of the two judges before the commissioners of legal inquiry, they differed
toto cœlo
1568
l.
l.
1569
habeas corpus
habeas corpus
The bill was then read a second time.
ROMAN CATHOLIC LAND-TAX BILL.]
On the order of the day for the further consideration of the Report of this Bill,
The Attorney-general
observed, that there was no proof that the Roman Catholic suffered by the law as it now stood. Before he could admit that, he must see it proved that the Catholic was assessed higher than his Protestant neighbour.
Mr. G. Bankes
observed, that the remark of his learned friend came at a very late period of the bill, and it was one which he did not expect from him, seeing that he had before assented to the principle of
1570
The Solicitor-general
said, that if the subject had been agitated earlier, he was convinced the bill would never have proceeded so far as it had done. No man could be more averse to imposing taxes upon Catholics heavier than upon Protestants; but he would maintain, that with respect to the Land-tax, they laboured under a very slight grievance. In 1794, relief was given to Catholics doubly assessed, and it was continued to them by the bill of 1798, which made the Land-tax perpetual. It was to be supposed that
1571
Mr. G. Bankes
said, he could not, consistently with the instructions of those whose wishes he expressed, accede to the proposition made by the learned member. He would rather hope that, on some future day, the government would have a better opportunity of turning their attention to the subject, and would be satisfied that what he asked for was founded in reason and justice. He did not think, therefore, that he should at present press the matter further. He would, however, consult his friends, and, in the meantime, move that the bill be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday se'nnight.
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 21.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS
Lord Holland
The Earl of Rosebery
said, that before the bill went into the committee, he was desirous of saying a few words upon the general principles and provisions of the Test and Corporation acts, particularly as they affected Scotland; for, notwithstanding all that had been urged, on more than one occasion, by the noble and learned lord (Eldon), he still continued to think, and was ready to maintain, that the interests of the people of Scotland were materially concerned in these statutes, and that but for the annual bill of Indemnity, they would inevitably suffer to a great extent, from the consequences which naturally flowed from them. He offered himself, perhaps, to their lordships for this purpose the more readily, as it so
1572
1573
The Earl of Eldon
said, that the ques-
1574
1575
1576
Lord Holland
said, that what had fallen from the learned earl required that he should trouble their lordships with a few words in explanation: and first, he wished the clerk to turn to an entry on he Journals of the 16th of March, 1689. The noble earl argued, that one of the great objects of the Revolution was to support these particular laws. Now, when king William came down to the House to give the royal assent to the bill for annulling the attainder of lord Russell, he addressed them in these memorable words:—" I am, with all the expedition I can, filling up the vacancies that are in offices and places of trust by this Revolution. I know you are sensible there is a necessity of some law to settle the oaths to be taken by all persons to be admitted to such places. I recommend it to your care to make a speedy provision for it; and as I doubt not but you will sufficiently provide against Papists, so I hope you will leave room for the admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve." The noble earl had said, that the present objections
1577
1578
The Earl of Eldon
said, he had never stated, that the constitution was formed by the laws and statutes. What he had always said was, that the constitution, as it had existed for a considerable period of time, was a constitution consisting of the union of the State and the Established Church, and that they were united by laws for the preservation of the constitution so acknowledged and so established. If their lordships thought proper to change the constitution they might do so; but he would not be accessary to any such deed. He must act on his own opinion, and he would say, without hesitation, as he hoped to answer to God and his country, that if every man in that House supported the bill, he alone would go below the bar and vote against it. He had not denied that king William had recommended mea-
1579
Lord Melville
said, he considered it necessary that their lordships should understand exactly what the law required in Scotland as to religious qualifications. He entirely agreed with his noble friend who had commenced the discussion as to the justice of the claims of the people of Scotland to the repeal of the Test act. But they had not the same right to complain of the Corporation act; and though their lordships' table was loaded with petitions, they were not all for the repeal of the Cor-
1580
The Earl of Falmouth
assured his noble friends who belonged to Scotland, that he did not rise to call them intruders; all he would say on that head was, that if intruders at all, they were very useful ones, and that on some occasions he hardly knew what this country would have done without them. With respect to the bill before the House, the opinions he entertained had been so ably advocated on a late occasion, that he had then felt it unnecessary to trouble their lordships with
1581
1582
1583
The Duke of Wellington
said, he rose merely to state to their lordships, that the noble lord who had just sat down did not appear perfectly to understand the ground on which he had recommended this measure. Now, he had not gone the length which the noble lord had attributed to him. He had not called on their lordships to agree to this bill, because it had been passed in the House of Commons. He had merely assigned that as one of the reasons that had induced him to recommend the measure to their lordships. He certainly had alluded to the feeling in favour of the bill, which had for some time been growing up in the House of Commons, as a good reason for entertaining it in their lordships' house; but other reasons also operated on his mind. Many individuals of high eminence in the Church, and who were as much interested as any persons in the kingdom in the preservation of the constitution, had expressed themselves as being favourable to an alteration of the law. The religious feelings of those venerable persons disposed them to entertain this measure, because they felt strong objections to the Sacramental Test. Under these circumstances, wishing to advance and to preserve the blessings of religious peace and tranquillity—conceiving the present to be a good opportunity for securing to the country so inestimable an advantage—he had felt it to be his duty to recommend the measure to their lordships. It was on all these grounds that he supported the bill, and not on the single ground of its having been carried in the House of Commons. He was not one of those who considered that the best means of preserving the constitution of the country was by adhering to measures, which had been called for by particular circumstances, because they had been in existence for two hundred years, since the lapse of time might render it proper to modify, if not to remove them
1584
The Earl of Harewood
said, he considered a bill of this, nature, a measure which was so interesting to a large portion of the population, called for deliberate consideration, and ought not to be hastily passed. It appeared extraordinary to him, after the long silence which had prevailed on this subject, that it should be thus suddenly brought before Parliament; and, looking to this circumstance, it seemed as if the government had been taken by surprise. Would any man believe, that after thirty-five or forty years perfect quiescence under these laws, that persons calling themselves Dissenters, without any thing having been done to increase the pressure of those enactments, should suddenly feel the pressure to be so grievous that they could no longer bear it? Was this measure brought forward solely on account of the general feeling of the Dissenters? Because if it were not, he must look for the cause elsewhere. He might be wrong; but he must conceive that cause to be closely connected with another measure, which involved political considerations of great importance. He believed that it was with reference to that measure, that this question was brought forward at present. The question, however, for their lordships' consideration was, whether the present was a satisfactory measure. It was brought from the other House of Parliament—that House having, by this bill, admitted that some Declaration was necessary. Now, it appeared to him to be very curious, that in the Declaration contained in the bill, no notice was taken of this important question; namely, whether a man to whom the Declaration was about to be administered was or was not a Christian? He should be sorry to exclude the Dissenters from those privi-
1585
The Bishop of Llandaff
said, he was of opinion that a Test could easily be formed, which would provide for the perfect security of the Church of England, and be satisfactory to the other party. As to the Church of Scotland, it was, he conceived, perfectly safe as the bill at present stood, Additions had been suggested to the Declaration, but they did not immediately meet his ideas on the subject; and he meant, at the proper time, to propose such alterations as appeared to him more likely to effect the object which every Declaration must have in view. The phrase, "the wisdom of our ancestors," had, he thought, on a former night, been taken up and animadverted on very inconsiderately. He hoped that this arose from the heat and fervour of the moment. It. had been said on that occasion, that the measures which they were now called on to repeal, had been framed and carried in a spirit of violence and faction; but he would maintain, on the contrary, that they were the result of policy and reason, and were rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time. Great dangers at that period threatened the interests both of the State and of the Church. It was right that those dangers should be resisted; but it was equally proper, at the present, moment, when no hostility towards the Church was
1586
The Earl of Haddington
was anxious that the inviolability of the Church of Scotland should be strictly preserved. The learned lord (Eldon) had stated, that the safety of the constitution of Great Britain was intimately connected with the safety of the Church of England. He admitted this position in its fullest extent. He felt that the Church of England was an essential part of the constitution of England; but he must be allowed to say, that the Church of Scotland was as much so. Both churches formed a part of the constitution. Such, then, being the case, he presumed that, to have omitted the Church of Scotland in this measure, would have been wrong; because it would appear as if, in point of fact, when the inviolability of only one Church was noticed, the inviolability of the other was not recognized. The Church of Scotland, however, needed no Test; and, with respect to that point, he would never consent that any Test should be imposed with reference to it. Beyond that, he would state his firm belief to be, that the Church of England needed Tests just as little. His opinion of the Church of England was such as induced,
1587
Lord Colchester.
