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
MR. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. XIX.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF APRIL,
TO
THE TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, 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; CALKIN AND BUDD; R. H. EVANS; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1829.
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. Apr. 24. Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
39
1828. Apr. 25. Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
109
1828. Apr. 28. Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
156
1828. Apr. 29. Lunatic Asylums Regulation Bill
196
1828. May 1. Wool Trade
237
State of the Population of Ireland
239
1828. May 2. Game Laws Amendment Bill
279
1828. May 5. Roman Catholic Claims
344
Wool Trade
345
1828. May 6. Game Laws Amendment Bill
360
Game Laws—Night Poaching Prevention Bill
365
1828. May 12. Sale of Game Bill
595
1828. May 16. Roman Catholic Claims
731
1828. May 19. Roman Catholic Claims—Conference between the two Houses
767
Roman Catholic Claims—Petition of the Catholics of England
768
1828. May 20. Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
816
1828. May 23. Greek Prisoners of War
899
1828. June 5. Scotch Settlement Bill
1033
1828. June 6. Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning—Pensions Act Amendment Bill
1100
1828. June 9. Roman Catholic Claims
1133
1828. June 10. Roman Catholic Claims
1214
1828. June 12. South American Piracy
1312
Portugal—Lord Beresford's Explanation
1315
1828. June 13. Corn Bill
1333
1828. June 16. Stamp Duties in India
1367
Scotch Parochial Settlements
1369
1828. June 17. Scotch Peerage Bill
1392
1828. June 20. Penryn Disfranchisement Bill
1443
1828. June 23. Slavery in the West Indies
1463
1828. June 26. Corn Bill
1518
1828. July 3. Scotch Small Notes Bill
1597
1828. July 15. Game Bill
1690
1828. July 16. Foreign Policy of the Country—Turkey—Greece—Portugal
1709
Protests concerning Greece and Portugal
1741
1828. July 17. Corporate Funds Bill
1743
1828. July 24. National Debt Bill
1777
1828. July 28. King's Speech at the Close of the Session
1780
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
1828. Apr. 22. Administration of Justice in the County Palatine of Chester
1
Friendly Societies Bill
13
Anatomical Science—Subjects for Dissection
14
Corn Laws
16
1828. Apr. 24. Government Annuities—Loss to the Public thereon
49
Mr. M. A. Taylor's Motion on Delays in the Court of Chancery
51
1828. Apr. 25. Roman Catholic Association—Petition of the Corporation of Dublin against
137
Corn Laws
141
1828. Apr. 28. Tax on Foreign Wool
187
Currency—Circulation of Small Notes
190
Corn Laws
191
1828. Apr. 29. Settlement by Hiring Bill
199
Corn Bill
208
May 1. Reduced State of Wages
260
Customs and Excise Laws—Recovery of Penalties under
262
1828. Apr. 2. Corporation, and Test Acts Repeal Bill
289
Civil Government of the Canadas
300
1828. Apr. 5. Law of Evidence Bill—Offences against the Person Bill
350
1828. Apr. 6. Fraudulent Devises—Liability of Real Property
368
Scotch Parochial Settlements Bill
371
1828. Apr. 7. Sir Francis Burden's Motion for a Committee on the State of the Laws affecting the Roman Catholics
375
1828. Apr. 9. The Debate continued
470
1828. Apr. 12. The Debate continued
596
1828. Apr. 13. Roman Catholic Claims
680
1828. May 13. Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning
681
Summary Convictions—Petty Felonies
716
1828. May 14. Gaol Discipline
718
Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning
719
1828. May 15. Case of Mr. Serjeant Rough
724
Usury Laws
727
Cities and Boroughs Polls Bill
728
1828. May 16. Navy Estimates
731
1828. May 19. Supply of Water to the Metropolis
771
State of our Foreign Relations—Turkey and Greece
774
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
779
Navy Estimates
813
1828. May 20. Usury Laws
816
Pensions on the Civil List
829
Law of Real Property—Property in Infants and Lunatics
840
Corn Importation Bill
843
Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning—Pensions Act Amendment Bill
846
1828. May 21. Alehouses' Licensing Bill
855
1828. May 22. Currency—Small Notes—Lead Ore
859
Registration of Voters in Cities and Boroughs
868
Church Briefs
872
Recovery of Small Debts Bill
876
Poor Laws
880
Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning—Pensions Act Amendment Bill
881
1828. May 23. Corn Importation Bill
900
Cities and Boroughs Polls Bill
903
Labourers' Wages Bill
903
1828. May 30. Ministerial Changes
904
Miscellaneous Estimates
907
1828. June 2. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill—Mr. Huskisson's Statement—Ministerial Explanations
915
1828. June 3. Small Note Currency—Circulation of Scotch Small Notes in England
980
1828. June 5. Archbishop of Canterbury's Bill
1035
Improvement of Ireland—State of the Poor
1036
Smithfield Market—Petition for Removal of
1049
Savings' Banks
1053
Small Note Currency—Circulation of Scotch Small Notes in England—Adjourned Debate
*
1054
1828. June 6. Saint Mary-le-bone Vestry Bill
1116
Bull Baiting
1121
Miscellaneous Estimates
1123
1828. June 9. Relations with Portugal
1201
*
Addenda.
1828. June 9. Sugar Duties
1206
1828. June 10. Corporate Funds
1297
Pensions on the Civil List
1303
1828. June 12. Removal of-Smithfield Market
1317
Roman Catholic Claims
1318
1828. June 13. Removal of Smithfield Market
1354
Army Estimates
1356
Game Bill
1364
1828. June 16. Archbishop of Canterbury's Bill
1371
East India Trade—Equalization of the Duties on Sugar
1373
Bank Notes (Scotland and Ireland) Bill
1380
1828. June 17. Stamp Tax in India
1397
British Shipping Interest
1416
1828. June 19. Usury Laws Amendment Bill
1437
1828. June 20. Army Estimates
1450
New South Wales Bill
1456
1828. June 23. Recovery of Small Debts Bill
1475
Misapplication of the Public Money
1476
1828. June 24. Emigration
1501
1828. June 26. Commission on the Law of Real Property—Mr. Humphreys
1524
Banking System—Currency
1526
1828. June 27. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1530
1828. June 30. Affairs of Portugal
1545
Additional Churches Bill
1556
1828. July 1. Case of the Baron de Bode—Commissioners of French Claims
1563
Supply of Water to the Metropolis
1588
1828. July 3. Union with Ireland—Conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland
1605
1828. July 4. Ordnance Estimates
1615
1828. July 7 Ordnance Estimates
1627
1828. July 8. Superannuation Allowances Bill
1640
Corporate Funds Bill
1643
1828. July 10. Military and Naval Pensions—Dead Weight
1645
Savings Banks Bill
1646
Corporate Funds Bill
1647
1828. July 11. The Budget
1652
1828. July 14. Superannuation Allowances Bill
1682
1828. July 15. South African Natives
1693
Prerogative Court of Canterbury—Conduct of Sir John Nicholl
1694
British Merchants Claims on Spain
1697
National Debt Bill
1704
Customs Bill
1742
1828. July 17. Prerogative Court of Canterbury—Conduct of Sir John Nicholl
1749
Corporation of Leicester
1762
Education in Ireland—Charitable Foundations
1767
1828. July 18. American Tariffs
1768
Corporate Funds
1776
1828. July 25. Slavery in the West Indies
1779
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
1828. July 28. KING'S SPEECH at the Close of the Session
1781
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS for the Year ending the 5th of January 1827
Appx.
1
V. PROTESTS.
1828. Apr. 24. PROTEST against the introduction of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in the Declaration contained in the Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
49
1828. May 1. PROTEST against the Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
229
1828. June 16. PROTEST against the Corn Bill
1366
1828. July 16. PROTEST concerning Greece and Portugal
1741
VI. LISTS.
1828. Apr. 21. LIST of the Majority and Minority, on Mr. M. A. Taylor's Motion respecting Delays in the Court of Chancery
109
1828. Apr. 28. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Corn Bill
229
1828. Apr. 29. LIST of the Majority and Minority, in the House of Lords, on the Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill
236
1828. May 1. LIST of the Minority, on Mr. D. W. Harvey's Motion, respecting the Recovery of Penalties under the Customs and Excise Laws
278
1828. May 12. LIST of the Majority and Minority, on Sir Francis Burdett's Motion for a Committee on the State of the Laws affecting the Roman Catholics
676
1828. May 13. LIST of the Minority on the Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning
716
1828. May 20. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for a Return of the Pensions on the Civil List
840
1828. June 5. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Circulation of Scotch Small Notes in England
1099
1828. June 10. LIST of the Majority and Minority, in the House of Lords, on the State of the Laws affecting the Roman Catholics
1294
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES,
During the
of the
of the United Kingdom of
and
appointed to meet at Westminster the 29th of January,
in the Ninth Year of the Reign of His Majesty
King
1828.
1
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 22, 1828.
COUNTY PALATINE OF CHESTER.]
Mr. Wilbraham
said:—I fear that it may be deemed presumptuous, in a person so little conversant in the details and intricacies of the law as I am, to introduce to this House a subject which mainly concerns its practical administration. To this imputation I am willing to submit in the performance of a great and imperious duty. I am aware, too, that it may be objected that I did not bring forward this subject at the moment the most opportune for its reception; at that time when, in consequence of the motion of the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea the whole state of the law was thrown open to the discussion of this House. Sir, I am free to confess that I was deterred from this line in consequence of the character of that discussion. I was unwilling to intrust my feeble powers upon so vast a plain, especially as the ground was occupied, with one exception, exclusively by gentlemen of the learned profession.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mr. Leycester
seconded the motion, and said that the subject was one which called for the attention of the legislature.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. seconder did not seem to be aware of the precise object to which it referred; and he might say the same of the hon. mover. He wished to remind him, that no commission had issued under the Great Seal for an inquiry into the administration of justice in the county Palatine of Chester. Me would suggest, that the question ought I to come under the cognisance of the commission for Inquiry into the origin and progress of the superior courts of Law. Though the motion referred to Welsh courts, he had no objection to their being included among the superior courts of law in this county. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. gentleman would consider that a sufficient answer was given to his motion.
Mr. Davenport
supported the motion, and said that the hon. member had done himself great credit by the manner in which he had brought it forward.
13
Mr. Wilbraham
said, that after the explanation given by the right hon. Secretary he felt perfectly satisfied, and would, with the permission of the House, withdraw the motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' BILL.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he rose to present a petition which was deserving of the serious consideration of the House. It was signed by the chairman and secretary of the delegates from the various Friendly Societies in Manchester and its neighbourhood, and prayed that the bill which was in progress might not pass into a law. He entirely concurred in the views of the petitioners. The retrospective clause in it was extremely objectionable. It was to this effect,—that if any society already enrolled should wish to make any alterations in their rules, they must make them under the provisions of this act, and be deemed a society within the meaning of the act. He was morally and legally certain, that if it passed into a law, it would be productive of endless litigation.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he understood that the retrospective clause in the bill was proposed to be withdrawn; but there were other clauses highly objectionable, and the public opinion was decidedly against the measure. He objected to the clause for referring all calculations to Mr. Finlayson. Many people were by no means satisfied with the correctness of that gentleman's tables. At the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it had been agreed to withdraw the clause as to the qualification of trustees; but if so much of the bill was given up, it would certainly be policy to give it up entirely. The bill was very obnoxious to the persons who were immediately concerned in it, and the country had a deep interest in giving no check to the disposition of the lower orders to form themselves into benefit societies. The sum already invested in these societies throughout the kingdom amounted to no less than seven millions; and a heavy addition to the poor-rates would be among the earliest evils arising from any dissolution of them.
Mr. Courtenay
had no objection, as far as his personal wishes were concerned, to withdraw the bill; but part of the matter complained of was already law, under the bill of 1819; and unless the present measure were carried forward, there was no
14
Mr. P. Thompson
said, that the publicans were interested in opposing the bill, which easily accounted for the number of petitions presented against it.
Mr. Brougham
said, he did not object to legislation upon the subject, but he objected to this particular measure, because he knew it was obnoxious to the very persons whom it was intended to serve. The bill had a bad name among the lower orders; and he therefore thought that it would be better to withdraw it.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ANATOMICAL SCIENCE'—SUBJECTS FOR
Mr. Warburton
said, he should trespass but for a very few moments on their patience in explaining the object of his motion. That object was simply the propagation of Anatomical Science, by facilitating a regular supply of Subjects for Dissection in our Schools of Surgery. Although our students in surgery were numerous, amounting perhaps in London, to six hundred or seven hundred, without including the country, if it were not for the difficulty experienced in providing subjects on which the professors might lecture, this number would be considerably increased; for it was ascertained that there were not less than two hundred English students in Paris, and about three hundred in Dublin, besides some in the Dutch, Flemish, and German shools of anatomy, whose only reason for retiring from their own country originated in the cheapness and facility with which they were supplied with subjects for dissection contrasted with the difficulty and expense which they experienced in prosecuting those studies at home. Taking the supply for these students at the rate of two subjects for each, the number of subjects required annually could not much exceed two thousand, if our schools were as full of students as we had a right to expect. How far this supply was aided by legal provision, might be conjectured from the fact, that there was no provision made by law for surrendering up to the College of Surgeons any bodies of malefactors, except murderers, who were found in London and Middlesex not to exceed five on an average in seven years. It was not his intention to trespass on the province of the medical gentlemen whose interests were more particularly at issue, by detailing the outline of
15
Mr. John Smith
seconded the motion. The facility of supplying subjects for dissection would, he said, advance the interests of science. There were no set of men in the country to whom society was more indebted than to the surgeons and physicians. Numbers of young men were obliged to leave this and resort to foreign countries in search of the knowledge of their profession. If a supply of subjects could be had at home, in all probability none of these students would go abroad.
Mr. Secretary Peel
acknowledged that if ever he entertained a doubt as to the propriety of making some legislative provision on this head, it arose altogether from delicacy and a consciousness of the difficulty of combating successfully with old and confirmed prejudices. At the same time he would admit, it was not a light matter that so many eminent men should feel it necessary to appeal to that House, and state that they felt great difficulty in prosecuting their useful and humane inquiries, in consequence of the obstacles arising out of the present state of the law
16
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
CORN LAWS.]