—I have ever been of; opinion, that the stability of all Governments was best ensured by vesting the political powers of the State in those of its subjects who conform to its Established Religion. In that spirit the Laws were made which it is now proposed to repeal; and they are allowed on all hands to have been necessary in their own day. But, under the nominal existence of these laws, controlled as they have been, or rather suspended, for the last four-score years by the annual Indemnity Act, the Security originally intended has been practically annulled; and nothing has remained but the Inconvenience, greatly exaggerated, and over-rated, as I think—the inconvenience of placing the Clergy often in the situation of being called upon to administer the Holy Sacrament under unsuitable circumstances, and inducing the Dissenters also to take offices under the expected protection of the Indemnity Act, to which offices they were, at the same time, by the permanent Laws of the Country, inadmissible.
1588
Lord Redesdale
said, he should oppose the bill; and his great reason for doing so was, that the constitution compelled the king to be a member of the Church of England. He was compelled to take an oath, in which he swore to support the Church of England and Ireland, as by law established; and yet they were, by this bill, about to provide, that every one of his ministers might be of a different Church [hear]. The king was compelled to be of the Church of England, but all his confidential advisers might profess another faith. This was his great objection, and he did not know how it could be removed.
The Earl of Eldon
Lord Ellenborough
said, that of the two amendments the first was wholly unnecessary; the second extremely mischievous. There would be no hardship in proposing the intended Declaration to persons already qualified for office under the
1589
The Earl of Harrowby
agreed in considering the first amendment superfluous, and the second extremely mischievous. The learned lord had said, that it would be a hardship to require from persons who had already taken the Sacramental Test, a new Declaration in the shape of another Test. But that Test merely consisted of a Declaration, to which those who had already taken the Sacramental Test could have no possible objection. The other amendment would be most mischievous, as it was calculated to maintain those invidious distinctions which it was the object of the bill to remove.
The Bishop of Chester
sincerely hoped that the amendments would not be agreed to. To those amendments he was strongly opposed; and he was surprised that some consideration for his consistency did not operate to prevent the learned lord from proposing them. The noble lord had formerly declared, that he supported the Sacramental Test as the means of keeping the Dissenters out of office. Now, however, he stated that many Dissenters took the Test as a qualification for office, and he; proposed to except such Dissenters from the Declaration contained in the bill. The noble lord would be content with the taking of the Sacrament as a proof of the sincerity of a Church of England man,
1590
The Earl of Eldon
would recommend the right rev. prelate to attend to his own consistency rather than to be talking about that of others. He had at least been as consistent as the right rev. prelate on this subject, and he would be so to the end. He did not know whether the present bill applied to ecclesiastical corporations; indeed, he believed the framers of it were themselves ignorant whether it went to that extent. If it did apply to ecclesiastical corporations, the right rev. prelate opposite, in being promoted, as it was very likely he would be in the course of time, to a certain high and permanent station in the church, would be obliged to take the Declaration prescribed by this bill before he could be admitted.
The Bishop of Chester
did not consider it fair in the noble lord to put an hypothesis which was not a fact, and to argue upon a case which could not happen under the existing laws. He would advise the noble lord to found his reasonings upon something more tangible and more to the purpose. Such a course would be more consistent with the discharge of his duty, and more likely, perhaps, to attain his object.
The Earl of Eldon
begged the reverend prelate would abstain from thus gratuitously tendering his advice. He had advised him (lord Eldon) to mind his duty, but he should not offend the rev. prelate by advising him as to the mode in which he should discharge his duty.
The Bishop of Litchfield
said, the noble earl would except from the proposed Declaration all such members of the Church of England, as well as Dissenters, who had taken the Sacrament according to the rites of the Established Church. But many members of the Church of England might have taken the Sacrament in the discharge of their religious duties, whereas, to qualify for office, it must be taken for that especial purpose, and before certain magisterial functionaries. There-
1591
Lord Redesdale
objected to it. He did not think the security which it proposed at all sufficient. Indeed, it was perfectly ridiculous. From experience he would say, that the Declaration would be entirely nugatory and of no avail. The Chairman said, they had not as yet come to the second clause, which contained the Declaration.
Lord Redesdale
said, that his objection to that clause was applicable to the whole bill. By the act of settlement, they bound the prince upon the throne by oath to maintain the Protestant establishment; and by this bill they would leave every officer under the sovereign free to profess what religion he pleased. Could there be a greater absurdity in legislation?
The Duke of Wellington
proposed as an amendment, that after the words in the Declaration, —" I, A. B., do solemnly," the following be introduced, "and sincerely, in the presence of Almighty God, profess, testify, and"—
The Bishop of Llandaff
proposed, as an additional amendment, that after the word "and," and before the word "declare" there be introduced the words "upon the faith of a Christian." The principle of the measure was to admit persons to office who dissented from the communion of the Church of England. Now, he did not conceive it sufficient to require from such persons, when entering upon office, to declare that they would use none of the influence of which they might become possessed, in virtue of that office, to injure, weaken, or subvert the established church. He conceived that they should be further required, as every magistrate was called upon on entering upon office, to promise to discharge the duties of it, to maintain and uphold the rights and privileges of the Established Church whenever in danger. He should therefore propose, as a further amendment, that after the word "entitle," at the end of the Declaration, the subscriber be further palled upon to say, under the
1592
The Earl of Eldon
proposed, that the word "swear" be substituted for the word "declare," and that the subscriber to the Declaration be further required to state that he was a Christian, and that he believed that the Scriptures, as received by the Protestant Churches, contained the revealed word of God. Those who took the Oath of Abjuration were obliged to profess themselves Christians; but this bill required no such profession. He should like to know what those rights and privileges were. If the subscriber were required, not merely to maintain the rights and privileges of the Established Church, but the rights and privileges of the bishops and clergy of that Church, then he could understand what was meant. But the phrase, as it at present stood, was perfectly unintelligible to him.
Lord Tenterden
said, the amendment proposed by the noble duke should be considered separately from the other amendments, and decided upon its own merits. As that amendment was calculated to give greater solemnity to the Declaration, he was prepared to vote for it. As for the Declaration itself, it required much amendment.
The Bishop of Llandaff
then proposed, that after the word "declare," the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," be introduced.
The Earl of Eldon
claimed precedence in point of order for his amendment. He moved, that the word "swear" be substituted for "declare."
Lord Ellenborough
wished to call the attention of their lordships to the nature of the amendments now proposed. They required the candidate for office, first, to declare that he spoke on the faith of a Christian, and then, having drawn from him a declaration of so solemn a nature, they next required him to declare that not only he would not use his office to injure the interests of the church of England, but would use it to maintain and support those interests. In fact, they proposed a declaration, the object of which was to oblige the Dissenter, who, conscientiously
1593
1594
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he was decidedly opposed to the continuance of the Sacramental Test, and expected to have found the bill repealing that act entitled to his unqualified support. He did, however, trust that something would be substituted for what was taken away. He had a sincere respect for the body of Protestant Dissenters, and would advocate; the removal of all disabilities from them; but there were some who called themselves Dissenters (he alluded to the Unitarians), in reference to whom the term was certainly a misnomer. They were not Dissenters; they were not Christians. He was willing to admit the Dissenters—as well those who had been called in that House "the miserable Wesleyans," as those denominated Presbyterians; but those who were not Christians he certainly would exclude.
Lord Tenterden
wished to call the attention of their lordships to that part of the bill which preceded this clause. Their lordships were not, perhaps, aware of the material difference between the Corporation and Test acts. He was of opinion, that sufficient consideration had not been paid to the distinction between the qualification for Corporation and other offices. He would suggest the expediency of considering whether there ought not to be a material difference between the two acts in the measure before the committee. The Corporation act required persons accepting office to take the Sacrament, and the Test act was framed at the outset against Popish recusants. It appeared to him that, in repealing those two acts, proper substitutes were not recommended; seeing that they affected different interests, and were intended to apply to different classes. The Corporation act applied only to England, and not to Scotland; for that act was passed by the legislature of England, which, at the time, had no power to
1595
The Earl of Harrowby
said, he thought that the distinction between the principle and object of the two acts could be better discussed in a future stage of the committee, than upon the present clause. He, for one, could certainly not conceive what danger could arise to the State from leaving the bill with the original Declaration; nor could he apprehend the additional value of the proposed substitute to counteract such a danger, if any should happen to arise. He differed entirely from his noble and learned friend with respect to the danger of the whole measure, and he was fortified in this opinion by the conduct of the legislature, not at any one particular period under a sudden exigency, but during an uninterrupted series of years, when they had uniformly interposed to suspend these acts, and thereby manifested their indisposition to believe that any danger arose to the Church from the admission into office of a large proportion of the Dissenters. A right rev. prelate had re-stated what he believed to be an historical mistake, respecting the origin of these statutes; namely, that they were originally intended to exclude from civil office all who were not
bonâ fide
1596
bonâ fide
1597
et vera incessu pateat Dea.
1598
The Bishop of Durham
defended the clergy of the Established Church from any excessive proneness to seek the aid of the secular arm. However, if they were altogether to abandon the benefit of that security, they might as well be at once without the enactment of the various statutes which had fenced round the Established Church. With respect to the question before them, he knew that many persons were alarmed at the omission in the bill of any thing like a strong profession of Christianity. This objection ought certainly to be removed.
The Earl of Harrowby
protested, that nothing was further from his intention than to say any thing which could excite an unpleasant sensation in the minds of
1599
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that though he was anxious to give the reverend bench every reasonable satisfaction, he could not refrain from reminding them, that if they would listen to every suspicion which ingenuity would discover for them, they would make this bill not a measure of peace, but of religious animosity and discord. The question which they were called upon to decide was, whether they should introduce an oath instead of a Declaration into the bill. Now, it appeared to him, that their lordships had already virtually decided that question by agreeing to that part of the clause, which called upon every person taking office to sign a Declaration. The bill was intended as a measure of religious peace; but it would not retain that character if it made it incumbent upon individuals to say, "I swear" instead of "I declare" so and so. He hardly knew whether a bill which had been introduced that session for the purpose of conferring relief, in certain cases, on Quakers, had passed or not; but if it had, it would be rendered nugatory by the substitution of the words "I swear," for "I declare;" for, as their religious tenets prevented them from swearing, those words would effectually exclude them from any office of trust and importance. Independently of this objection to substi-
1600
The Bishop of Chester
expressed himself more favourable to inserting a Declation than an oath in this bill. The Declation in question was to be made in the presence of Almighty God, and he could not see that there was more in an oath than in such a Declaration.
The Earl of Eldon
said, that as their lordships called on the king, in his coronation oath, to swear to maintain the Church, the bishops, and the clergy, in their due rights and privileges, it was only fitting that they should call upon all subjects who held office under him to take the same oath. He doubted whether this measure would be a measure of religious peace. The acts which it sought to repeal better deserved that appellation; for, on the one hand, they were confirmatory of the supremacy of the Church, and on the other they held out an indemnity to all Dissenters, in all cases where such indemnity could safely be afforded them. One objection to this bill was, that it gave a dispensing power to the Crown, and would leave it to his majesty to determine
1601
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
said, he had voted for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, in the expectation that it would promote peace and good understanding between the Church and the Dissenters. He trusted that the bill would be so framed as to render it a boon, for which the Dissenters might feel some gratitude. For that reason he would rather have a Declaration than an oath inserted in the bill: but he would add, after the words of the Declaration, the following words, "in the name of Jesus Christ." He thought that no offence could be taken at those words by any conscientious Dissenter. It would be shameful if any person who took office in a Christian country should be reluctant to declare publicly that he was a Christian.
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he was of opinion that it was almost impossible to look at this amendment, without looking
eodem intuitu
1602
1603
1604
The Duke of Wellington
proposed as an
1605
The Archbishop of York
expressed his great satisfaction at the words introduced by the noble duke, and hoped that they would be received with the same satisfaction by those for whose benefit the bill was intended.
The Earl of Winchelsea
proposed as an amendment, to add, "in the presence of the Almighty God, and his Son our Saviour, Jesus Christ."
The Earl of Lauderdale
suggested to the duke of Wellington, that the words should be not "published by authority," but "the version of the Scriptures received by the Protestant Church."—To this the duke of Wellington was understood to assent, as these were the words of another statute, which the noble duke said he wished to copy.
The Bishop of Chester
hoped the noble duke would not press his amendment, as it would oblige him to object to the words if added. It was much to be desired that they should abstain from dogmatising.
The Earl of Winchelsea
said, his object was to exclude from office those who would not subscribe to the declaration of Christ being the Son of God; which he thought could give no offence to any person who believed the fundamental doctrines of our faith.
The Earl of Carnarvon
.—If your lordships, in an evil hour, shall think fit to accede to the amendment proposed by the noble duke, I shall feel it to be my duty to oppose this bill in every future stage, Instead of limiting yourselves to imposing upon all aspirants for office a Declaration that they will not injure the rights and privileges of the Church, you are calling upon them to make a Declaration of their creed. You are entering into details of faith, when you call upon them to declare what part of the Old and New Testament they believe in. Can you say, that there are no controverted books, no apocryphal writings, on which different sects do not entertain different opinions? Whilst you express your desire to throw open the doors of office to all classes of Dissenters, why do you close them again by calling upon them to make a Declaration of their belief in all parts of the Old and New Testament,
1606
Lord Calthorpe
said, he approved of the Declaration. If they added any oaths, they would not add to the security of the Church, and would defeat their purpose. The Church did not need any such protection: its security was founded on the purity of its doctrines and the strictness of its faith. To impose these difficulties discovered something like a case of weakness. So far from upholding the character and dignity of the Church of England, they had a direct tendency to injure the one and degrade the other. Although at the present period, in consequence of the impulse given to knowledge, that occurred which had always occurred while knowledge was in its infancy; namely, the existence of a disposition to shake off ancient religious restraints, and to lean to infidel opinions, he was nevertheless persuaded, that that disposition was confined to a certain class of persons, and that at no time, since the Reformation, did the Church of England stand in higher estimation than at the present moment. Never were its functionaries more distinguished by their attention to their duties; and when the nature of the annual supply which the Church received from the universities was considered, there was every apparent security for her rising higher and higher in the public esteem. Under these circumstances, and feeling that the Church required no such protection, he should lament the transformation of the civil Declaration which the bill contained into a religious Test. The supremacy of the Church of England was conferred on her by law. The means, therefore, by which that supremacy was supported ought to be civil. It was exceedingly desirable to put an end to the Test and Corporation acts, not only to rescue our fellow-subjects from the obloquy cast upon them, but as a warning against future legislation in the same spirit. Although he did ample justice to the motives of those who proposed the various changes in the Declaration, he begged to remind them, that if they thus went on, step by step, altering its nature, they would undo with one hand what they had done with the other. It was a most memorable circumstance attending this
1607
Lord Redesdale
said, he would ask their lordships, what was the simple law on this subject as it now stood? Why, it merely supposed that those persons who took offices were members of the Established Church; and, therefore, instead of interrogating them individually—"Are you a member of the Church of England?" it said, "Do you conform to the ceremonies of that Church? because if you do, I will not inquire more particularly." This was the simple law as it now stood; and the Declaration would only introduce doubt and difficulty where none existed now. If they would simply repeal the present law, matters would stand precisely as they did before the passing of that law. The Church of England stood before the passing of the Test and Corporation acts, and it stood now. To introduce a clause like this would lead to endless disputes. Many men would declare what they would not swear to; and some did not think an oath binding, if it was not proposed in their own way. He could see no end of the difficulties to which this clause would lead, If they would say, that it was no longer necessary that persons taking office should show that they were members of the Established Church by adhering to its ceremonies, let them repeal the law altogether, and not add complicated difficulties by such an alteration as that now proposed. And, after all, what did it do? It allowed a man to exercise every other influence in the world but that which he derived from his office. It admitted to office any person, whatever his religious opinions might be, if he would promise not to make his office the means of subverting the church. The first Church in this country was the Church of Rome; but at one time they had a king upon the throne who had the House of Lords at. his command. He, was a sort of absolute king, who by
1608
The Duke of Wellington
observed, that he had introduced his amendment with a hope that it might tend to the production of unanimity. Having, however, become aware that the words of it were objectionable, as they might have the effect which he never intended, of excluding Roman Catholics from being officers of the army and navy, he should propose a more comprehensive form of expression.