On the motion, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Corn Laws Acts,
17
Mr. Portman
regretted to say, that he saw little reason to congratulate the agriculturists on the prospects held out to them of protection from the competition I of foreign corn in the supply of the British market. The proposed regulations of this were less favourable than those of the preceding year, for this reason—that they did not afford positive protection. He took, as a point conceded on all hands, that 60
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
18
Mr. Byng
said, that whatever satisfaction the right hon. gentleman might suppose to exist with regard to his measure, the agriculturists would have been still more satisfied with the measure of last year. They required more protection when the averages were from 52
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
Mr. Beaumont
said, he could not agree with the hon. gentleman in preferring the measure of last year to that which was now before the House. But, willing as he was to support the present bill, he could not approve of taking the protection at a lower ratio than that proposed last year. They had additional experience to guide them, and that experience would show that foreign wheat could be brought into this country at a lower price than they had assumed, and had endeavoured to support by their averages. He knew for certain that foreign wheat could be brought into this country as low as 24
s.
s.
s.
s.
Mr. C. Grant
said, that the hon. gentleman who had opened the debate had expressed an opinion that 58
s.
s.
s.
s.
19
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.
20
s.
d.
s.
s.>
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that the proper time for entering upon the discussion of the Resolutions would be in the committee, when the merit of the several parts of the measure might be discussed. This was far more convenient than to anticipate the discussion by an irregular debate. One gentleman said, he would not support the measure in the committee if such a duty was proposed; another gentleman objected to another branch of the measure. But, instead of putting these suppositious cases, the far better way would be to hear what was proposed, and then to entertain the discussion upon it.
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that the right hon. gentleman had stated, that the present was not the regular parliamentary stage in which the discussion could be taken. In that opinion he must differ from the right hon. gentleman. It was in the recollection of the House, that a plan had been proposed last year, by one whose loss they all deplored; and it was but fair and reasonable that they should compare it with the provisions of the present. He did not put the question on any narrow ground of preference, nor mean to argue it as a protection to the agricultural interest, for it involved the interest, of the whole community. He would agree that the landed interest ought to have protection, but not merely for their own sake. The principle upon which it should be afforded was the good of all. It was necessary that they should be protected, because, with all the ports open, it was impossible to say how great a supply might be received from those vast tracts of country which only wanted encouragement to pour in their produce to the detriment of our own agriculturists. The bill of last year had the feelings of the country in its favour. It fixed the pivot price at 60
s.
21
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
22
23
Mr. Robinson
said, he had heard with unmixed satisfaction the manly speech of his hon. friend. As he himself entertained similar sentiments, he had been induced to give notice, that he would afford the House an opportunity of dividing upon the resolutions proposed by Mr. Canning last year. He hoped that his hon. friend, who was so much more competent to the task, would take it up himself, and bring it forward with his usual ability. He should feel great gratification in transferring to his hon. friend's shoulders the task which he had intended to impose upon himself.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he felt flattered by the transfer of this duty to him, and accepted the trust.
Mr. Stanley
concurred entirely with the hon. member for Wareham, that there was very great convenience in taking a discussion on this subject on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. It afforded an admirable opportunity of obtaining the opinions of different parts of the country, as expressed by their representatives, on the different plans which might be suggested. It appeared to him that this was the object with which, before the recess, three different sets of resolutions had been offered to the House; and the present was the first opportunity of which the House could avail itself, to examine and discuss them, and to sec how far each interest could concede on each point to the other. He had not as yet learned why the House of Commons was, in the present session, to recede from the path which it had chalked out for itself in the last. There might be reasons of policy and expediency why gentlemen, hold-
24
25
s.
ad captandum
26
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he had heard with astonishment the assertion that the bill of last year was carried by acclamation. Did gentlemen recollect, that the hon. member for Dorsetshire proposed last year an amendment similar to the present resolutions and that it was supported by no less than 170 members? He contended, that, had it not been for the monstrous coalition which had then taken place, the majority would have been the other way. He would ask gentlemen to recollect what had been the effect of it out of doors. For his own part, he had not met with any person connected with the agricultural interest who approved of it. He believed ministers were fully justified in making the addition which they had done to the scale of duties. What had been the avowed object of Mr. Canning? To make the price of corn oscillate in future, between 55
s.
s.
s.
Mr. Fergusson
trusted, that the hon. member for Dorsetshire would not press his amendment to a division. He did not see how any member could object to the Speaker's leaving the Chair, unless he was satisfied with the present state of the Corn-laws. When the bill of last year was under discussion, he had voted in favour of the proposition made by the hon. member for Dorsetshire for fixing the price at 64
s.
in toto,
s.
s.
s.
27
Mr. Secretary Peel
said:— I simply object to this discussion, because I cannot see what object it can answer. If there were a general feeling in favour of an adherence to the present law, I could understand why arguments should be introduced against the proposal that the Speaker should leave the Chair; but when I hear the hon. member for Wareham talk of the existing Corn-laws as the most pernicious code that ever had existence— and when I find him resting his claim to public confidence on his almost unsupported opposition to it, I cannot discover the principle on which he and others object to go into a committee, by which that most pernicious code is to be amended. Every hon. member who has spoken has expressed his general concurrence in the principle of the new law. In the name of God, then, why are we not to go into the committee, that we may consider the details? The hon. members for Worcester and Wareham have given notice of their joint amendment; and that amendment cannot be moved but in the committee. At least, we have three distinct sets of resolutions before us; but the hon. member for Preston has given, as a reason for not approaching the subject, that the resolutions of the present session are not the same as those of last year. This mode of argument seems to me strange indeed in a deliberative body. After the interval of a year—after the experience of what has passed in that year—and after the additional information we have obtained, is it to be said that this House is bound by some fanciful sense of honour and consistency to adhere to its previous resolutions. True it is, the bill of this House did not pass elsewhere. It is a delicate subject to allude to the conduct of the other branch of the legislature, and certainly nothing can be more unwise than to ask the House of Commons to assent to what it thinks wrong, because the House of Lords refuses to do what is right. But, speaking not theoretically, but practically, there may be limits to the strictness with which the House will adhere to its own decisions. If we, on our part, are bound never to deviate, under any circumstances, from out previous decisions, it is a good
28
s.,
s.
Lord Althorp
said, that this preliminary discussion had not been useless, as it clearly showed that the bill of last year was preferable to the present. The scale of the former was, to affix high duties when the price of corn was low; but the present varied entirely from that principle; for when the price was low the duty was to be reduced, and to be raised when it was high. When the price was low, then, where was the protection?
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
Mr. G. Heathcote
said, that though he wished to state some objections to the scale of duty, yet, at that late hour, he would content himself with moving, "That the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again." The lower part of the scale should be amended, and the upper was not necessary. The agriculturists were suffering severely, and some effective protection should be given them.
Mr. Huskisson
thought, that after the discussion which had taken place, and the three weeks notice already given, the bulk of the committee were prepared to discuss the question, though the hon. member might not be in a similar condition. So serious a subject ought therefore to be proceeded upon without further loss of time.
29
Mr. Hobhouse
said; that as yet the House was ignorant of the cause of the change from the bill of last year. He agreed with the hon. member for Wareham, that it was their duty to ascertain why this change had taken place in the opinions of his majesty's ministers. He had listened to the President of the Board of Trade, with attention, but that right hon. gentleman had stated no reasons for the change. So far from doing so, it was manifest, that, as far as his feelings could be collected from what he had said, he was almost ashamed to bring forward the measure.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he was ready to go into the discussion, even though the hour was so late: at the same time, he must regret the way in which they had spent three or four hours of the earlier part of the evening. He thought it was incumbent upon the government to explain why they had departed from the resolutions of last year. For his own part, he was quite ready to confess, that it did not follow, because at one time one thing was done, that it ought to be repeated at another: still, an explanation was due, and ought not to be withheld. For the purpose of bringing the two scales of duty into full consideration, he would introduce, in the shape of an amendment to the present resolutions, the rates fixed in the proceeding of last year. The hon. member then moved as an amendment the adoption of Mr. Canning's scale of resolutions of the last year.
Mr. Robinson
seconded the amendment.
Mr. Benett
said, he was placed in rather a difficult situation. While he preferred the bill of last year to the present awkward measure, which conferred protection where it was not wanted, and gave no protection where it was required, he was of opinion that the bill of last session stood in need of some amendment, and it was his intention to propose an amendment of it. If it was understood, that he should be at liberty hereafter to propose the amendment of which he had spoken, he should, in that case, support the proposition of the hon. member for Wareham. It was asserted, that this was a measure which would prove palatable to all interests in the empire. The truth was, that the measure was not as yet understood in the country. So much confusion had arisen by the mixing up of the measure of last year with the measure of this year, that no person had
30
s.
s.
s.
Sir G. Philips
inquired what were the grounds upon which the right hon. gentleman opposite adopted the present measure, in preference to that which he had supported and recommended in the last session?
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, his majesty's ministers had been placed in rather a difficult dilemma on this occasion. No sooner had the House formed itself into a committee, than up got an hon. member, who moved that they should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. That certainly was not the way to discuss this measure. The hon. member for Wareham, following that consistent and open course which he usually adopted, had already moved an amendment upon the resolutions proposed to the House. The hon. member for Wiltshire had stated his intention to propose an amendment upon the resolutions of last year. Under these circumstances, he had been desirous to hear the various objections which gentlemen had to urge to the resolutions before the committee, before he stated his reasons for supporting them. However, as he had been thus called upon, he was perfectly ready, at this stage of the debate, to address the committee. Before he did so, he should advert to one observation which had fallen from the hon. member for Wareham. That hon. member had stated that, by the present measure, the pivot in the scale of duty had been changed from 60
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
31
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
32
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
33
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.,
s.
s.,
s.
s.
d.,
s.
s.
34
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
35
s.
d.
s.
Mr. Stanley
said, he had yet to learn the reasons which had induced the right hon. gentleman to prefer the present bill to that of last session. He was certainly inclined to the opinion of those who abstractedly supported a fixed permanent duty. But feeling that it was impracticable to carry such a measure, he felt that the next best plan would be to adopt such a scale of duties as would keep the price of corn as low as possible, at the same time giving to the agriculturist a fair profit. Still adhering to that principle, he conceived the scale of last year to be much better than that now proposed. It was said that this measure would bring high prices to the agriculturists and procure cheap corn for the poor; neither of which objects it was likely to effect. As compared with the bill of last year, the proposition now made gave little or no protection to the agriculturist, while it was so framed as not to confer any benefit, by a reduction of price, on the poor. He wished to have it distinctly ascertained what the object of the bill was; for he believed that, up to this moment, the intention of ministers with reference to the measure was not understood.
Mr. Huskisson
said, the object and principle of the present measure were precisely the same as the object and principle of that of last year. The bill of last year afforded protection up to 60
s.
s.
s.
36
Mr. Baring
observed, that this was a most important question, whether taken with reference to our agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial interests; and he was glad to find that it was this year discussed without any mixture of party or political feeling, which unfortunately was not the case in the last session. He could not, he confessed, discover how the object stated by the right hon. Secretary could be obtained by this measure. The objection started by his noble friend in the outset of the debate, rendered it superfluous for him to say much on the subject. It appeared, according to this scale, that when prices were low, protection would be diminished, and when prices were high, that it would be increased. Such a system could not be useful to the agriculturist, and must be oppressive to the country. In his opinion, the settlement of a question of this kind did not depend merely on the rate of price, but must be guided by a variety of circumstances; because the corn trade, like every other trade, might be, and frequently was, affected by gambling speculations. The calculation for this country was, that every third or fourth year there would be a deficient harvest. Hence speculations, which constantly affected the price, took place. In a year of deficiency, when prices were high, a speculator would make a large profit; and if, when the prices were low, he lost twenty or twenty-five per cent, he could afford it, because he was sure to be repaid in a year or two; in the same manner as smugglers saved themselves if they were able to save one cargo out of three. Individuals would thus speculate in corn; and if a deficient harvest did not enable them to procure high prices, they would put up with a loss in getting rid of their cargoes, and look forward to better success on some future occasion. In ordinary years, therefore, the duty which was set down in this scale was not so much a prohibitory duty as the right hon. Secretary seemed to suppose. On the other hand, when he said that this measure, when corn arrived at 64
s.
s.,
37
s.
s.
38
Sir G. Philips
expressed his belief, that the explanation of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, with reference to the deviation from Mr. Canning's bill of last year, had not given satisfaction to any member of the House. He contended, that by looking at the population returns, and comparing the number of those engaged in agricultural pursuits with that of the classes who were differently employed, it would be found that they had sacrificed two-thirds of the population to benefit the landed interests. This system he conceived to be most objectionable; and it was attempted to be carried to a greater extent than formerly by this measure. He could not conceive, from any thing that had fallen from the right hon. Secretary, what had induced him to depart from the scale of duties of last year. —The hon. baronet then entered into a calculation to show, that when wheat was 50
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
39
s.
Mr. Portman
said, he agreed with the light hon. gentleman as to the duty now proposed; for when the price was at 60
s.
The Committee then divided: For the Resolutions 202; For the Amendment 58; Majority 144.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 24.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL
Lord Holland
The Earl of Eldon
said, he had some amendments to move, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The first clause of the bill, as it now stood, would go to repeal the act of Charles 2nd; to which he could not consent. He was also bound to say, that he had received some information with regard to the second clause of the bill. In his apprehension, the second clause, as it was now worded, though he was conscientiously satisfied that it was not intended to be adopted in the construction it would bear, was worded in the most artful manner possible. The second clause was stated to be, and undoubtedly was, introduced from those bills, which had been brought into parliament for the relief of the Roman Catholics,
40
41
The Earl of Clarendon
said, he could not but look at this amendment with some degree of caution, as he was entitled to do, after the learned lord had professed his intention of opposing, and, if possible, of defeating, the bill. As a means of accomplishing his object, the learned lord proposed an alteration, which in effect amounted to this—that no statute relative to the Roman Catholics should be altered, but that they should remain invariably the law of the land. If, therefore, any of the various acts had been passed for the relief of the Catholics, or a clause to this effect had been introduced into any bill, parliament would have bound itself not to pass them. The effect of this clause would be, therefore, greatly to prejudice the cause of the Roman Catholics.