Earl Grey
said, that as to the words which it was the intention of the noble duke to insert, he did not wish them to form a part of the bill. For his own part, he should have been more content with a simple repeal of the existing laws, without any Declaration at all. He should prefer that the Church of England should stand, as assuredly it would stand, upon that rock which was formed by the purity of its doctrines and the superior character of its professors. These would form security enough, without the aid of Test and Corporation acts. On these the Church of Ireland had rested in safety, without any such assistance as these acts were supposed to afford; or if it was exposed to any danger it was owing to those severe and intolerant laws which made the majority of the people of Ireland the enemies of the church establishment. If, then, he should have preferred the simple repeal of the existing laws, so also he should prefer the simple Declaration as it originally stood, to the amendments which had been proposed in it. To the first words introduced by the noble duke he had no objection; but he was afraid that by their endeavours to conciliate, they frequently got into difficulties. The ground which the noble duke had taken on this question entitled him to the thanks of the country, and increased the confidence which he had in the noble duke's administration. If some further proof of the candidate for office being a Christian were necessary, it would be better, perhaps, to add, as a reverend prelate had proposed, the words ",on the true faith of a Christian," or words to that effect. As far, however, as unanimity was
1609
Lord Holland
said, he would not press any noble lords to join with him in his objection, but he could not say "content" to the motion.
Lord Tenterden
next addressed the House, on the clause referring to chief magistrates of corporate towns. The learned lord said, he fully subscribed to all that had been urged with reference to the importance to be attached to the Established Church. That Church was, and ought to be supported as part of the constitution; consequently every thing that upheld its dignity and gave it consequence should be attended to. So long as we had an Established Church, so long ought every thing to be done to give effect and dignity to it. He therefore proposed, that after the word "That," the following words be inserted, "I entertain no opinion on the subject of religion, which can or may prevent me attending the morning and evening service of the Church of England, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer."
The Bishop of Chester
asked whether it was not the fact, that in point of law, no magistrate could attend conventicles in the insignia of his office—whether that law was not in force and perfectly well known?
Lord Tenterden
said, that might be the fact, but still he thought his amendment useful.
The House divided: Contents 22; Not Contents 111: Majority against the amendment 89. The consideration of the other clauses was postponed until the bringing up of the report.
PROTEST AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
The following Protest was entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient—Because we think this bill proceeds upon the alleged expediency of repealing the Sacramental Test, for the
1610
"ELDON,
MALMESBURY,
KENYON,
NEWCASTLE,
BROWNLOW,
FALMOUTH,
WALSINGHAM,
HOWE,
BOSTON,
MANSFIELD,
BEAUCHAMP,
STANHOPE."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 21.
CORPORATION OF LUDLOW.]
Sir F. Burdett
said, he had a petition to present from Ludlow, complaining that the Corporation of that borough had devoted the funds, which ought to have been appropriated to the improvement of the town, to the payment of the expenses which the corporation had incurred in legal proceedings. No doubt this was highly improper conduct, and ought to be inquired into. But the petitioners also prayed, that the House would inquire into certain proceedings in the House of Lords, offering to prove at the bar of the; House that, in a cause in which the petitioners and the corporation had been concerned, and which came before the House of Lords, the earl of Powis, who was the recorder of the borough, had interfered in l an unconstitutional manner; and that lord Redesdale, who decided the case, had been previously consulted upon the proceedings. The petitioners stated, that the burial ground at Ludlow being in so crowded a state, that as often as a corpse was interred, the disgusting spectacle of bodies only partly decomposed presented itself, they applied to the corporation for another; burial-ground, but that the corporate body paid no attention to their application. That, on inquiry, they found that some years ago one Charles Fox had left the corporation, in trust, a chapel and a burial-ground, and that, instead of fulfilling the duties of the trust, they had I pulled the chapel down, and let the burial-
1611
l
s
Lord Clive
said, that his noble relation (lord Powis) would be most anxious that no opposition should be made to the inquiry. He would state shortly the origin of this petition. The corporation of Ludlow had very imprudently accepted this trust of a ruinous chapel, which, after it had been the cause of great expense, they pulled down. The corporation had pulled it down as a matter of security; as it had twenty years before been presented as in a ruinous state. Undoubtedly, the Vice-chancellor and other judges had decided in favour of the petitioners; but sir A. Hart, conceiving that the case did not come under sir S. Romilly's act, advised the appeal to the House of Lords. Upon this advice, the recorder thought it necessary to ask lord Redesdale if it was a proper case to be appealed, and his lordship's advice was similar to that of sir A. Hart. The case was submitted to lord Gifford, to the present lord Chancellor, and Attorney-general, and the opinion of all was, that sir T. Plomer and lord Eldon had misapprehended sir S. Romilly's act. He hoped the subject would be strictly investigated, for he was sure that he should be able to prove that the proceedings of the corporation, to which he had the honour to belong, had been what they ought to be; and that there was not the slightest foundation for the imputation of corruption. From all the circumstances connected with the petition, he could not help suspecting that the signatures had been obtained either by the agent or the gamekeeper of a gentleman who had petitioned against the last return for Ludlow.
Sir J. Yorke
asked, whether it was true that the burial ground was in this disgraceful state, and that the corporation had let the burial ground attached to the chapel to one of their own body?
1612
Lord Clive
said, he felt some delicacy in answering the question, because he might appear to be saying more in praise of his noble relation than he should wish to say. But the fact was, that the church burial ground being small and inadequate for so large a parish, he had made the parish a present of a piece of ground sufficient for a burial place.
The Speaker
said, the petitioners stated a grievance, and prayed an inquiry into it, in order that it might be abated. But then they had a further prayer; and it appeared to him clear, that they could not receive a petition which prayed that House to interfere with the manner in which the House of Lords had performed their duty in their appellate jurisdiction. He suggested, that the petition should be withdrawn, in order that this prayer might be omitted.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he could not help thinking, that if injustice had been committed in the manner described by the petitioners, there ought to be a remedy for it. He would, however, follow the course that had been suggested.
Lord Clive
hoped the hon. baronet would persevere in an inquiry, than which nothing could be more satisfactory to himself and his noble relation.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he would certainly do his best to give satisfaction to both parties. He was not aware when he undertook to present the petition that he should be drawn into a position of so much responsibility.
The petition was then withdrawn.
ANATOMY.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had been requested to present some petitions which were of considerable importance. They related to the state of Anatomical Science in this country. The first was from the president and council of the Royal College of Surgeons. The petition was signed by sir W. Blizard, Mr. Abernethy, sir A. Cooper, and many other gentlemen of eminence in the profession. They stated, that they had pursued every means which the law allowed to procure anatomical subjects; that many were obliged to resort to France to learn a science so necessary to medicine; that the structure of the human body could not be learned by models; that the law required a man to possess a certain portion of information in his profession, and that they were liable to legal prosecution for
1613
Sir J. Yorke
observed upon the number of suicides annually committed in London, and suggested that, in such cases, it would be proper to give up the bodies for dissection.
Mr. Hume
said, that the effect of making dissection at any time a penalty could only be to increase the aversion in which if was held by the community.