The Duke of Wellington
was of opinion, that if the proposition of his noble and learned friend did not refer to the Catholics, it would be of no use whatever. If his noble friend intended also to propose an alteration in the Declaration to the same effect, he must oppose it. He had stated that it was not his intention, in giving his support to this bill, to pledge himself to any step, either on one side or the other, as to the Catholic question. His opinions on that subject remained exactly as they were. His object in giving his assent to this measure was simply to do away with the Sacramental Test as a qualification for office. He went no further than that. The proposed amendment would not make the smallest alteration in the bill for any good purpose, and therefore he could not agree to it.
The Earl of Eldon
saw no reason why the word "Protestant" could not be introduced, with respect to corporations in England. All he meant was, that any man about to be introduced into a corporation in England, should first declare himself to be a Protestant. He knew that the object of the present bill was neither to prejudice nor assist the views of the Roman Catholics: but he would say, that if it passed in its present shape, parliament would have gone a great way in promoting the views of the Catholics. His only ob
42
The Earl of Falmouth
expressed his perfect concurrence in the sentiments of the noble and learned lord who had so long stood up in defence of the Church. The Sacramental Test was the only provision that excluded Roman Catholics from corporations; and corporations, their lordships knew, were the door to parliament.
The Earl of Harewood
begged the House to reflect on the step they were about to take. The Dissenters had petitioned for relief, and he understood that they had united themselves with the Roman Catholics [No, no]. It appeared so, he thought, from the petitions on the table. He could see no objection to the introduction of the words proposed by his noble and learned friend: he did not see that they could in any way do injury to the Dissenters, who were all Protestants. What would the country think of the intentions of parliament, if this amendment should be rejected?
The Bishop of Chester
said, that every person, on becoming the member of a corporation, was obliged to subscribe the Declaration against Transubstantiation, and take the Oath of Supremacy. He did not see, therefore, if this bill passed without the learned lord's amendment, how the Catholics would be a single step nearer their object. With respect to himself, and his right rev. brethren, the only question appeared to be, whether there was security for the Established Church. The Dissenters offered security which was considered sufficient, and then their exclusion became indefensible. But it was a different question with regard to the Catholics, as they could give no sufficient security. They could not be admitted to office without involving danger to the Protestant Church. If they could offer adequate security, the question of their exclusion would be at an end. The decision of this question, therefore, could not involve the decision of the Roman Catholic question.
The Duke of Newcastle
entreated their lordships not to suffer this bill to pass without introducing the word "Protestant" into the Declaration, as proposed by the noble and learned earl.
The Bishop of Llandaff
said, that while the learned lord professed a wish to leave
43
The Duke of Wellington
said, that the Declaration, as proposed to be amended by the learned earl, would affect officers in the army and navy, some of whom must be in this country, and many of whom, it was well known, were members of the Roman Catholic religion. Now, as the amendment of the noble earl would have the effect of excluding them, he must oppose it. He contended, that it was not the object of the framers of this bill to introduce Roman Catholics into corporations in England. In Ireland they were already eligible.
The Lord Chancellor
thought, that the word "Protestant" ought to be introduced into this Declaration, in order to leave the Catholic question clear and unprejudiced, when it came on for discussion. As he understood the law at present, it was not necessary, in order to be admitted a member of a corporation, to take the Oath of Supremacy; it was only required to do so on becoming a member of its government, such as mayor, bailiff', common-councilman, &c. Now, if it were not necessary to take that Oath, the consequence of this bill would be, that there would be no obstruction to a Roman Catholic becoming an individual member of any corporation. What he understood from his learned friend was, that his amendment was only intended to refer to the Declaration to be taken on becoming a member of a corporation; and he thought the House ought to adopt it, in order to guard against taking any step affecting the other question.
The Earl of Eldon
said, that all they would do, if they agreed to his amendment, would be to exclude Roman Catholics from corporations. Their lordships ought not to have this act so expressed that persons might hereafter say that it operated in furthering the views of the Roman Catholics. He did not now ask their lordships, although he wished them to do so, to carry this amendment to the other clauses of the bill. All he now said was—let them take care not to open the corporations in England to the Roman Catholics; for he repeated, that a mayor or an alderman was not, as such, necessarily a justice of the peace. As the law now stood, the merely taking the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, without the
44
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
said, he entertained so high an opinion of the authority of the noble and learned lord, that he felt called upon to vote for his amendment.
Lord Holland
said:—As far as I have been able to collect, there is one point on which we are all agreed, namely, that the words of this bill should be such as neither to prejudice nor promote the Catholic question—"Therefore," says the learned lord, "adopt my amendment," Therefore, I reply, reject that amendment. If I can show, either that the amendment is actually unnecessary and ineffectual, or if it have any effect, that that effect will be to place the Roman Catholics in a worse situation than that which they at present occupy, I shall have said enough to satisfy even the learned lord, that his proposal ought not to be adopted. He states, that if the mayor or alderman of a borough are also justices of the peace, they are called upon not only to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, but to sign the Declaration against Transubstantiation; but
45
46
47
Lord Eldon
: Those two statutes "and other acts" are mentioned.
Lord Holland
. It is true the words "and other acts" are used, but those acts are not specified; and, unless the learned lord, as a lawyer and an historian, can satisfy the House that those who passed the Test-act and the Union did consider it in that light, his whole argument falls to the ground, and is not worth a rush. He founds himself upon this:—"I will prove that the Test-act docs establish and preserve the Church." That is the point at issue, and the learned lord must make it out not merely by emoting the Test-act or the Act of Union, but by sound argument. For these reasons I submit, that he has made out no case for the admission of his amendment; and I have no hesitation in saying, that it is clear to every man's understanding, not legally and technically, but practically, that if you pass this act with the amendment in this part
48
The Lord Chancellor
said, it did not appear to him that there was any thing in the preamble of the bill, or in the bill itself, that called for the amendment of his learned friend. He alluded to the introduction of the preamble to the Act of Union; and he thought it right to state this, because he felt disposed to concur with his learned friend on another point; namely, the introduction of the word "Protestant." The present question related solely to the Corporation act; and the matter to be considered was, whether it would not be necessary, at a future period, as his learned friend intended, to move that the word "Protestant" should be inserted in the provisions of this bill; and whether, if that were not done, Roman Catholics might not be placed in the government of corporations in this kingdom. By the Corporation act, persons who were admitted to have a share in the government of corporations were obliged to take the Oath of Supremacy and the Sacramental Test. Now, if they abrogated the Sacramental Test, all that such persons would have to take was the Oath of Supremacy. If, then, noble lords were of opinion, that the Oath of Supremacy was not alone sufficient, it followed, as a consequence, if they did not agree to the amendment at a future period, that Roman Catholics, if they took the Oath of Supremacy, might take situations in corporate bodies. The question was, whether the Oath of Supremacy alone was or was not a sufficient defence against the admission of Roman Catholics into corporations? His learned friend had, over and over again, stated, that, it was not a sufficient defence. If that position were correct, then he would say, that, so far
49
PROTEST.]
The following Protest against the introduction of the words "on the true faith of a Christian" in the Declaration, was entered on the Journals.
"Dissentient.
1. "Because—The introduction of the words 'upon the true faith of a Christian' implies an opinion in which I cannot con scientiously concur, namely, that a particular faith in matters of religion is necessary to the proper discharge of duties purely political or temporal.
2. "Because—It appears from two acts, the one passed in the 10th year of George 1st. cap. 4, and the other in the 15th year of George 2nd. cap. 7, that the words upon the faith of a Christian' occurring in the Oath of Abjuration have been dispensed with in cases which were found not to be within the spirit and scope of the original law—and it seems to me inexpedient to introduce unnecessarily into a Declaration of this nature a form of words which experience has shewn may produce effects not contemplated by those who imposed it.
(Signed) "VASSALL HOLLAND."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 24.
GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES—LOSS TO THE PUBLIC THEREON.]
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he rose to present a petition from Mr. Moses Wing, of Market-street, Southwark, and of Middle-row, Bloomsbury, relative to the great losses sustained by the public in the Life Annuities sold by government. The hon. alderman, after expressing his surprise at having heard it stated elsewhere, that no communications had been received by government, pointing out the losses on those annuities, save those of Mr. Finlayson, observed, that that gentleman had predicted the loss, and said he would prove it by his own tables, which tables,
50
l.
l.
l.
51
Ordered to lie on the table.
DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, he rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to submit a motion respecting the present state of the Court of Chancery. He had at one time thought that this subject would have had the sanction of the government; and had that been so, it would not have been necessary for him to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time; but it was necessary for him to make out a case to induce the government to look into the abuses of that Court, which, he contended, and would prove, was in a worse state than ever; alike injurious to the interests of the country, and to the welfare of the subject. He supposed, that because the motion came from so humble an individual as himself, it would have but little weight with government; but he trusted that the good sense of the country and of that House would support him, if they should see, as they could not but see, that, as the Court was now constituted, it was not fit for the business of suitors, and that they would, one day, come forward and demand that immediate steps should be taken to ameliorate the condition of the people, with respect to Chancery proceedings. If he was in error in thinking that some such measure was necessary, that House participated in the error with him; for that House and the government had, from time to time, agreed that some amendment in the mode of proceeding was necessary. In 1811, the casting voice of the Speaker decided that measures ought to be adopted for the purpose of affording a remedy for the evils complained of; and that House, in concurrence with the House of Lords, agreed that some immediate steps should be taken to give effect to the business of the court. A measure was carried for that purpose in 1813; yet he could prove that, at that time, there was not one third of the business to be disposed of which there was at the present moment. It would not be necessary for him, in support of this, to go in detail into the voluminous, evidence contained in the re
52
53
"And if you follow their advice,
In bills, and answers, and replies,
They'll write a love-letter in Chancery,
Shall bring her on her oath to answer ye,
And soon reduce her to be your wife,
Or make her weary of her life."
54
l.
l.
55
56
57
58
l.
v.
59
proximus ardet Ucalegon.
60
61
l.
62
Lord Rancliffe
seconded the motion. He said he had long been aware of the many mischiefs that the delays in the Court of Chancery entailed on its suitors; and although he had a very high respect for the present lord Chancellor, and did not conceive that the fault rested with him, he nevertheless trusted that such on alteration would be made as to rectify those heavy abuses which made that court a serious evil to all who were so unfortunate as to have business to transact in it.
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, he would hot inquire into the other general causes of delay in Chancery, because he was satisfied that the main source of mischief, to which all the others were as nothing in the comparison, was the length of time that intervened between the setting down of a cause for hearing in any of its stages, and its coming onto be heard before the court. He could make this intelligible in a few plain words. Suppose a cause to commence to-day, and allow a year for the stages prior to the hearing, the answers and the evidence, which would bring the parties to April 1829. The cause would then be set down, but it would not get its turn to be heard for a year and three quarters; that is, till the beginning of 1831. The ordinance of Cromwell, that every cause should be heard on the same day on which it was set down, would not be reasonable; an average interval of two months might be allowed between the setting down and the hearing: but what would be said to the present course of the court, which, instead of averaging a period of two months, averages a period of almost two years? Well! in the beginning of 1831 the cause would be heard, and the judge would direct the necessary inquiries or accounts before the Master, which might occupy another year. In the beginning of 1832, when these were completed, the cause would be set down for further directions, for which it must wait a year and three-quarters more; that is, till the end of 1833. A second reference to the Master was perpetually required; as, for instance, where land was devised to pay debts and legacies; and this would occupy, he would suppose, a shorter time; so that, at the beginning of 1834, the cause would be set down for the final decree. Would the
63
64
via lactea
65
"When
More
No
more
The same shall never
more
Till
More
66
67
68
l.
l.
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
77
78
'' Ergo non hiemes illam, non flabra, neque imbres,
Convellnnt; immota manet: multosque nepotes,
Multa virum volvens durando sæcula vincit."
The Attorney-general
said, that after the observations with which his hon. friend had introduced the present motion, he could not consider it in any other light than as a motion to propose the appointment of a fourth judge to carry on the business which now came before our courts of Equity. He was well aware that the motion did not involve that proposition in terms, but he conceived it to be impossible for any man to deny that it did involve it
79
80
in toto.
81
82
Mr. D. W. Harvey
observed, that the learned member spoke of the grievances of the court as if they were only in their infancy, and scarcely discernible to any but persons of curious vision, who delighted in hunting up imaginary ills, on which to exercise a distorted fancy; that the people did not complain, for they had no cause for it. But he contended that the hon. and learned member was himself a daily memorial—an hourly witness, of the glaring defects of that court, and largely thrived by their existence. It was not, therefore, his interest to remedy a system on whose abuses he fattened—and so long as the opinions of lawyers were to sway the decision of parliament would those grievances exist, for with them abuse and profit, were synonymous terms; and if they were not the authors, they were at least the eulogists of the system [loud cheers.] The hon. member for Wotton Basset had treated the subject with great ability, yet he (Mr. Harvey) would have been better pleased if the proposition for the increase of judges had proceeded from an hon. member whose professional avocations did not expose him to the suspicion of consulting private rather than public objects. But he contended an increase of judges would be an increase of unnecessary expense. Simplify the laws and despatch must follow—and a decrease of judges rather than an increase would be the beneficial result. We heard much of improvements in the law, and of a disposition to extend them. But where was the evidence of it? Ministers substituted useless change for solid reformation, and touched nothing which simplified the laws or lessened their expenses. The Attorney-general had said it was the duty of those who advocated improvements to suggest them. This he denied. For what purpose had we an Attorney-general at an enormous expense to the country? For what purpose had we a government, which cost hundreds of thousands of pounds annually,
83
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
84
l.
85
Mr. Sugden
, said, it was not without feelings of great surprise that he had heard the hon. member for Colchester speak of the Court of Chancery in the terms he had done, and go so far as to describe it as "a public curse"; but that surprise was greatly increased when he heard gentlemen possessing property in the country, and who, from their station and rank in life, must be supposed to be, in some degree, acquainted with the Court of Chancery, unite in cheering the hon. member's expression so loudly. If he thought that expression of disapprobation applicable to the Court of Chancery, he would quit that Court instanter; but he would say, in the face of the country, that the Court of Chancery was not open to the imputations cast upon it: and while it existed as a court of justice, those only who were anxious to produce disorder in the administration of justice, would speak of it in such terms of disapprobation within the walls of that House. Such ought not to be the case—a court which had conferred so many important benefits on the country ought not to be exposed to public odium [cheers and laughter]. Gentlemen might cheer on; and though, as he was not accustomed to speak in that House, those cheers might now daunt him, but he hoped the time would come when, unawed by them, he should be able to address the
86
87
88
89
Mr. Baring
apologized to the House for addressing it on a subject which he was little acquainted with, and requiring so much practical knowledge to understand. Yet, as the hon. and learned gentleman had appealed to the working of the laws, all were competent to judge of that part of the question, without the aid of a professional education. In addition to daily experience, which sufficiently confuted the hon. and learned member, he would mention a particular fact which had come not long ago under his personal observation. A case relating to commercial accounts, which involved no less a sum than 150,000
l.
l.
l.
90
l.
91
l.
92
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
felt that he owed the same apology to the House as had been made by the hon. gentleman for venturing to enter into a question of this nature, involving so many matters of a professional nature, having neither the education nor the experience that would qualify him to discuss it fully; but he had an additional disadvantage, or perhaps he might call it an advantage—that he had not had any practical acquaintance with the court of Chancery. The hon. member for Colchester had seemed to consider that some peculiar responsibility devolved on him (Mr. Peel) on account of the state of the court of Chancery. But it must be evident to the House, that it was utterly impossible that he, without any professional knowledge or experience, could undertake himself to reform that court. He could only admit that he had a share of that
93
94
95
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, he had never considered that he was called on to bring forward any measure as a remedy for the evils of the court of Chancery, but he had merely stated, that he had prepared some outlines of a remedy, and probably might hereafter state some specific proposition.
Mr. Secretary Peel
resumed:—Having the intention, then, on some future day, to call the attention of the House to a specific proposition, he would ask again, whether it would not be better to reserve this motion until he could bring before the House the whole question complete? As yet his hon. friend had mentioned only one particular proposition, on which serious doubts were entertained; that of the separation of the bankruptcy jurisdiction from the Great Seal. The hon. gentleman also proposed some additional aid to the Court of Chancery. On the former proposition, he, last session, had made a specific motion, and his hon. friend must recollect, that he was opposed by some of the highest legal authorities, who had expressed their doubts as to the policy of the measure. Many of them were of opinion, that no material alteration of the constitution of the court was necessary, as they considered it possible that the court could retain the jurisdiction of bankruptcy, with three judges to do the busies of Chancery. There was an unwil
96
97
Mr. Brougham
observed, that Mr. Shadwell's statement was, that three angels: could not get through it.
Mr. Peel
trusted that, as that gentleman had been advanced to the bench, and had thus become one of the three, he: would display not only human strength, but something of the angelic powers to which he had alluded. If, then, three judges were unable to overcome and to prevent the accumulation of the arrears, the next question was, whether any permanent provision ought to be made for the discharge of the duty; and he was sure that it would not be fit to appoint a new judge, until it had been established that the present number was insufficient. The multiplication of judges and of judicial establishments did not, in his opinion, tend to facilitate the transaction of business. Appeals from one judge to another had decidedly a contrary effect, and constituted one of the chief evils of which we had now to complain. What he contended was, that sufficient experience had not
98
99
Sir J. Scarlett
concurred with the right hon. gentleman, that the proper time for coming to a decision was when a specific motion was brought forward; but after what had already passed, he thought there was no necessity for the indefinite proposition in the hands of the Speaker. If his hon. friend had proposed a motion for the purpose of engrafting upon it a bill, he might have voted differently; but as his hon. friend stated, that the subject was to be brought under consideration again, this was a good ground for voting against the motion. He was disposed to concur with the right hon. gentleman, that the number of judges ought not to be increased. He recollected the opinion expressed by the late sir S. Romilly, that no addition was required to the number of judges in the then Court of Chancery. Even if it were a question of doubt, he should be disposed to wait until the present Chancellor had had an opportunity of trying the effect of such reforms and amendments as it was known he was disposed to introduce, to facilitate the practice of the court. From a long and intimate acquaintance with that noble person, he was satisfied that it was his sincere desire to remedy existing evils, and not to oppose prejudice to the real utility of propositions for the improvement of the Court of Chancery. He did not contend that the Court of Chancery did not require improvement; but improvement was not to be had by increasing the number of the judges, but by an alteration of the forms of procedure, and by facilitating the progress of causes. One of the chief difficulties of the Court of Chancery
100
101
l.
Mr. Brougham
wished to say a few words, that the grounds of his vote might be clearly understood. He agreed that it was, at all times, inconvenient to vote abstract propositions; and, if he understood it rightly, there was one part of the motion to which he could in no way agree. With all respect for his hon. friend, to whom the country was under such weighty obligations for benefits conferred, especially in reference to the Court of Chancery, he could not concur in his proposition of that night without abandoning the principles he had uniformly held and declared. He was called upon to assert, by the motion; not merely that certain great evils exist in Chancery, attending the mode of proceeding and the construction
102
103
104
105
106
quasi
107
Tertium nullum constat.
108
After a short reply from Mr. M. A. Taylor, the House divided: For the motion 42; For the previous question 91; Majority against the motion 49.
List of the Majority and of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Alexander, H.
Eastnor, lord
Alexander, J.
Eliot, lord
Apsley, lord
Elphinstone, col.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.
Ashley, lord
Foster, hon. J. L.
Atkins, J.
Fremantle, sir T.
Balfour, James
Gordon, John
Bankes, H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bankes, G.
Graham, Marquis
Beckett, sir J.
Greene, T. G.
Brecknock, lord
Greville, hon. sir C. G.
Boyd, W.
Hart, G. V.
Buller, Charles
Hay, Adam
Calvert, John
Harrison, Battley
Campbell, arch.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Carrington, sir E.
Hill, sir G.
Cockburn, sir G.
Holmes, W.
Cole, Arthur
Horton, rt. hon. J. W.
Cooke, sir H.
Hotham, lord
Cooper, R. B.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Courtenay, T. P.
Innes, sir H.
Dalrymple, A. J.
Lamb, rt. hon. W.
Dawson, G. R.
Lennard, T. B
Dennyson, J.
Lester, B.
Dotten, A. R.
Lewis, rt. hon. T. F.
Downe, lord
Littleton, E. J.
Dundas, R. A. Ipswich
Lockhart, J. K.
Lott, H. B.
Drummond, Home
M'Leod, R.
East, sir E.
M'Kenzie, sir J.
109
Malcolm, N.
Ross, John
Maryatt, J.
Saunderson, A.
Martin, sir T. B.
Scarlett, sir J.
Maxwell, H.
Sibthorpe, C. D. W.
Moore, G.
Somerset, lord E.
Mountcharles, earl
Spottiswoode, A.
Morrison, J.
Sugden, E. B.
Norton, G. C.
Trant, H.
North, J. H.
Talmash, L.
Owen, sir E.
Talmash, F.
Pettit, L. H.
Thynne, lord W.
Palmerston, lord
Tindal, sir N. C.
Peachy, general
Ure, Masterton
Peel, right hon. R.
Villiers, T. H.
Peel, Laurence
Wetherall, sir C.
Prendergast, M. G.
Wortley, hon. L. S.
Robinson, G. B.
TELLERS.
Rose, sir G.
Sir G. Clerk
Rae, sir W.
J. Planta.
MINORITY.
Bernal, Ralph
Martin, John
Carter, J. B.
Marshall, William
Clive, E. B.
Maberly, colonel
Compton, Samuel
Maberly, John
Denison, W. J.
Palmer, C. F.
Dundas, hon. T.
Pendarves, E. W.
Dundas, H. G.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Dundas, sir R.
Protheroe, E.
Ducane, P.
Russell, lord W.
Easthope, J.
Sebright, sir J.
Ebrington, lord
Smith, W.
Ennismore, lord
Stuart, H. V.
Fergusson, sir R.
Townshend, lord C.
Forbes, John
Twiss, Horace
Gordon, Robert
Waithman, alderman
Graham, sir J.
Warburton, H.
Grattan, James
Wilbraham, G.
Harvey, D. W.
Wood, alderman
Heneage, G. F.
Wood, John
Hume, Joseph
Knight, R.
TELLERS.
Lumley, S.
Lord Rancliffe,
Marjoribanks, S.
M. A. Taylor.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 25.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
On the order of the clay for taking the Report on this bill into further consideration,
The Earl of Eldon
said, that, having an alteration to propose in the preamble of the second clause, he should move that the following words be left out:—"And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government, thereof, and the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government, thereof, are by the laws of tins realm severally established permanently and inviolably." His
110
Earl Grey
hoped, that the assurance of the learned earl, that he would merely move his amendment
pro forma,
111
The Earl of Eldon
denied that the House had come to that stage of the bill, in which he had proposed to insert the words "I am a Protestant." On the contrary, a motion was made for the postponement of the further consideration of the report, before he could move the insertion of those words in the Declaration. The noble earl, too, had mistaken what he had stated as to his intention in moving these amendments. He had not said, that he moved them only for the purpose of putting them formally on the Journals; and when that charge had been brought against him last night, he understood that he was entirely acquitted of it. He would be sorry to bring their lordships' proceedings into confusion. No man was more desirous than he was to conform to their orders. He would rather that this faulty, miserable, wretched bill, should pass without any amendment, than be guilty of a breach of the orders of the House. But he maintained that he was not out of order, and that it was fully competent for him to make this motion; and he was the more inclined to persist in making it, after the objections that had been urged against it. He would withdraw his amendment, however, out of compliment to the noble earl; but, on the third reading, he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Earl Grey
said, that the learned earl now offered to withdraw his proposition in compliment to him; but he wanted nothing from the learned earl out of compliment. He repeated, that the proposition could not now be brought forward. He had referred to the printed minutes and they fully bore out what he had said. In those minutes there was this entry:—"It was then moved, that after the word 'that' the words 'I am a Protestant' be inserted; which being put, the further consideration of the motion was adjourned until tomorrow."
The Earl of Eldon
said, upon his honour, he never did move that amendment. He knew it was so upon the minutes; but he would assert that whoever had placed it there, had done so without being warranted by the fact.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the course of proceeding last night had been this—the learned lord moved an amendment, which was negatived; he afterwards stated,
112
Lord Holland
said, that whatever might be the learned lord's recollection of what took place last night, there was the document from which it appeared that the motion was made; and, if any additional proof were necessary, it was to be found in what had been stated by the learned lord, who said that two speeches had been made upon it; because, who ever heard of any noble lord getting up and making a speech to-day, in support of a motion which he intended to bring forward tomorrow? It was clear, therefore, that that question was decided. The noble and learned lord, however, seemed to disregard the records of the House, and called upon the House to take his assertion in preference. Now, he (lord Holland) was—" a plain blunt man;" but only let him suppose that he, or any of his noble friends had attempted to deny the authority of the records of that House, what dreadful consequences would they not be told would ensue from trampling under foot all the sacred rules, and usages, and customs, handed clown to them by their ancestors! If such a proceeding as this were to be allowed, any man who, after a measure had been carried, wished to defeat that measure, would have nothing to do but to say that the motion had not been made. Their lordships must be bound by their own records. The learned earl, however, fortunately for himself—perhaps unfortunately for the House—would have another opportunity of bringing forward his proposition; but, unquestionably, to do so now would be against all rules, and orders.
The Earl of Eldon
would withdraw his motion; but he would repeat, that he had never got to that motion which referred to the introduction of the words "I am a Protestant" into the Declaration. What he had said was, that that amendment ought to be introduced, but he had certainly never made the motion.
113
The order of the day being read,
The Earl of Eldon
said, he would now move (the clause having been read by the clerk), that instead of the word "declare," the word "swear" be substituted; but he only did so, for the purpose of having such motion entered on the Journals.
Earl Grey
rose to order. The House had left off last night at a part of the clause subsequent to that in which the noble and learned earl now moved to introduce his amendment; it was therefore incompetent for him to make that motion now. He was surprised to hear the learned earl re-assert, that he had not, made his motion last night for the introduction of the words "I am a Protestant" into the Declaration in this clause. How could they tell what had been done but by the records of the House? Now, if a false entry had been made in those records, a great fault had been committed by some person, and it ought to be noticed. He certainly thought that the motion had been made, and his recollection was confirmed by the minutes. In future, he hoped that, to avoid accidents, every motion would be read and put before it was entered on the records of the House. He conceived the House was now bound to proceed to the consideration of that question which was under discussion when they adjourned.
The Earl of Eldon
wished to be understood as withdrawing these two motions, but not admitting the fact. He would now move, that there be inserted after the words "on the true faith of a Christian," these words, "I am a Protestant." He wished their lordships to understand, that what he was now proposing had relation to the corporations only, and not to offices under the Crown. He also solemnly protested, that he would not make this motion, if he thought that it operated to the prejudice of the claims of the Roman Catholics. What he wished was, that the present bill, if passed, should pass without affecting the Roman Catholic claims one way or the other. His only motive in proposing this amendment was, that if this clause were to be enacted without these words, it would have the effect of materially promoting the views of the Roman Catholics.—He now wished to say a few words again on this subject. The Declaration to which his present amendment referred, had nothing to do with the subsequent part of the bill, with respect
114
115
The Lord Chancellor
said, he felt himself bound, after what had fallen from his noble and learned friend, to state the opinion which he entertained on this question. He rejoiced that their lordships had acceded to the proposition for postponing the consideration of this subject; because he would admit that the observations then thrown out by his noble and learned friend had the effect of creating doubts in his mind; but the delay that had taken place had afforded leisure for reflection and inquiry; and, after the most mature consideration, he was of opinion that there was nothing of solidity in his noble and learned friend's objection. If he could bring himself for a moment to believe, that the words "I am a Protestant" were calculated to give such a complexion to the question as his noble and learned friend had described, he should be the last man to oppose them. But, because he was of opinion that they would produce no such effect, and because he felt that their insertion would only create irritation in the country, he felt himself bound to vote against the motion of his noble and learned friend. The question for consideration was this,
116
117
118
The Bishop of Bristol
said, he was not aware of the legal point which the learned lord on the woolsack had stated; namely, that it was customary for any but the principal officers of corporations to take the declaration against transubstantiation. That, undoubtedly, made a considerable alteration in the case; and many persons
119
120
The Earl of Carlisle,
in a low tone of voice, denied that the petitions presented in favour of the bill merited the reflection cast upon them by the right rev. prelate. He had himself laid one upon the table of a very different tenor; and if it had declared its hostility to the Church, he certainly should have felt considerable reluctance in offering it to the House. On the contrary, it stated, that although the Declaration was unnecessary, they did not object to it, as they were conscious that they harboured no feelings inimical to the establishment. After the luminous and convincing argument of the learned lord on the woolsack, it would be presumption for him to say more, than that he fully concurred in it.