Mr. Peel
acquiesced in the opinion of the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that the expense of a course of anatomical study in Edinburgh was already twenty times greater than it was in Paris. It was so heavy, indeed, that not one pupil in four could afford fairly to go through it; and the result was, that great numbers were turned out, with very inadequate qualifications, to practise upon the community. He would not, at that moment, state his precise views upon the subject, but he believed it would be possible to provide all the supply that was necessary, without any offence to the feelings of humanity, or violation of the rites of sepulture. The poorer classes were vitally interested in some proper arrangement of the question, since it was to their lot that the danger from all unqualified or half-qualified medical practitioners must necessarily fall: there would always, whatever might, be the charge of education, be a sufficient quantity of skill and knowledge for the rich. With respect to the proposition as to suicides, he might just observe, that, in opposition to the common belief, it was capable of proof, that suicides were less frequent in England than in any country in Europe; and the giving up the bodies of murderers proved a source of supply entirely unworthy notice. For the last seven years the number of murderers had only averaged fourteen in each year, or one upon every eight hundred and fifty thousand on the population. It gave him
1614
CORN LAWS—WAGES.]
Mr. D. W. Harvey
begged to call the attention of the House to a petition in every way deserving it, not only because it was signed by nearly twenty thousand persons engaged in the pursuit which gave employment to the artisan and revenue to the state, but as it involved principles of acknowledged importance, and which were daily pressing on the attention of the statesman, the philosopher, and the economist. He felt, moreover, peculiarly gratified in being the selected medium of communicating to the House the sentiments and feelings of so large and valuable a portion of his fellow-citizens, who might be considered as representing the claims of every class of men, under whatever denomination, who subsisted by their industry, and whose property was their labour. Unconnected with either of those great and conflicting interests whose struggles for ascendancy embarrassed the government and prejudiced the people, he had a steady and straight-forward course to pursue, and from which no inducement should divert him—that of standing up at all times, and under all circumstances, as the unflinching advocate, however feeble, of equal rights and equal protection. Personally considered, it was no object to him, whether trade perished or agriculture flourished, for he had no community with commerce, nor with the lords of the soil. Springing from the people, he was of the people, and was proud of being their champion, either in or out of that House. At the present moment this petition was of peculiar interest, as it was intimately in alliance with a subject which absorbed, more than any other, the attention of
1615
1616
1617
Mr. Fyler
said, that reference had been made, on this subject, to the principle of political economy, that labour should be allowed to find its level like every other commodity. That might be very true in a new state, where the demand for labour was equal to the supply; but it would not do in a country like this, where the disproportion between labour and the demand for it was so great. He concurred with the hon. member, that the petitioners were entitled to protection in the price of labour, which was their only commodity, as much as other classes who had been protected by legislative enactments. The principle on which the petitioners went was not a new one. It was admitted in the Spitalfields act, which was in force some few years ago. There were no doubt many objections to that act, but they would not apply to a general act of that description—an act by which a committee of the masters and journeymen might meet at. stated periods, and fix a scale of prices by which the majority might bind the minority. The petitioners did not call for a fixed scale of prices, but that committees of the employers and employed should have the power of meeting and regulating the prices according to circumstances. He did not say that this would have an immediate effect in raising the price, but there could be no doubt that it would quiet the minds of the workmen, prevent those fluctuations of prices to which they were now liable, and enable them to make such calculations as would meet their wants from day to clay. He hoped that government would turn its attention to this important subject.
1618
Mr. C. Grant
said, he was ready to do justice to the character of the petitioners, and to the eloquent manner in which their case was introduced; but without now going into the general question, he would observe, that that which the hon. member who introduced the petition had only indirectly glanced at was broadly stated by the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House. The principle which that hon. member advocated was, that a general act should be passed regulating the rate of wages in the several manufacturing districts; that was, that the principle of the Spitalfields' act, which had been very properly repealed, should be revised, and made applicable to all the manufacturing districts. If this were not conceded to them, they asked that there should be an abolition of all monopolies, a free trade in corn and other necessary articles, a reduction of taxes and pensions, and other matters which would embrace a very wide field of inquiry. Now, he could see no necessary connexion between the two prayers of the petition. It did not follow that because there was not a free trade in corn and other articles, and a reduction of taxation, that there should be an act for regulating wages. For the sake of the petitioners themselves, he should deprecate any such measure; for he was sure it would be found to injure them to a very considerable extent, and he was surprised ! that the experience of the Spitalfields measure did not show them the evil consequences of establishing a fixed rate of wages. One effect of that law in Spitalfields was to drive a great part of the trade from that district to other parts of the country. He was surprised it was not thought of, that the proposed general measure would have the same effect on the kingdom, with reference to other countries, which the Spitalfields act had on that district, as compared with other manufacturing places. But the fact was, that the silk trade, at present, was not in such a state of depression as to require legislative interference. Four or five years ago, a man might earn from 25
s
s
s
s
1619
Mr. Hume
concurred with the right hon. gentleman in his remarks as to free trade. On that point he thought the petitioners in error, and also in their opinion as to the regulation of wages; but he concurred with them in their call on the legislature for the same measure of protection that was given to the richer classes of the community. This might be considered the petition of all the working classes; to they all concurred in the principle, that, if they could not obtain the protection for their trade, they should at least have the advantage of a general extension of the principle of free trade, so as to do away with all monopolies.
Mr. A. Dawson
denied that the petitioners asked parliament to regulate the rate of wages. AH that they wished was that a committee, composed of the employed and the employers, might be enabled from time to time to make such arrangements, as circumstances might require. If such a plan were practicable, it might prove very beneficial; and it would at least remove a cause of discontent from the minds of thousands of human beings.
Mr. P. Thompson
expressed his firm conviction, that if any act were passed to regulate the rate of wages, not a twelvemonth would elapse before petitioners would crowd to the House to implore its repeal. If ever there had been a triumphant illustration of the principles of free trade, it existed in the present state of the silk trade; which had increased within the last eighteen months more than it had done for the preceding forty or fifty years.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
very much doubted whether the silk trade had improved generally, although in some descriptions of articles it might have done so. The very statement of the right hon. gentleman, that the workmen who, four or five years ago, could make 30
s
s
s
1620
Mr. D. W. Harvey
expressed his regret that the government appeared disposed to sacrifice the manufacturing interest in order to advantage those who benefitted by the monopoly of the com trade.
Mr. F. Lewis
said, that the silk manufacturers at present enjoyed a protection amounting to thirty per cent on manufactured goods. Under these circumstances it was not right to accuse government of sacrificing the manufacturing interest.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
admitted that the silk manufacturers were protected to the extent of thirty per cent, but then the corn growers were protected to the amount of seventy-five per cent. Thus the manufacturers were prejudiced to the extent of forty-five per cent.
Sir G. Philips
expressed his surprise that the right hon. gentleman should maintain that the manufacturers were placed on an equal footing with the growers of corn. For his part, he believed that protecting duties had none but a bad influence on manufacturers. If every protecting duty on foreign manufactures were removed, he believed the manufacturers would be improved thereby.
Ordered to lie on the table.
FEES ON TURNPIKE BILLS.]
Mr. Littleton
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose to oppose the resolution. The object of it was to declare, that henceforth no fees should be paid on the renewal of turnpike
1621
l
Mr. Littleton
said, he could not accede to the amendment, because it could never produce the effect contemplated by the original proposition. There was scarcely an instance of a bill being introduced to renew another, without possessing a clause which suggested or provided for the improvement of the line of road; and yet, if the House adopted the amendment, any such provisions would render the bill liable to the payment, of fees, although every one must admit that these were improvements in which the public at large were as much interested as the trustees of the road,
1622
Mr. Davies Gilbert
admitted that it would be extremely improper to check the progress of improvement by rendering bills of this nature liable to the payment of fees.
Mr. Cripps
said, there existed a necessity for a denned table of fees, payable on bills introduced to renew turnpike acts, in order to prevent the recurrence of instances of enormous expense.
Sir J. Mackintosh
agreed, that bills for the renewal or the regulation of Turnpike bills, if they effected no material alteration in the nature of their enactment, ought not to be liable to the payment of fees. Turnpike bills were a great public benefit, and distinguishable in their nature from private property. It was therefore no violent proposal that they should be included in those regulations which the House was in the habit of extending to public measures. The resolution of his hon. friend would be a great improvement, and could be attended with no inconvenience.