The Earl of Guilford
said, he thought the course which had been taken in that House, on this occasion, tended to repress freedom of discussion, and to enforce this principle, that no noble lord should state his opinions fairly and conscientiously, and, support those opinions by such arguments as he could adduce, provided those high authorities amongst their lordships, for whom no man entertained a more sincere
121
The Earl of Roden
said, as he had not heard from any noble lord the expression of opinions similar to those which he held on this important bill, he would state briefly what his opinions on the subject were. He was one of those who conceived it to be most important to listen to the conscientious scruples of the Dissenters.
122
123
The Bishop of Lincoln
said, he believed, that in what the noble earl had uttered concerning the support given by the bench of bishops to the Declaration proposed to be introduced into the bill, he had fallen into a serious mistake; since, in declaring his opinion upon the insufficiency of that Declaration, he had asserted, that the bishops had shown a greater regard for the temporalities than for the spiritualities of the Church. If the proposition submitted by the noble baron, with respect to the Declaration, had been to alter the liturgy of the Church in conformity to the opinions of the Dissenters, to expunge from its articles some part of the substance of its Creed, or to change its doctrines or its discipline; if these, or any of these, had been the objects of the proposal, there would have been some ground for the assertion, that the clergy in that House had neglected the spiritual doctrines of the Church. But what was the question before the House? It was, whether a portion of the two acts of parliament, whereby persons dissenting from the doctrines of the Church of England were excluded from holding corporate offices should be repealed? Now what conceivable connection there was between that proposition and the spiritual doctrines of the Church of England, he confessed he could not see; and he was surprised that the noble earl should have fallen into the error of conceiving there was any. The facts and arguments advanced by the noble earl could only have arisen from a mistake of the nature of the proposition before the House, or from a confusion of two things, perfectly distinct in their existence; namely, the temporalities of the Church and its spiritual character. He would tell their lordships, that these two things were not connected together, and that one of these might be destroyed without the principle of the other being affected. The
124
The Bishop of Chester
said, he wished also to offer a few words upon the subject on which his right reverend brother had just addressed the House. The observations of the noble earl seemed to show, that he considered the Corporation and Test acts as a religious security. Now, he had already contended, and would repeat his assertion, that they were only a political security, and that in themselves they had no tendency to support and maintain true religion. If it was true, as the noble earl had represented, that the interests of the Church were ephemeral interests, they were so, because they were not connected with the eternal doctrines of the Church. The only way by which the temporal interests of the Church could be upheld, was by endowment. That was all that the state troubled itself about; it was for the Church to look to the purity of its doctrines and to the discipline of its forms, which ages had already supported. It was uncharitable, then, in the noble earl to make an assertion, which, if it were believed for one moment, could only have the effect of undermining the influence now possessed over the people by the spiritual rulers of the Church. He was sure there was no man more willing to increase that influence than the noble earl: his assertion, therefore, could only be the consequence of the mistake to which his right rev. friend had already alluded, and to a confusion of the two things which
125
The Earl of Roden,
in explanation, said, that the right rev. prelates were mistaken in supposing that he meant to insinuate any thing of the kind imputed to him. Quite the contrary. He only lamented that they should exhibit so much indifference to the admission of persons, dissenting from the establishment into the offices of a Christian government and state.
Lord Redesdale
said, it was proposed to do away with the Sacramental Test, and to substitute in its stead a simple declaration, to be made by all persons who should be appointed to offices where that Test had been hitherto required. Under these circumstances, he could not conceive any solid objection to the amendment proposed by his noble and learned friend. The only objection he had heard was, that it was not only not necessary, but quite superfluous; and it was argued, that after the repeal of the Test act, the declaration against transubstantiation would still remain as a sufficient barrier against the admission of Roman Catholics to office. Now, he would say, that there were many persons who were ready to make the declaration against transubstantiation, but who were still very far from being Protestants, according to the sense of the word in which it was generally understood. He would call the attention of noble lords, who were anxious for the maintenance of an Established Church to this fact. They should recollect that there was an essential difference between a religious society regulated by law, and a religious society which was neither controlled nor regulated by law. This was an important difference. The religious society which was controlled by law, could not do any thing inconsistent with the law; but, on the other hand, the religious society which was not so controlled and regulated, disavowed and disowned all law. He therefore objected to the present bill, because it went to admit to office, and to influential situations, persons who belonged to religious societies that were not regulated by law. That was his argument against the measure. They had upon their table a number of
126
The Earl of Eldon
said, that, after what had been stated by such an authority as the noble lord on the woolsack, he felt it imperative to trespass on their lordships' attention for a few moments. The noble lord had charged him with what he called mischievous conduct on this occasion. He trusted that he had too long engaged the attention of noble lords in that House not to receive from them a patient hearing, while he replied to such a charge, coming from such a place, and such an authority. He would say, that when the noble lord on the woolsack had gone through all the different situations in which he (lord Eldon) had served that House and the country, it would be then imputed to the noble lord with as little reason as it had been imputed to him, that he was pursuing a line of conduct calculated to produce mischievous consequences. He had served his country to the best of his abilities: he had endeavoured to be a useful servant to the coun-
127
128
129
130
The Duke of Newcastle
said, he had a decided objection to the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts; and he felt more strongly opposed to that repeal, as he was convinced that the present concession had been made, in consequence of the clamour which had been raised upon the subject, within as well as without that House. He considered the Corporation and Test acts to be the strongest barriers to the inroads upon the constitution in Church and State. But, if they were to be repealed, something like an equivalent security should be provided in their stead. He considered the Declaration as it stood, quite nugatory, as a security. They had obtained something like an approach to an acknowledgment of Christianity in it
131
The Bishop of Gloucester
said, that it had been a very prevalent opinion, that the political introduction of the Sacramental Test was liable to abuse and profanation. Now, he well knew that many pious and excellent men were of a contrary opinion to this; and when such a contrariety of opinions existed, it was their duty to endeavour to find out which side preponderated. But, in addition to the arguments that could be adduced on either side, there was a strong moral feeling in his mind—so strong, that it weighed more with him than all those arguments. It was because the Test act had long been a dead letter—a thing in existence but never in use—that he voted for the present bill. The Test had been made use of in former times, and perhaps it was then proper; but it had now become obsolete. He had voted for the Declaration that was introduced into the bill—not because it formed a stronger bulwark than the Sacramental Test, as far as the Dissenters were concerned, but because he considered it as a Declaration, on the part of the legislature, the laws, and the government, of the country, that, to the best of their power, they would support and uphold the doctrine, discipline, and government, of the Church of England. In giving his assent to the amendment of the noble and learned lord, it was not because he thought that it was of any force or validity, but rather because he knew that there was a feeling abroad—and that too, among very excellent persons—that in bringing in this bill in behalf of the Dissenters, they were at the same time opening the door to the claims of the Roman Catholics. Such, however, was certainly
132
The question was then put upon the amendment for introducing into the Declaration the words "I am a Protestant," when the House divided: For the Amendment, present, 43; Proxies, 12–55; Against it, present, 73; Proxies, 44–117; Majority against the Amendment, 62.
The Earl of Winchilsea
then proposed his amendment, that after the word "that" in the Declaration, be inserted these words, "I believe the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as set forth by the laws of this realm, to be the revealed word of God." He professed to regard this great question upon principles involved in the broad basis of Christianity, and not with reference to the tenets of any particular sect. In taking up that general position, he must be permitted to protest against the doctrines propounded by the government in their support of this bill, and more particularly against the opinion of one noble lord opposite, who had declared, that the religion of a man did not signify in considering his qualification for civil office. Such an opinion was decidedly at variance with the spirit and provisions of the great institutions of this country. He would maintain that exclusion from political power, and persecution, were not, as some people thought, synonymous terms. In examining the prayer of the petitions presented from the Dissenters in support of this bill, he found them all claiming credit for a belief in Christianity; while he could positively affirm, that some of them were no more entitled to the appellation of Christians, than the followers of Mahomet; indeed, not so much; for while the former denied the existence of Christ, the Mahometan believed in it. He therefore called upon the government and the prelacy to support him in this attempt to uphold the establishment of Christianity.
The Bishop of Chester
said, it appeared to him that the state of the question was materially altered since the former amend-
133
prima facie,
The Bishop of Llandaff
thought the amendment unnecessary. It was already provided, that the Declaration should be taken on the faith of a Christian; and he could not conceive how any person who called himself a Christian, could deny that the canonical books of the Old and of the New Testament contained the revealed will of God. The amendment was objectionable on another ground. A Mahometan might subscribe to the Declaration, as the noble earl had worded it; for it was unquestionable, that the Mahometan agreed with the Christian in thinking, that the five books of Moses, and the four Gospels, were composed under the immediate inspiration of God. For these reasons he should object to the amendment, which he did not consider to be so good a Test as that which he had proposed himself.
The House divided: For the Amendment 22; Against it 70; Majority 48.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had promised their lordships in the committee, that if they would agree to the last clause but one, and to the last clause but two in the bill as they then stood, he would, at a future period, substitute for them clauses of a more definite nature. He now rose to make good that promise. One mode of making that substitution was by naming expressly the different offices of which the holders were not to be required to make the Declaration, Another mode
134
The clauses were read and agreed to.
The Earl of Falmouth
said, that he, too, had an amendment to propose. It related to the disposal of patronage in the Church by corporate bodies, and was as follows:—" Whereas, for the clue security of the Church, it is expedient that provision be made for the proper presentation of ecclesiastical benefices belonging to corporations in the kingdom of England and Wales, be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this act, no person, being a member of a corporation, shall present, nominate, or appoint, or take a part in presenting, nominating, or appointing, any clergyman to any ecclesiastical benefice in the gift of the corporation of which he is a member, until he shall make and sub-scribe the following Declaration;' I,
A. B.,
135
Lord Ellenborough
objected to the clause, as being useless and unnecessary. We had already a much stronger security for it in the subscription to the thirty-nine articles, which every bishop had a right to ask, and in point of fact did ask, from every new incumbent within his diocese. His noble friend had grossly exaggerated the danger likely to accrue to the Church from this measure. No danger could arise from the disposal of Church preferment by corporations, until the Dissenters obtained a majority in those corporations. His noble friend had talked of the principle upon which he rested this amendment. Had his noble friend considered the length
136
The Bishop of Llandaff
thought the amendment unnecessary. The noble earl had argued as if the bishops had nothing to do with a new incumbent, but to call for his signature to the thirty-nine articles. Surely the noble earl could not have forgotten that the incumbent presented to the bishop must be an ordained member of the Church of England—that he must have been educated in the Church of England—that he must subscribe to her articles—that he must have been examined by one of her bishops, or his chaplain, as to his fitness for the holy office—and that all this must take place before he was in a situation to receive preferment. The noble earl appeared to him to reason very curiously, from the law which prevented Roman Catholics from presenting to benefices in the Church of England. He said, it was a proof that parliament wished to confine the disposal of the patronage of the Church to those who conformed to its doctrines and worship. Now, he looked upon it in a different light. The strong proof, that parliament marked out the case of the Roman Catholics as peculiar, was to be found in the fact, that it left the disposal of the very same patronage which it took away from the Roman Catholics, in the hands of lay Dissenters. Parliament had made no law of exclusion, on this subject, for the Dissenter; and he would say, that such a law could not be vindicated upon the ground either of justice or expediency. He regarded the law which deprived Roman Catholics of the right of presenting to the benefices which formed part of their estates as a harsh interference with the rights of property, and as a miserable relique of those penal laws which he wished obliterated from the Statute-book. He could not see the likelihood of any danger arising from allowing to Dissenters the right to present to benefices, for the benefices must be bestowed upon the clergy of the Established Church. He would ask the noble lord, whether there had ever come to his knowledge an instance of a Dissenter having exercised his right of presentation, to the disgrace or detriment of the Established Church? If no such
137
The clause was negatived.
The Bishop of Llandaff
said, it was his intention, on the third reading of the bill, to propose another clause. He had upon a former occasion, expressed his dissatisfaction at the present Declaration. As it stood, he considered it utterly unworthy of their lordships. It was now converted into an oath [cries of "no, no,"]: he maintained that it was; for a Declaration solemnly made in the face of God was an oath, even though the words "So help me God" were not attached to it. It was converted, he said, into an oath; and his objection to it was the awkwardness of the situation in which it placed the Dissenters. It was to be administered to all persons upon their admission into civil offices. Now, he calculated that nine-tenths of the persons who would be called upon to take it would be of that description on which it was never intended to be imposed. He should therefore contend, on the principle that the legislature ought not needlessly to multiply oaths, that it was unworthy of the House to frame the Declaration in the invidious form in which it now stood. He had wished their lordships to make the persons who entered upon office declare, "that, so far as concerned the duties of their office, they would respect and maintain the rights and privileges of the Established Church." That Declaration was objected to, 'on account of the inconvenience it was likely to cause to some consciences. He had yielded to the objection, and did not press his amendment. He must, however, say, that all his subsequent impressions confirmed the correctness of his original opinion. The object which he had in view would be obtained by the insertion of a short clause, of which the tenour would be, that those persons who were members of the Church of England should not be called upon to take this Declaration upon their admission into office.
The report was brought up, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 25.