Mr. R. Gordon
thought it would be a great advantage if turnpike road bills were considered as public bills. The roads were not for the accommodation of those through whose estates they were made, but for that of the public in general. He thought the process of engrossing might be dispensed with, in cases of simple renewal; which would be a saying of 20
l
Mr. Secretary Peel
was willing to admit, that if, upon investigation, it should appear that the amount of fees taken on turnpike bills was unreasonable, a reduction should take place. But the House should pause when they came to consider whether the expense should be defrayed as a local burthen or transferred to the public. For his own part, he was disposed to think, that it would be better to continue them on the present plan; for, if transferred to the public, there was reason to apprehend that there would be less vigilance exercised in watching their progress, and scrutinizing their necessity, than if conducted upon the principle of local charges. Nothing could be more a public benefit than the prosecution of offenders, and yet the expenses incurred under this head fell upon the local districts in which they took place. Far these reasons he would vote against the resolution.
Mr. Wynn
considered turnpike bilk not as private but as public benefits, and consequently unfit subjects for taxation.
1623
Mr. Bankes
concurred in the opinion, that the fees on the renewal of such trusts should be considerably reduced; but the great expense of such bills did not arise in that House, but consisted in the charges of solicitors and agents. He was willing that the fees should be regulated, but not that the charge should be transferred to the public.
Sir T. Acland
said, that the real question was not whether these bills should be exempted from the same charges as other bills, but whether they should not be put on an equality with other private bills. In other bills the tax was paid once, and for all; but Turnpike bills were obliged to be renewed every twenty-one years, when the same charges must be paid as on their first introduction.
The House divided: for the Resolution 50; For the Amendment 32. Majority 18.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 22.
LIFE ANNUITIES ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
The Duke of Wellington
Lord King
thought that no person, except the father or the dry-nurse of them, could object to the smothering of bills by which the public had lost so many millions of money. He had, therefore, no wish to object to the present bill, which seemed intended to correct the blunders of former political quacks. "Quam parvâ, sapientia regitur mundus!" was a well-known maxim, but the framers of those bills could not have been gifted even with that little wisdom; for more foolish bills had never passed through parliament. It seemed scarcely credible that any person belonging to the Treasury should have put into operation two bills which actually counteracted each other. At the end of the last war there remained a permanent debt, and a large burthen of life annuities to the army and navy. A change was effected in that disposition of the debt by a good many nostrums of quacks. By the dead bill, one project was to relieve ourselves from paying the present-life annuities, by distributing it over a larger surface and making smaller annual payments. Another pro-
1624
l
1625
Lord Bexley
hoped their lordships would excuse him if he offered a few observations in consequence of what had fallen from the noble baron, who, if he had taken the trouble to look into the accounts, might have spared himself the trouble of making those remarks. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of that system which it was the object of the present bill to abolish, it was not on him that the praise or blame should lie; the only fault that could be imputed to him or to his successors was, that they did not proceed to alter the law. It was in Mr. Perceval's time that the life annuities system had been established; and so far from its being a favorite with him, he had cautioned Mr. Perceval of the probability of its not answering the purpose intended. However, Mr. Perceval was persuaded of the advantages of the plan; and, after consulting the best authorities upon their assurances, he submitted it to parliament. He thought, if the noble baron had read Mr. Finlayson's letter with any attention, he would have spared many of his observations. Mr. Finlayson, so far from imputing blame to him or his successors, stated that they had followed the only course which lay open to them; which was, that when he had pointed out, in 1819, that the public was a loser by the transaction, they directed him to make himself master of the subject, and gave every facility to his investigation. That gentleman, then, was far from attributing any fault to him: indeed, he would have been to blame if he had acted upon opinions not digested or matured five years after he had left office. His successors
1626
l
Lord Goderich
wished to say a few words on the course pursued by government, with respect to the question of life annuities. It might be possible, he thought, to find quacks in other posts besides that of a minister. The noble baron seemed to think their lordships' House as a repository for his wit. He would not, however, follow his example, but would leave the noble lord to favour their lordships with his critical lectures. With respect to the present question, all that was incumbent on him was, to explain how it happened that no step was taken by him in consequence of the representations of Mr. Finlayson. With respect to the letter to which the noble lord referred, it would be seen by the date, that that letter was addressed to the Treasury at a time when he had no connexion there; namely, on the 30th of April, 1827. He never saw nor heard of that letter, until the commencement of the present year, after parliament had met. Some time after that letter was written, he had become chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Finlayson called upon him and produced two handsomely bound books, containing some of the most complicated and intricate calculations he had ever been
1627
l
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the
1628
The bill was then read a second time.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
Their lordships went into a committee on this bill. Counsel were called in, and several witnesses examined. After which a desultory conversation took place as to the day on which the consideration of this question was to be resumed. It was stated, that in consequence of the business fixed for Thursday and Friday, it could not come on before next week. To this it was objected, that so long a delay would occasion an enormous additional expense, as well as great inconvenience. Earl Grey proposed Saturday, but the lord chancellor feared he could not be spared from his judicial duties in the court of Chancery on that day. However, after some further conversation, it was agreed that the examination of the witnesses should be proceeded in on Friday evening, after the Irish question, fixed for that day, should be disposed of, and continued until twelve o'clock, and resumed at ten o'clock on the following morning.
INDEX
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Address on the King's Speech, 4
Anatomical Science, 1136
Arrest of a Peer, 69
B
Breach of Privilege, 69
Buenos Ayres and Brazil, 1220
C
Change of Ministry, 260, 562, 636
Corn Laws, 1364
Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill, 923, 1170, 1459, 1571
Criminal Law, 1171
G
Game Laws, 350