138
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION—PETITION OF THE CORPORATION OF
Mr. Moore
said, he rose to present a Petition from the Corporation of Dublin, against the Roman Catholic Association. The petitioners commenced by stating, that being the body from whom the magistrates of Dublin were selected, they felt it to be their duty, to call the attention of the House to a Society which they thought calculated to injure the peace of Dublin, and to pray that the House would adopt prompt measures to suppress it. He need not remind the House, that the proceedings of the old Catholic Association, previous to 1825, were such as to call the attention of government to them. The danger that was apprehended had been submitted to the legislature, and a great majority in both Houses had come to the conclusion, that the Association was dangerous. This opinion had been further evinced in the bill passed in 1825, called the Unlawful Society bill. To this law the old Catholic Association had affected to submit; but scarcely was [that submission professed, before a new Association sprung up, which, while it pretended to coincide with the bill, was, in fact, totally hostile to its essence. That bill directed its enactment against certain societies, which it pronounced illegal, but contained exceptions in favour of societies for certain objects. When, therefore, the Catholic Association again sprung up, it assumed a form which came within what was legal under the act, though, in truth, it preserved the same character, and was supported by the same persons as before. When it assumed the same character in its operations of directing the motions of the Catholics, and controlling the proceedings of the Protestants—when it interfered, by the expression of its opinions, in all great measures of policy which came under the attention of the legislature, he thought that every objection which was urged successfully against the Association in 1825, would lie with the same, or greater, force, against the Association now existing in Dublin. Many plans, then in a state of incipiency, had now reached their maturity—many objects, then limited in their nature, had now been reared up to an almost indefinite extent. He called the attention of the House to the connexion which notoriously subsisted between this Association, as a political body, and the Catholic priesthood—to the collectors of the Catholic rent,
139
140
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he rose for the purpose of seconding the motion. He must call the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances under which this petition came before them, and to the peculiar character of the speech by which it had been introduced. He recollected the discussions on the Catholic question for the last ten years, and had observed that, in every case, when the discussion was approaching, some hon. gentleman had brought forward some question which
141
Ordered to lie on the table.
CORN LAWS.]
Mr. C. Grant
Mr. Leycester
thought the proposed resolutions highly objectionable. They tended to create a scarcity at one time, and a glut at another. The consequence would be, that the consumer would be injured by there being no importation at a period when importation was most wanted, and the grower would be injured by there being an excess of foreign grain in the market at a period when he could least afford it.
Mr. R. King
said, that with the present state of the currency and the existing taxation, it would be impossible to afford to agriculturists that protection to which they were entitled. The House could not divest the consideration of the Corn question from that of the currency; and the principle of the currency ought to be brought into full operation, before any decision was come to on the present subject. He could not forget, that the return to cash payments had been attended with more ruinous consequences to the agricul-
142
The House then went into the committee, and the chairman read the resolutions
seriatim.
Mr. Benett
said, he flattered himself that the resolutions he was about to propose were so nearly like those submitted by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that he would at once accede to them. The resolutions he had drawn up, also approached very nearly to those which the hon. member for Dorsetshire moved last year. He proposed, then, that when the price was under 56
s.
s.
d.,
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.,
s.
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
143
s.
s.
d.
s.,
s.
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.,
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.,
144
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.,
s.
d.
s.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.,
s.
d.,
s.
s.,
s.
d.,
s.
d.
s.
145
s.
s.,
s.,
s.,
s.,
146
s.
s.
147
s.
s.
d.
Mr. W. Whitmore
said, he trusted the House would afford a patient attention to the subject, and that every member would conceive it to be his duty to attend to the statements of those who, from peculiar circumstances, felt deeply interested in the question. He confessed he was dissatisfied with the scale proposed by the hon. member for Wiltshire, as well as with that proposed by government. He firmly believed that a high scale of restrictive duties would not save the interests of the agriculturists. It was not difficult to foresee what would be the effect of the introduction of a scale of duties arising so rapidly as those now before the committee. No duty, perhaps, ever could be proposed that would be effectual in keeping out foreign corn. He therefore did not wonder at the statement of the hon. member for Newcastle, who had said that it could be imported at 24
s.
148
149
150
s.
s.
s.,
s.,
Mr. Secretary Peel
was contending, that the protection which the bill would afford to the agriculturist was abundantly sufficient. After stating various returns of the prices of corn at Guernsey and Jersey, and of the price at which it could be imported from those islands into this country, he proceeded to observe that the facts that, when the duty was 26
s.
d.,
s.
s.
Mr. Portman
said, that in answer to the Guernsey case, which had been adverted to by the right hon. gentleman, he would refer to the case of Rostock. Sir Claude Scott, when he was examined before the Lords' committee last year, had said that corn could then be imported from Rostock to London at 22
s.
151
s.
s.
s.,
s.,
s.,
s.,
s.
s.
d.,
s.
d.,
s.,
s.
d.
Mr. Peel
said, the hon. member had relied on a statement of sir C. Scott respecting a single cargo in 1826, from Swedish Pomerania, at 23
s.
Mr. Leslie Foster
began by remarking upon the absurdity of the apprehensions which some agriculturists entertained with respect to the importation of foreign wheat. The lowest average price, he had heard, was about 32
s.
s.
s.
152
s.
s.
s.
Mr. Huskisson
wished to make one observation respecting the price of wheat on the continent. According to the evidence of Mr. Jacob, the actual price of wheat at Mecklenburgh, for a course of six years, was 25
s.
d.
s.
s.,
153
s.,
s.,
s.
Mr. Ward
doubted very much whether 35
s.
s.
s.
Sir T. Gooch
said, he had listened to all the arguments brought forward for and against the measure, and could honestly state, that until now he had not come, in his own mind, to any satisfactory conclusion. His mind was now, however, made up, that the system produced to the House by his majesty's government was preferable to any that had yet been propounded. He had taken some pains to collect the average prices of wheat at all the northern ports for some time past, and he found that, taking the cost, or export price, at 25
s.
s.,
s.,
s.
154
Mr. Baring
said, he decidedly preferred the system now proposed to that brought forward by the late government. He entirely agreed with the right hon. member for Louth, that nothing could be more idle than the perpetual references made in that House to the average prices of wheat at various foreign ports. It was ridiculous to make references of this kind when they had just opposite to them, as it were, and had had, for the last century, a port, Rotterdam, which had always been, as to corn, a free one. At that port the price usually varied from 30
s.
s.,
s.
s.
155
Sir M. W. Ridley
disapproved of the system of taking averages, and expressed his perfect approbation of the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. C. Grant.)
The committee divided: for the original motion 230; for the amendment 32; majority 198.
Mr. Portman
proposed as an amendment to the resolution establishing the descending scale at steps of 1
s.
s.
s.,
s.
Mr. Western
wished to ask the right hon. gentleman opposite, what discovery he had made which had induced him to abandon the scale on the descending price, which he had proposed to the House last year, and to adopt one which gave inferior protection to agriculture? It was admitted, that the country did not stand in need of a foreign supply, and that the object of this bill was to prevent any such supply, up to a certain point. Why, then, did they refuse to satisfy those who apprehended that these duties were insufficient? The most intelligent among the growers of corn thought that the reduced scale of duties on the descending price was insufficient; and it was deviating from the measure of last year in this respect, that made the bill look like a compromise, which gave a higher price but removed protection. He admitted the advantages of this bill: it was a point gained: it had satisfied the country, that there were those in the cabinet who would give protection to agriculture, and had relieved the people from
156
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
did not know if the hon. gentleman had addressed his question to him. If he had, he could assure the hon. member that, without having recourse to compromise of principle, this deviation had taken place. It appeared to him, however, that one part of the hon. member's speech was an answer to the other. On the one hand there were great apprehensions, and on the other, confidence in the government: he thought, therefore, that the two feelings might be safely left to balance each other. He did, however, think that there could not be much alarm in the country on this point; for if there had been, they would have seen a different division from that which they had just witnessed. The hon. member had asked, why they had given protection, on the ascending scale, and taken it from the other? It was thought that 60
s.
s.
s.
The committee divided: for the original motion 140; for the amendment 50; majority 90. After which, the chairman reported progress.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 28.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
The bill was read a third time. After which, the clerk proceeded to read the bill, until he came as far as the Declaration in the second clause, upon which
Lord Holland
rose to propose an amendment. The Declaration, as it stood at present, commenced in these words:—"I A. B., do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, &c. on the true faith of a Christian." Now, to the previous form of words he did not object; but with respect to the present, he felt it due to that most respectable body of Christians, the Society of Friends, to state, that these words were
157
ad animum deponentis.
158
159
The Bishop of Llandaff
said, he had not been aware of any such consequences arising from the introduction of the words in question; but although they were now pointed out by the noble lord, he still approved of the words, because it was an acknowledgment, that Christianity constituted part of the law of the land.
Lord Bexley
said, that as it was so much the object of parliament to give relief to all classes of his majesty's subjects, he was disposed to support in principle the motion of the noble lord, by introducing a proviso permitting the Jews to omit these words. To this he saw no objection. If they had heretofore admitted any Jews to occupy offices, it would be a monstrous thing now to exclude them, by means of a bill which had for its, object to give tolera-
160
The Earl of Eldon
said, that no man would deny that the Established Church and the civil state formed together the constitution of this country. That was a proposition which not only Christians but Jews admitted, and he requested their lordships to bear it in mind. His noble friend (lord Holland) commenced his speech by hinting some propostion with regard to the Quakers: and here he must do his noble friend the justice to say, that he had told him (lord Eldon) last session, that he hoped the time would come when he should never more hear of the word toleration. Now, in the Toleration act itself, the Quakers were required to express a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. But it seemed that Jews had now been rendered capable of participating in the civil government of this country. Some of their lordships were old enough to remember the result of an attempt of that kind formerly. He requested their lordships would be so kind as to feel a little for those who felt that the doctrines of the Established Church were the doctrines of true Christianity. Let it be remembered, that the Jews were here and there and every where, and yet they were no where; and that they were a people whom their lordships did not acknowledge. But there was no denying that a Jew was as capable as any other man of filling a civil office. That, however, was not the principle on which their lordships acted. If they were to legislate on this principle, that a state had no right to inquire into the religious feelings of a man before he was admitted a member of a governing community, there would be an end to the foundation on which the constitution of this country rested. He considered this Declaration quite insufficient; because any man who took office might say, he was not doing any thing "by virtue of his office" to overturn the Established Church; what he did would be by virtue of his conscience, and its dictates would lead him to do every thing in his power to overturn the ecclesiastical establishment to which he was opposed.—After his noble friend's motion was disposed of, he would move the introduction of the words "and that I am a Protestant," and take the opinion of the House upon it. Their monarch was called to the throne to
161
The Earl of Winchilsea
conceived that these words were perfectly nugatory, so far as the security of the Established Church was concerned. With respect to what the noble baron had said respecting the Jews being affected by these words, it had little weight with him. What were the words? "On the true faith of a Christian." Why might not a Jew make a declaration in these terms? It was not necessary that he should be a Christian to make this declaration. If a Jew made such a declaration, it no more followed that he was a Christian, than it would follow that he (the earl) would be a Jew if he were to declare any thing, "on the true faith of a Jew." Looking at this question as he did at first, he was prepared to agree to the removal of the Test and Corporation acts. It was his full intention to have given his support to any measure founded on the broad basis of liberality to the Dissenters; but he certainly was not prepared to agree to a concession which admitted that it should be a matter of perfect indifference
162
The Bishop of Durham
said:—My lords, although I have already more than once troubled your lordships with my sentiments on the measure now before us, yet during the discussions that have taken place since the second reading of the bill, so many animadversions have been made, not only upon the bill itself, but upon the supporters of it, and especially upon the episcopal bench, that I cannot forbear entreating your lordships' patience for a few minutes, whilst I offer some further explanations as to the conduct I have myself hitherto pursued, and still intend to pursue concerning it.
163
164
165
166
The Earl of Eldon
assured the right rev. prelate that the manner in which he had spoken of him, coming as it did from so valuable a quarter, gave him the greatest comfort and consolation. He must, however, say, that not a syllable had fallen
167
The Duke of Wellington
said, it was his wish to confine himself to the discussion of the question actually before their lordships. But, first of all, he must assure the right rev. prelate, that if this was merely an incipient measure—that if it was intended to be followed up by any other measure—he was no party to any such plan. He had supported the measure, not because he wished to destroy the present system of laws; but because he believed it to be essential to the preservation of the peace of the Established Church, and of the religious peace of the country. In order that they might not have the same ground to go over another year, he had determined at once to give the measure all the support in his power during the present session. And now, for the question before their lordships. It was proposed that the words "on the true faith of a Christian "should be left out of the Declaration with the view of admitting the Jews to office. For his own part, he did not believe it to be the intention of the law that Jews should, be so admitted: he did, not believe that it was the intention of
168
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that if the noble and learned lord (Eldon) chose not only to repeat all his former arguments, but even to argue prospectively, no doubt he was at perfect liberty to do so. But the noble and learned lord having done so, and the right rev. prelate having had an opportunity of stating on what ground the rev. bench had acted, nothing could be more convenient than the course recommended by the noble duke. Let him, therefore, now call the attention of their lordships to the motion before them. His noble friend (lord Holland) had stated, that he did not mean to divide the House upon his motion, but that he had made it;
169
The Earl of Guilford
said, that, whatever might be said to the contrary, it must be admitted that this was a revolutionary
170
171
172
The amendment moved by lord Holland was negatived
pro forma.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that as the noble and learned lord had not enforced his proposition by any new argument, he should not be justified in detaining their lordships at any great length. He was anxious for the success of the present measure, and he wished that the grounds on which he supported it should be fairly and properly stated. That support was founded on the same principle which he had advanced, this day, on presenting a petition to their lordships. He was anxious, above all things, on the one hand, in effecting the object of the present bill, which he had much at heart, that no advantage should be taken of it, with reference to the success of any other measure; while, on the other, he hoped that any amendment which seemed to cast the slightest suspicion on their lordships' motives, or which seemed, in any degree, to prejudge another great question, should be rejected. If the words "I am a Protestant" had been originally introduced into the Declaration in the other House of Parliament—if, without being the subject of discussion, it had formed part of the bill when it came up to their lordships' House—he, in that case, should have opposed any amendment moved for the purpose of altering it. But the circumstances were perfectly different, and he could see no use whatever in inserting in the bill the words now proposed. What was the state of the bill? It might be considered presumption for him to declare his opinion on its provisions, when the two greatest law authorities in the House had already given theirs. He would take either of their opinions, and still, whichever he adopted, he felt himself justified in supporting the bill in its present state. If his noble and learned friend on the woolsack were correct in his opinion, then it was impossible that any tiling could be more decidedly unnecessary than the amendment; because, according to his statement, the Declaration against transubstantiation must be taken by those who had any connexion with the government of corporations. Here then was an efficient security.