Greece, 94, 259
I
Ireland, State of, 259
K
King's Speech on Opening the Session, 1
L
Law of Evidence Bill, 1357
Life Annuities Acts Repeal Bill, 1623
Limerick, Treaty of, 350
M
Ministerial Explanations, 260, 562, 636
Navarin, Battle of, 260
O
Offences against the Person Bill, 1357, 1442
P
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill, 1557, 1628
R
Roman Catholic Question, 69, 93, 350, 1049, 1569
Russia, 1333
S
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1161, 1236
T
Test and Corporation Acts Repeal Bill, 923 1170, 1450, 1571
Turkey, 94, 259, 1333
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
A
Address on the King's Speech, 35, 69
Admission of Freemen in Cities and Boroughs, 1234
Anatomical Science, 1612
Army Estimates, 609, 664
Army; Promotions in the, 1126
Arrests for Debt on Mesne Process, 125
Assessment of Lessors, 1223
B
Battle of Navarin, 360
Board of Works, 108
C
Canada Company, 1350
Cards and Dice, Stamps on, 1431
Catholic Emancipation, 109, 114
Chancery, Court of, 35, 315
Change of Administration, 97, 449, 585
Charities in England and Wales, 981, 1056
Cities and Boroughs Polls Bill, 599, 1411
Codrington, Sir E.; Vote of Thanks to, 360
Committee of Supply, 94, 97
Com Laws, 1379, 1614
Corn Rent, Tythes, 95
Corporation of Ludlow, 1610
Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill, 96, 124, 305, 359, 449, 676, 816, 1137, 1180, 1329
Counties Corporate, Right of Election in, 1230
Courts of Common Law, State of the, 127, 833
Crime, Increase of, 985
Criminal Courts in Scotland, 1115
D
Debt, Arrests for, on Mesne Process, 125
Duty on Insurances, 1335
E
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, 83, 669, 925, 966, 1060, 1076, 1252, 1319, 1334
Education in Ireland, 1119
Election Expenses, 1227
Elective Franchise, 1102
Election Laws, Controverted, 1433
Election, Right of in Counties Corporate, 1230
Emigration to British Colonies, 838, 1547
Entail, Scotch Law of, 1019
F
Fees on Turnpikes Bills, 1620
Finance Committee, 95, 422
Foreign Trade, 1428
Freeholders Registration Bill, 989, 1348
Freemen in Cities and Boroughs, 1234
Friendly Societies, 601
G
Gas Company Bill, 649
Greece, 1301, 1438
I
Imperial Gas Company Bill, 649
Imports for Home Consumption, 1428
India; Real Property in, 1339
India, Suspension of a Judge in, 1055
Insurances, Duty on, 1335
Ireland, Education in, 1119
Irish Sub-letting Act, 573
Irish Lessors Assessment Bill, 1233
Irish Vagrants, 1126
Irish Parish Vestries, 1223
J
Judge in India, Suspension of a, 1055
Justiciary Court in Scotland, 1115
K
King's Speech on Opening the Session, 35, 69
L
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, 651
Limerick, Treaty of, 990
Licensing System, 1059, 1149
Life Annuities Act, 1135, 1314, 1344
Lunatic Asylums, 575
M
Mary-le-bone Select Vestry Bill, 1376
Metropolis, Police of the, 784
Ministerial Explanations, 449, 585
Mutiny Bill, 1089
N
Navarin, Battle of, 360
Navy Estimates, 307, 339, 655
New South Wales, Administration of Justice in, 1430, 1559, 1564
O
Office of Works, 1304
Ordnance Estimates, 635
O'Reilly, Miles, Case of, 1560
P
Parochial Settlements, 602
Parochial Settlements in Scotland, 1147
Passage Vessels Regulation Bill, 962, 1208
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill, 83, 1138, 1319, 1358
Police of the Metropolis and Adjacent Districts, 784
Polls, Mode of taking Cities and Boroughs, 599, 1411
Poor Laws, 1521
Poor Laws in Ireland, 1417
Printing Expenses of the House, 989
Promotions in the Army, 1126
Public Buildings, 1304
R
Real Properly in India, 1339
Receipts, Stamp Duties on, 572
Registration of Freeholders, 989, 1348
Ribbons, Use of at Elections, 1227
Roman Catholic Emancipation, 109, 114, 571, 987, 1058, 1520
Roman Catholic Land-Tax Bill, 102, 606, 1101
S
Savings Banks, 258, 1124
Scotland, Parochial Settlements in 1147
Scotland, Criminal Trials in, 1115
Scotch Law of Entail, 1019
Slave Trade, 975, 1023
Slavery in the West Indies, 1023
South American Trade, 1424
Stamp Duty on Receipts, 572
State of the Courts of Common Law, 35, 127, 833
Sugar, Duty on, 1422
T
Test and Corporation Acts Repeal Bill, 96, 124, 305, 359, 449, 676, 816, 1137, 1180, 1329
Tithes Commutation Bill, 1151
Treaty of Limerick, 990
Turkey, 1301
Turnpike Trusts Bill, 1445
W
Water; Supply of to the Metropolis, 1148, 1177, 1361, 1442
Ways and Means, 1310
West India Produce, 1422
West Indies, Slavery in, 1023
Westminster Sessions, 1048
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF'LORDS.
B
Bathurst, Earl, 1168, 1241
Bexley, Lord, 1625
C
Calthorpe, Lord, 925, 1169, 1606
Carlisle, Earl of, 565
Carnarvon, Earl of, 260, 283, 355, 1557, 1599
Chester, Bishop of, 1508, 1589
Chichester, Earl of, 4
Clanricarde, Marquis of, 287, 636, 641
Clifden, Lord, 94, 350, 358, 923, 1051
Colchester, Lord, 1587
D
Darnley, Earl of, 32, 259, 358
Dudley, Earl, 34, 270, 290, 639, 1221, 1334
Durham, Bishop of, 1491, 1598
E
Eldon, Earl of, 27, 283, 1497, 1573, 1578, 1600
Ellenborough, Lord, 302, 1592
F
Falmouth, Earl of, 355, 1370, 1580
Ferrers, Earl, 32
G
Goderich, Lord, 34, 272, 563, 1247, 1372, 1505, 1626
Grey, Earl, 29, 1333, 1442, 1608
Haddington, Earl of, 1586
Harewood, Earl of, 1584
Harrowby, Earl of, 1595, 1598
Holland, Lord, 11, 94, 1170, 1450, 1576
K
King Lord, 24, 925, 1161, 1236, 1251, 1371, 1623
L
Llandaff, Bishop of, 1585, 1591
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 32, 293, 1053, 1136, 1171, 1357, 1445, 1601
Lincoln, Bishop of, 1485
London, Bishop of, 1168, 1249
Londonderry, Marquis of, 28, 93, 357, 562, 1049
Lord Chancellor (Lyndhurst), 69
Lyndhurst, Lord,
see
M
Malmesbury, Earl of, 1594
Mansfield, Earl of, 1517
Melross, Lord, 649
Melville, Lord, 1579 Morley, Earl of, 568
R
Redesdale, Lord, 924, 1373, 1607
Richmond, Duke of, 355
Roden, Earl of, 1054
Rosebery, Earl of, 1357, 1571
S
Salisbury, Marquis of, 350, 358
Seaford, Lord, 641
Strangford, Viscount, 8, 1220, 1223
T
Tenterden, Lord, 1357, 1444, 1594, 1609
W
Wellington, Duke of' 25, 31 259, 285, 648, 1364, 1502, 1583
Winchelsea, Earl of, 1483, 1517
Wharncliffe, Lord, 304, 351
Y
York, Archbishop of, 1482
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Acland, Sir Thomas Dyke, 757, 820, 1623
Althorp, Viscount, 60, 527, 668, 736, 825, 989, 1135, 1200, 1298, 1315, 1344, 1348
Arbuthnot, Right hon. Charles, 1307, 1309
Ashley, Lord, 583
Astell, William, 1376
Attorney General, (Sir C. Wetherell) 600, 607, 869, 927, 869, 1022, 1072, 1109, 1154, 1349, 1415, 1569
B
Baillie, Colonel, 1377
Bankes, Henry, 59, 108, 387, 1306, 1623
Bankes, George, 84, 102, 338, 608, 674, 828, 927, 1073, 1080, 1101, 1267. 1323, 1569, 1571
Batley, C. H. 600, 1324
Barclay, David, 809, 1138
Baring, Alexander, 106, 447, 572, 600, 953, 1034, 1061, 1158, 1318, 1339, 1398, 1412, 1555
Benett, John, 956, 1118, 1153, 1295, 1388
Beresford, Sir J. 1220
Bernal, Ralph, 341, 976
Bourne, Right Hon. W. S. 590, 1179, 1181
Bright, Henry, 572, 1353
Brougham, Henry, 35, 49, 65, 127, 257, 447, 552, 589, 590, 599, 764, 833, 911, 977, 979, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060
Brownlow, Charles, 69, 573, 651, 1121
Brydges, Sir John, 116, 664
Burdett, Sir Francis, 80, 420, 814, 955, 987, 1179, 1376, 1410, 1439, 1610, 1612
Burrell, Sir C. 969
Burrell, W. 1541
Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 1040
C
Calcraft, John, 68, 95, 618, 630, 634, 635, 650, 828, 831, 1135, 1311, 1312, 1420, 1555
Calvert, N. 668, 674, 1284
Carter, John, 911
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. Henry Goulburn), 446, 1224, 1310, 1311, 1337, 1416, 1448, 1620
Clerk, Sir G. 655
Clinton, F. 650, 673
Clive, Lord, 1611, 1612
Cockburn, Sir George, 309, 657
Colborne, N. W. R. 654, 1308, 1542.