173
ex confesso,
174
The Bishop of Chester
said:—I trust I may be allowed in a few words to explain why I oppose the amendment. I am not disposed to place the Roman Catholics nearer the attainment of the object they have for so many years sought, unless they offer a more substantial security than any they have at present proposed. When your lordships divided on the former occasion, I forbore from voting, because, I must confess, I was in a state of doubt as to the practical effect of the amendment on the political condition of the Roman Catholics. I must acknowledge that I, for one, was perfectly satis-
175
animus imponentis.
176
177
Lord Kenyon
said, that nothing could have been further from his intention than to offer himself to the House; but after the right rev. prelate had appealed to the authority of his revered parent, he felt it his duty, to the best of his ability, to rescue his character from the imputation which seemed to rest upon it, if the sentence quoted from his letter was considered alone. If the right rev. prelate had read the whole letter, their lordships would have seen, that his venerated ancestor having been consulted by his gracious sovereign—who reposed such confidence in him, that to him he referred the question, how far he was legally bound by his Coronation oath, not to consent to measures affecting the Established Church—his revered father had given an opinion, in which, while he had advised that every thing consistently with the safety of the Established Church should be granted, for the ease of the tender consciences of the Dissenters, no concession of political power should be made to them. This opinion was expressed as clearly as possible.—The question before the House was simply whether it was fit, in this bill for the relief of the Protestant Dissenters, to insert words to maintain the law as it existed with respect to the Roman Catholics? In point of principle, there could be no doubt they were not admissible into corporations, as their admission would be prejudicial to the interests of both Church and State. All he looked for was the security of the Established Church, which he venerated not only for its spiritual character, but for the political influence it
178
The Bishop of Chester
said, he had quoted the words of the illustrious lawyer to whom he had referred, for the purpose of showing that he considered the integrity of the Church of England to consist in the recognition of the doctrine and discipline, and the legalized support of her ministers.
The Bishop of Llandaff
said, the question in this case was not one of law, but rather as to the theological interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy, which must be taken by all those entering corporations. Now, upon that point, he believed he was right in asserting, that it was the opinion of almost the whole of that bench, that the Oath of Supremacy formed a sufficient barrier against the introduction of Roman Catholics.
The Earl of Eldon
said, that his opinion, that the Oath of Supremacy was not a sufficient security, was confirmed by the judgment of the House on more than one occasion. He also complained, that the recital of the bill upon the table was most insidious, and omitted the most important words of the two acts from which it professed to be copied: namely, those in which the inviolability of "the true Protestant Religion as established by law was affirmed." It was to secure that "true Protestant religion," in the bill under consideration, that he should divide the House upon his amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
said, the learned lord had just told them, that parliament had frequently decided that the Oath of Supremacy was not a sufficient security against the Roman Catholics. But the learned lord had not stated, that the Oath of Supremacy was altered by the act
179
The House then divided, when there appeared—For the amendment, present, 42; Proxies 10–52: Against it, present, 100; Proxies 54–154: Majority against the Amendment 102. After some further amendments had been proposed and negatived,
The Bishop of Llandaff
said: My lords, I rise for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the present bill, as far as regards those who are to be called upon
180
181
182
183
"——looks and thoughts
Were always downward bent, admiring more
The riches of Heaven's pavement, trodden gold,
Than aught divine or holy else enjoyed
In vision beatific."
184
Lord Holland
said, he should vote against the clause, as it was in direct contradiction to the whole character and principle of the measure. The principle of the bill was to unite those persons who had been divided, and this amendment went to keep up that division. He objected that, in the very marriage articles, there should be included an article for separate maintenance. This amendment would strip the measure of all its grace and all its advantages, and he therefore trusted it would be rejected.
The Earl of Eldon
said, he had in a former stage of the bill proposed an amendment similar to this, and should therefore vote for the present clause.
The Bishop of Bristol
said, he should support the clause, although it did not come up to his opinion as to what should have been the leading principle of the bill.
The Duke of Wellington
disapproved of the clause. He did not see why a Roman Catholic might not obtain admission to a corporation, if so simple a declaration as that proposed by the right rev. prelate were only put to him.
The clause was negatived.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
said, he
185
The Duke of Cumberland
said, he was desirous of expressing his sentiments on the bill then under consideration, and trusted that the House would allow him to place his opinion upon record; which he thought it the more incumbent upon him to do, after his long absence from the country. In carrying his intention into effect, he begged to say, that it was with unfeigned reluctance he found himself compelled to dissent from the noble duke, in the view which he took of the measure then before the House. He never felt more concerned at any circumstance than at that of being obliged to oppose a bill, which had the noble duke's support and approbation. Nothing but a conscientious feeling of the rectitude of the course he was then taking, could induce him to pursue it, opposed as it was to that adopted by the noble duke. But having now for one and thirty years followed one undeviating line of conduct, in relation to the established constitution and church of the country, he found it impossible to depart from it; and considering, as he did, the present measure favourable to neither, he must be permitted again to express his dissent from it.
The Earl of Darnley
rose to say a word or two in consequence of what had fallen from a right rev. prelate. He merely wished to remark, that, early in the present session, he had presented a petition from the corporation of London, in which the Sacramental Test had been alluded to, as exposed to profanation when used as a religious rite to promote civil qualification. That sentiment, which was both true and just, had been since re-echoed from all sides of the House, but from no quarter so
186
Lord Holland
said, that in performing the pleasing duty of moving "that this bill do pass," he could not refrain from expressing his feelings in language both of gratitude and congratulation—gratitude to that House, for the manner in which it had discharged its duty to the country, and congratulation to the country upon the achievement of so glorious a result.
Lord Redesdale
took a review of the circumstances under which measures founded upon the same principle, and urged by the same reasons, had, in former times, received the concurrence of parliament, and eventually exposed both church and state to extreme jeopardy. "When he looked at the safeguard which they were about to repeal, and the substitute they proposed in its place, he could not help being struck with its utter insufficiency, and protesting, in the strongest manner, against the enactment of such a measure.
The Earl of Mountcashel
felt it his duty to oppose the present bill, which was calculated to endanger the Established Church, and to let loose upon the country, with power to do mischief to its institutions, large classes of Socinians, and others, who could not be denominated the supporters of true Christianity, The bill was then passed.
187
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 28.
TAX ON FOREIGN WOOL.]
Mr. Ward
presented a petition from the merchants of London, engaged in the Wool trade, against the imposition of a Tax on Foreign Wool. The petitioners submitted, that the imposition of such a tax would prove ruinous to the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
supported the prayer of the petition. At present we were, he said, enabled to carry on a competition, in the continental markets, with Silesia, and the Netherlands; but the effect of the proposed tax, would be, to destroy the competition which we had hitherto kept up and to transfer our foreign woollen trade into the hands of continental manufacturers.
Sir T. Lethbridge
thought the proposed tax was a necessary protection due to the agricultural interest. At present, the price of British wool was ruinously low, and the only way to raise that price was by the imposition of a duty.
Lord Milton
opposed the petition, and hoped that the conversation would not terminate without some expression by parliament of its feeling upon the subject. If we were to revert to the times of poverty and barbarism, then it might be well to impose a duty upon raw commodities; but if the advance of prosperity was our object, no course could be more destructive of it.
Sir M. W. Ridley
thought, that whatever might be their object,—barbarity or prosperity,—the existing system could have only one end—the total ruin of the agriculturists. The importation of foreign wool into this country was daily increasing, while our export of manufactured goods was proceeding in the contrary direction. It ought to be recollected, too, how large a proportion of that imported wool was worked up into manufactures for home consumption.
Sir G. Philips
said, that those gentlemen who considered themselves the protectors of the agricultural interest adopted very unfair and vulgar views, both as to their own interests, and those of the country. They first sought to obtain a high tax upon corn, and were anxious to follow that measure up by procuring a high tax upon wool. That was their plan. As to the said produce, most of it was
188
Mr. Heathcote
said, that gentlemen on the opposite side were continually asserting that those who espoused what was called the agricultural interests knew nothing about their own concerns, and they were always begging the agriculturists to let the other side manage their affairs for them. He had not been long in that House; but he had always heard this doctrine, not only upon the question of wool, but upon all similar occasions. For his part, all he deduced from such language was, that the landed interest ought to be on their guard when gentlemen on the other side told them that they intended any measure for their benefit. It would be found, that the price of inferior kinds of wool had fallen in greater proportion than cotton or any other article. He would not pledge himself to support either long wool or short wool; for he wished to do that which was substantially just to the whole country. The noble lord had said, that if the House reverted to the former law, it would be going back to a period of barbarism; but he begged to remind the House, that the change in the law respecting wool had taken place only two or three years ago. He would maintain, that the consumers would not be benefitted by taking off the tax. The House ought to strike a balance between the manufacturing and agricultural interests, and to go into the question at once; as the petitioners only asked for inquiry.
Mr. P. Thompson
said, that if inquiry could be gone into for any good purpose, he, for one, would not urge its refusal; but when it was known that the bare mention of inquiry had caused a considerable alarm in the country, and as he was satisfied that no case could be made out in the committee, he thought it would be uselessly adding to the alarm that existed, to go into the committee. His hon. friend
189
Sir C. Burrell
said, he hoped that government would concede the committee, for the purpose of doing justice to all parties. The agriculturists had not been fairly dealt with on this occasion. They had been represented as hostile to the manufacturers. The fact was not so: they sought only for that fair protection to which they were entitled. He would beg the attention of the House to the present condition of the growers of long wool to what it was before the tax on foreign wool was removed. At that time it was urged, that as there was not such wool in the world, the growers of long wool in Yorkshire and the middle counties would obtain a ready market for their commodity by exportation: but what was the fact? The French government had laid on a tax of 30 per cent on all wool of that kind sent to that country. So that the purses of, the landed interest here were not only drawn for the benefit of the foreign agriculturist, but also for the benefit of the French revenue. He hoped the right hon. gentleman opposite would pause before he pushed too far his principles of free trade; which he could not but think were, in some respects, a curse to the country.
190
Mr. C. Grant
begged the House to recollect, that there stood on their paper a notice of a motion for Monday, on the general question of the Wool trade. This being the case, he should abstain from entering into the subject, or from giving any opinion of the course which ministers intended to pursue, until the whole question was fairly before the House.
Ordered to lie on the table.
CURRENCY—CIRCULATION of SMALL
Sir James Graham
said:—I hope I may be allowed to ask certain questions of ministers relative to the Currency of the country. Considering the advanced state of the session, and that early next year an important alteration is to take place in that currency, I hope the chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to ask whether it is the intention of government to adhere to the plan already laid down of preventing, after the 5th of April next, the issuing, re-issuing, and negotiating of notes in England for less sums than 5
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
:— I admit the great importance of the subjects to which the hon. baronet's questions refer, and have no objection to answer them. To the first I say, that government sec no reason to depart from the policy laid down in 1826, with respect to the currency, or to that part of it which consists in the circulation of small notes; and it is their fixed determination to adhere to the law as it was then enacted. As to the small circulation of Scotland and Ireland, government are not prepared to take the same course; but to prevent any advantage being taken of the circulation of small notes in Scotland, it is my intention, at an early period, to introduce a measure, for the purpose of hindering the circulation of those
191
l.,
Mr. Curteis
wished to call to the recollection of a right hon. gentleman opposite, what he had said some time ago; namely, that it was intended to allow a silver circulation concurrently with the gold one. That would no doubt go a great way to cure the evil of a diminished circulation of small notes. As to the Scotch notes, though there were only forty-five members from that country in that House, and sixteen in the other, they acted in concert, and on all occasions carried their point when any measure was introduced affecting their country. The moment any measure which was considered in any way opposed to the interests of Scotland was brought forward, every man, woman, and child, in that country raised their voices against it, and they were almost always successful. However, as far as the Scotch notes went, he thought they were safe.
The petition was then read, and ordered to be printed.
CORN LAWS.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Corn-laws, the Chairman read the first resolution, "That when Barley should arrive at 33
s.
s.
s.
Colonel Sibthorpe
said, he was ready to bow to the superior knowledge of the right hon. gentleman below him upon this subject; but he would yield to no one in an anxious desire to advance the agricultural interests of the country. The hon. member went on to observe, that light, or, as they were called in Lincolnshire, "heath lands," were well suited to the cultivation of barley and oats, but were unfit for wheat. These lands ought to be protected, or else they must go out of cultivation. He found that, during the last eight years, there had been imported into this country, one million and eighty three thousand seven hundred and thirty nine quarters of barley, of which fifty seven thousand three,
192
s.,
s.,
s.
Mr. F. Lewis
maintained that the proposed average protection was the natural one, and was founded upon the proportions which had been maintained for years. If they were to give barley an undue protection, they would,
pro tanto,
Mr. Fergusson
asked, why they should raise the protecting price of wheat, and not that of barley? The lands capable of growing wheat were favoured, while the lighter lands, fit only for growing barley and oats, were neglected, and likely to be thrown out of cultivation. It was last year admitted by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that the protection extended to barley and oats was not sufficient.
Mr. Robinson
was of opinion that the resolutions already afforded too much protection to the agriculturists. He would, therefore, oppose all amendments which went to augment that protection.
Mr. Cripps
wished that no alteration should be made in the proposed scale of duties; but if any were to be made, he thought it should be in favour of oats rather than barley. He thought the agricultural interest was sufficiently protected by the duty at 58
s.
s.,
Mr. C. Grant
did not think that the mere circumstance of an alteration having been made in the scale of wheat afforded a reason for a similar alteration in the price of barley. Each case ought to rest on its own merits. The scale of wheat had been altered, because the duty imposed by the last warehousing act had failed to exclude wheat, when its admission was injurious to the agricultural interest. When that act was passed, barley was so much in request in this country, that there was not enough for the distilleries, and the average price for some time had been 40
s.