Cole, Sir C. 662, 829
Courtenay, T. P. 601, 1056, 1343
Cripps, Joseph. 1540, 1622
Croker, J. W. 339, 1421, 1435
Crompton, S. 1068, 1069
Curteis, E. J. 106, 606
D
Davenport, E. D. 95, 1156
Davies, Colonel, 599, 612, 631, 955, 1545, 1566
Dawson, George, 107, 652, 1378, 1431
Dawson, A. 109, 359, 633, 1017, 1619
Denison, W. J. 125, 975, 1563
Dickenson, W. 813
Douglas, Keith, 343, 1032
Drummond, Home, 1118
Dugdale, D. S. 985
Duncombe, Thomas, 75, 540, 587
E
Easthope, John, 1353
Eastnor, Lord, 1183
Ellis, Hon. G. A. 1308
Estcourt, T. 1147, 1149, 1156
Euston, Lord, 80
F
Fergusson, Cuthbert, 123, 306, 332, 715, 828, 879, 1198, 1339, 1343, 1389
Fitzgerald, Vesey, 81, 831, 1234, 1299
Foster, J. L. 574
Fyler, T. B. 600, 606, 1227, 1617
G
Gascoyne, Isaac, 1294
Gilbert, Davies, 1320, 1622
Gordon, Robert, 575, 1622
Gooch, Sir Thomas, 1387
Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry,
see
Gower, Lord F. L. 832, 1327
Graham, Sir James, 961, 1129, 1304, 1349
Grant Sir A. 976
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 1378, 1618
Grant Robert, 43, 1159
Grattan, James, 573, 953, 1147, 1211, 1226, 1233, 1417
Grattan, Henry, 654, 998
Greene, Thomas, 1155
Gurney, Hudson, 342, 1346
H
Hardinge, Sir H. 635
Hart, General, 573
Harvey, Daniel Whittle, 111, 309, 981, 1066, 1070, 1077, 1088, 1201, 1235, 1359, 1614, 1620
Heron, Sir R. 667
Herries, Right Hon. John C. 487. 585, 588, 589, 592, 596. 607, 1309, 1313, 1314, 1346
Hobhouse, John Cam, 74, 78, 360, 422, 1148, 1361, 1377
Horton, Robert Wilmot, 524, 804, 827, 938, 1023, 1215, 1300, 1352, 1418, 1541, 1547, 1567
Howick, Lord, 1087, 1269, 1316
Hume, Joseph, 100, 105, 108, 125, 258, 307, 310, 311, 314, 339, 348, 439, 572, 601, 620, 633, 635, 649, 798, 962, 1098, 1117, 1124, 1126, 1157, 1214, 1223, 1313, 1318, 1343, 1347, 1355, 1360, 1408, 1613, 1619
Hurst, Robert, 106, 608
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, 313, 314, 388, 448, 463, 551, 728, 961, 962, 977, 1037, 1187, 1211, 1295, 1316, 1348, 1355, 1392, 1430, 1553, 1559, 1565, 1566
I
Inglis, Sir R.H. 710, 1225
J
Jenkinson, Hon. Cecil, 35
K
Kennedy, T. F. 1019, 1118, 1147
Knatchbull, Sir Edward, 805
King, Major General, 114
L
Lamb, Hon. William, 574, 1121, 1421
Lamb, Hon. George, 110, 861
Lawley, F. 985
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 119, 831, 1391
Lewis, Frankland, 653, 1106, 1620
Leycester, Ralph, 116, 956
Liddell, Hon. H. T. 97, 449
Lindsay, Colonel, 1097
Littleton, E. J. 538, 666, 676, 968, 986, 1445, 1621
Lord Advocate of Scotland, 1021, 1115
Lowther, Lord, 600, 990, 1109, 1230, 1235, 1348, 1413
Lushington, Dr. 807
M
Maberly, John, 100, 307, 312, 346, 617, 651, 1135,
Macdonald, Sir James, 591, 625
Mackintosh, Sir James, 399, 1283, 1284, 1435, 1440, 1559, 1560, 1564, 1613, 1622
Macqueen, Potter, 602
Manning, W. 1138
Marshall John, 701
Martin, John, 306
Marryat, Joseph, 1567
Maxwell, H. 1520
Milton, Lord, 531, 588, 651, 742, 830, 831
Monck, J. B. 342, 632, 813, 1347, 1411, 1421, 1543
Moore, George, 573, 1016
Morpeth, Lord, 73, 533, 667, 1391
N
Newport, Sir John, 118, 1111, 1120, 1159, 1214, 1224, 1234, 1312, 1347, 1359, 1418, 1432
Normanby, Lord, 68, 79, 449, 595
North, Mr. 653
Nugent, Lord, 738, 1032, 1089, 1235, 1332
O
O'Neil, A. 1146
P
Palmer, Robert, 728
Palmer, C. Fyshe, 1414
Pallmer, C. N. 1322, 1422
Palmerston, Viscount, 61, 76, 100, 536, 609, 627, 667, 778, 1100, 1129
Parnell, Sir Henry, 990, 1428
Peel, Rt. Hon. Robert, 248, 308, 315, 337, 341, 343, 346, 410, 422, 447, 543, 584, 600, 618, 654, 663, 667, 674, 675, 747, 784, 815, 824, 827, 829, 830, 833, 887, 928, 929, 970, 1002, 1048, 1056, 1061, 1070, 1072, 1074, 1084, 1086, 1113, 1123, 1140, 1148, 1151, 1161, 1177, 1190, 1275, 1302, 1324, 1331, 1360, 1362, 1401, 1418, 1438, 1441, 1544, 1556, 1612, 1622
Perceval, Spencer, 828
Philips, Sir G. 1620
Phillimore, Dr. 826, 910
Portman, E. B. 986, 1540
R
Rice, Spring, 75, 112, 120, 347, 665, 799, 1010, 1119, 1148, 1227, 1230, 1363, 1566
Ridley, Sir M. W. 78, 102, 669, 989, 1108, 1118, 1161, 1201, 1312
Robinson, George, 343, 599, 649, 964, 1210, 1390, 1412
Ross, Charles, 1234
Russell, Lord John, 66, 83, 676, 816, 823, 829, 1073, 1145, 1185, 1206, 1298, 1329
S
Sandon, Lord, 1198
Scarlett, Sir James, 902
Sebright, Sir John, 100, 101, 309, 1093
Shelley, Sir John, 1137
Sibthorp, Charles, 1109, 1232, 1392
Slaney, R. A. 955, 1521
Smith, John, 96, 359, 694, 958, 1092
Smith, William, 124, 585, 600, 1034, 1202, 1412
Solicitor-general (Sir N. Tyndal), 247, 311, 834, 1570
Speaker, The (Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton), 926, 971, 1612
Stanley, Lord, 1126
Stanley, Hon. E. G. 517, 963, 1218, 1354
Stewart, J. 1358
Stuart, H. V. 110, 1210
Sugden, E. B. 897, 1022, 1416
Sutton, Right Hon. C. M.
see
Sykes, Daniel, 572, 668, 1046, 1081, 1102, 1115, 1230
T
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 35, 80, 315, 338, 1060
Tennyson, Charles, 83, 86, 669, 926, 966, 1083, 1089, 1252, 1319
Thompson, Alderman William, 305, 814, 1335, 1620
Thompson, C. P. 343, 630, 1219, 1319, 1619
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 505
Trench, Colonel, 1409, 1421
Twiss, Horace, 971, 1072, 1073
Tyndal, Sir N.
see
V
Vivian, Sir H. 633, 1094
W
Waithman, Alderman Robert, 305, 306, 343, 613, 651, 658, 668, 812, 1061, 1080, 1270, 1319, 1350, 1378, 1552, 1619
Wallace, Mr. 571
Warburton, Henry, 347, 964, 1097, 1208, 1338, 1360, 1552
Ward, William, 1411
Warrender, Sir George, 74, 530, 832
Wetherall, Sir Charles,
see
Whitmore, W. 960, 1033, 1386, 1546
Wilbraham, George, 702, 1096
Wilson, Sir Robert, 968, 1070, 1087, 1301, 1424, 1438
Wilson, James, 1047
Wood, Colonel, 516, 605, 812, 957, 1099, 1158, 1229, 1409
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 305, 315, 809, 1113
Wood, John, 312
Wortley, Hon. J. S. 1220
Wrottesley, Sir John, 311, 349, 986, 1073, 1314
Wynn, C. W. W. 256, 594, 828, 927, 970, 1062, 1069, 1085, 1111, 1199, 1295, 1344, 1415, 1433, 1563, 1622
Y
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 58, 102, 591, 655, 658, 1307, 1311, 1322, 1611, 1613
END OF VOL XVIII.