193
s.,
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
Mr. Graham Pigott
was of opinion, that unless some restrictions were put on the bonding system, the agriculturists must suffer. He thought a ship bringing foreign wheat into this country ought to be made to pay the duty of 20
s.
Mr. Leycester
wished the House to guide themselves by the ratio of last year. That ratio was adopted after mature deliberation and full discussion. It was said, that in Mr. Canning's bill the scale of oats had been raised, while that of wheat had remained the same. That was no objection. The ratio there was taken between wheat and barley on one side, and oats on the other, and great mischief would result to the agriculturists if it was departed from. Farmers had always a hankering after wheat crops; and if they were encouraged in that prejudice, they would not employ that succession of crops which was greatly for the benefit of the country. He should object to any thing that had a tendency to make our population change their wheat food for oats, or any other substitute.
Mr. Bankes
said, the scale of last year had been raised with regard to barley and wheat, not to favour the growth of those grains more than the rest, but because the old scale was essentially erroneous.
194
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as the resolution now before the committee had been adopted after mature deliberation, he could not consent to change it. His reasons for resisting the amendment were these: In the case of wheat, the price of last year had been found insufficient; for, under the then scale, the importation had been such, that it had been found necessary to alter the price and rate of duty. They had not had the same experience with respect to barley; as the importation of barley had only just exceeded two hundred thousand quarters—a very small quantity, when there had been such a peculiar demand for it. But, even as the scale now stood, it was higher for barley, considered with regard to wheat, than had ever been before known, with the exception of last year. But they had better not bind themselves merely by what was done last year, but take a calculation for fifty years past, and find the relation which barley bore to wheat and oats. Taking the calculation of the last fifty years, and assuming as the ground of that calculation, that wheat was at 100
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.,
s.,
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
Mr. Wodehouse
contended, that the averages of the last fifty years could not be considered a fair average of price, because it embraced a period of twenty years of war, during which the ports of the continent were closed.
The committee divided: For the Amendment 47. Against it 104. Majority for the original Resolution 57. On the Resolution, "That when oats were at the price of 25
s.,
s.,
s.
d,
Mr. Fergusson
said, he had an amendment to propose. If wheat and barley were the same as in the scale of last year, oats ought to be higher. The protection given to oats was not sufficient for Scotland. The
195
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
Mr. C. Grant
thought it would be in vain to attempt to persuade the House, that the price of oats was not sufficiently protected, and referred to a passage in Mr. Jacob's report, which stated, that a cargo imported into this country from Amsterdam, and sold at 19
s.,
s.
Mr. Fergusson
contended, that the average price of oats in seven different foreign ports, was, for a series of years, not more than 7
s.
s.
Mr. Wodehouse
observed, that there was a greater fluctuation in oats than in any other description of grain. He referred to the Report of Mr. H. Canning, by which it appeared, that oats could be shipped from Hamburgh to England at from 6
s.
s.
Colonel Sibthorpe
supported the amendment, and observed that Mr. Jacob's Report was very amusing to read; but if the writer had been so unfortunate as to farm some of the poor lands in Lincolnshire during the last few years, he was satisfied he would have thrown his own book into the fire.
The House divided. For the Amendment 59; against it 101. Majority for the original Resolution 42. On the Resolution, "That whenever the average price of rye, pease, or beans, shall be 36
s.
s.
s.
d.
Mr. Western
expressed his surprise that the proportion observed in all former acts should have been abandoned in the case of this most beautiful of all culture, the row culture of pease and beans. The importance of it, in benefitting the cultivation of wheat land was well known, and its utility in giving employment to whole villages ought not to be forgotten. In the process of planting, in the three hoeings which took place in this species of agriculture, the labourer earned from 23
s.
s.
196
s.
s.
Mr. C. Grant
thought that unless a special case was made out, it would be better to adhere to the scale of last year.
Sir E. Knatchbull
supported the amendment, and observed, that the culture of this grain was by hand, and gave considerable employment to the agricultural population.
Mr. Ward
maintained, that there was no way of coming at what the standard price of grain would be, but he thought it probable that the price of all grain abroad would depend much on what was passing here. It was not a fair way of proceeding to take, as the agriculturists now did, the most favourable harvests into account, when they were forming their averages. The harvest of 1818 was an unfavourable one, yet they never heard anything of that during their debates. The fair way of looking at the question would be, to take the good and bad harvests together, and to form their averages on that basis. As to the low prices at which it was said that grain could be imported from abroad, he defied any one to prove that it could be introduced at such prices with any benefit to the importer. The plan of government was calculated to mitigate the extremes of fluctuation, and for that reason was entitled to support.
The Committee divided: For the Amendment 43. For the original Resolution 99. Majority 56. After a short conversation, the other resolutions were agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 29.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS REGULATION
The Earl of Malmesbury
rose to move the second reading of the bill for the Regulation of County Lunatic Asylums. He said, that the bill was a consolidation of seven different acts of parliament, and contained very few additional enactments. The object of it was to give
197
s.
198
The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a committee. After which,
The Earl of Malmesbury
199
Lord Calthorpe
said, he felt great satisfaction at the measure proposed by the noble earl, as he had been an eye-witness of the shocking and revolting abuses alluded to by that noble lord, and against the future commission of which he hoped the present bill would afford a full security.
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, he hoped the House would limit the power of magistrates as to confining lunatics. The effects of confinement in some cases were most injurious; and the suffering which unhappy beings underwent, in their lucid intervals, in consequence of such confinement, were calculated to destroy all chance of recovery.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 29.
SETTLEMENT BY HIRING BILL.]
Mr. P. Macqueen,
in rising to move the second reading of the bill to abolish Settlements by Hiring and Service, said, he was well aware he should be expected to state, to the satisfaction of the House, the motives which had induced him to ask the repeal of acts which had so long formed a part of the legislature of the country; and also to point out the advantages he proposed to derive from a new and opposite system. Before he went into the general subject, he was anxious to remove any misapprehension which appeared to exist. It was
200
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
201
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
Mr. Curteis
seconded the motion. He approved of the bill as the first step towards cleansing the Augean Stable of the Poor-laws, the worst part of which was the law relating to hire and service.
Mr. Benett
said, he would oppose the measure on the very ground which obtained for it the support of the hon. member for Sussex; namely, that it was the first step to the destruction of the Poor-laws, which he conceived to be a most wise and humane system.
202
Mr. S. Bourne
was of opinion, that the best title to settlement was three years' service, as in Scotland. He did not approve of the measure before the House, though he was far from viewing it in the light of an attack upon the Poor-laws. It was his opinion, that if the proposed alteration were carried into effect, personal property would contribute less to the support of the poor than it did at present, and that a greater burthen would be thrown upon the landed interest. He exceedingly doubted the policy of the measure; and did not think it likely to be attended by any advantage.
Mr. Sykes
said, he felt disinclined to support this measure, as he considered it too extensive an alteration of the Poor-laws. The place of a settlement acquired by service was always a matter of great discussion, and it was universally a question whether emancipation was lost on the day of the apprenticeship. These doubts peculiarly attached to apprentices in ships, who, generally, at the end of their service, if the ship happened to be lying in the Thames, spent the last day, or rather night, at some place on shore, and it was afterwards matter of the greatest difficulty to trace them. He had often seen cases, where, from difficulties of this kind, men had been passed and repassed to and from. Hull to London, and back. He trusted that the House would apply their attention, to this subject, and relieve the country from the burthen.
Colonel Wood
thought there was one advantage in this bill, which was, that it went to get rid of the law of hiring—a law to which the hon. member for Wiltshire was opposed. The hon. member wished to substitute a settlement gained by residence, which this bill did not propose; but he trusted that the omission of that provision would not induce the hon. member to reject the bill. With regard to a settlement by residence, he feared there was not much chance of carrying a bill to that effect; for he himself had once proposed that fifteen years' residence might be pleaded in bar of removal, but his proposition had been thrown out. He thought the present system, which encouraged the practice of hiring for fifty-one weeks, highly objectionable, as it tended to create a bad feeling between the master and his servant, who saw that his hiring was shortened merely that he might be cheated out of his settlement. If the
203
Mr. Ridley Colburne
said, he had some doubts which the right hon. gentleman below him had not succeeded in getting rid of. In one point the bill was good, as it would tend to diminish litigation. By the abolition, too, of the present Law of Settlement, we should gain the advantage of making the farmers return to the old system of domiciling their servants; which would tend materially to decrease the temptations and opportunities for crimes. Under the present system, the attachment of the servants to the master was much diminished, while it must be the wish of every man to see it increase. If a servant at the end of the year knew he might be dismissed; although the connexion might be continued at the end of the time, the chain might be renewed, but the link would be broken. But if it was not continued, the remaining number of days would be spent in debauchery. For these reasons, he should vote for the second reading of the bill, at the same time, he was not satisfied with all its provisions.
Mr. Leycester
said, that the quibbles arising out of the Poor-laws furnished half the business of the quarter sessions. He agreed as to the evils of the system of settlement by hiring and service. A change of it would improve the character of the labourer; and if he should ultimately be
204
Mr. N. Calvert
thought it would be impossible to change the present system without doing so for the better. He should support the motion, in the hope that it would do some good; if it succeeded, some hon. gentleman could carry it further.
Mr. Monck
thought the bill ought to be entertained so far as the second reading. He went into a statement of the provisions of the statutes now in existence, and of the evils arising from the multiplicity of litigation they produced. It was said, that it was a hardship to send men away from London, where they might have resided for years, to the place of their birth, where they might be hardly known; but that evil would not be so great, as the one which now existed in another shape; for if persons were confined to the places of their birth for settlement, they would not be so apt to enter into imprudent marriages, but would lay by money to support themselves in their latter days. On the other hand, while the gaining a settlement, by residence was so easy, they would go into rich parishes, such as Mary-le-bone, and look to the parish for ultimate support. The practice of conferring a settlement by hiring was now almost abrogated by common consent. The bill, therefore, was but a return to the old system: for these reasons he should support it.
Mr. Cripps
thought there were many objections to the present measure, and was not sanguine in his hopes of its putting an end to litigation. He should, however, vote for its second reading, reserving his doubts for another occasion.
Lord Althorpe
said, that no proposition upon this subject could be made which was not liable to objection. Certain it was, that settlements by hiring and service occasioned a vast deal of litigation, and that litigation led to perjury; the labourer swearing one way, and the farmer the other. He supported the bill principally because he thought it would lessen both, and give the servant an additional motive to good conduct. The strongest objection
205
Mr. Slaney
complimented the hon. member for Bedfordshire, on the industry, research, and ability, he had shewn in treating this question. He, therefore, differed from him with great reluctance, although, on the balance, he thought he should be warranted in supporting the bill. The increased expenses to which parishes were put arose out of the increased pauperism and misery among the agricultural labourers. He did not attribute this state of things as matter of blame to any one, but the fact was, that between four and five millions of the most industrious of the community, while all other classes were improving, were suffering the greatest deprivations. A long war, and other circumstances connected with it, over which the government had no control, had produced this calamity; but now that peace had returned, and men were turning their minds to schemes of improvement, he trusted an effort would be made by the House on behalf of servants employed in agriculture. He was convinced that many of the existing causes of distress might be removed.
Sir E. H. East
contended, that nine tenths of the litigation at quarter-sessions arose out of questions of hiring and service, and of the perjury, out of the parole evidence given to support claims to settlement.
Mr. Portman
admitted the force of the objection urged by the right hon. member (Mr. S. Bourne), relative to domestic servants, but he thought it applied less than was generally imagined, inasmuch as the object of all domestic servants was to acquire property in their journey through the world, and to return to the parish in which by birth they had gained a settlement. The question for the House to consider was, whether by the bill it would be rendered more or less difficult to lose a settlement. If it increased the difficulty of losing a settlement, a new and beneficial era of legislation on this subject would be established. In the committee, consisting of twenty members, no less than eighteen had divided in favour of the present measure, and only two against him.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he approached this subject with the greatest hesitation, as he had had no practical experience of the
206
207
Sir E. Knatchbull
observed, that he had voted in the minority of two, in the committee, because he did not think that the present system led either to an increase of litigation or perjury.
Sir E. Carrington
spoke in favour of the bill, and expressed his wish that it had gone further. He thought that a settlement should be gained by a certain length
208
The motion was agreed to.
THE CORN BILL.]
The Order of the day was read for receiving the Report of the Resolutions on the Corn Trade Acts. Sir A. Grant brought up the Report, which was read a first time.
Mr. Hume
hoped the House would indulge him for a short time, while he endeavoured to state his views as to what the law should be respecting Corn, and the measures that would ultimately tend to the public welfare, in contradistinction to those which had been passed by the House to the present time. He was aware that much angry contention had taken place on the subject of these laws, and that the country gentlemen considered the present measure favourable to their interests, because it imposed those high duties which his majesty's ministers had been induced to propose. He, for one, thought that the landed gentlemen had no right to the peculiar and exclusive protection, as they called it, which this House was not prepared to extend to other branches of industry and capital. It appeared to him, that they took the most erroneous views of their own interests, in wishing to cramp the powers and energies of the country. If there was any point to which they should more attend than any other, it was, that they should free themselves from the idea, that the land was the principle and most important interest in the country. Differing as he did from them, he would candidly state that, in his opinion, they much overrated that interest, and that this country never would have been powerful or rich without foreign commerce. If they looked back to history, they would find, that all those countries which had been rich and powerful, were those which had employed their capital most largely in general commerce. When they stated, therefore, that the landed interest was the most important, and almost the only interest to be supported, they were clearly under an error, which he trusted he might be enabled to remove. If the land
209
210
211
212
s.
s.
213
214
s.
d.,
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.,
s.,
s.
s.
215
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
216
s.
s.,
s.
s.,
s.
217
s.
s.,
s.
Mr. Warburton
seconded the motion, and contended that the plan of his hon. friend rested upon precisely the same principle as that of the late Mr. Ricardo, with the exception that Mr. Ricardo's scale of duty commenced at 20
s.,
s.
218
Mr. C. Grant
said, that with many of the general principles laid down by the hon. member for Aberdeen he certainly concurred, though not in the conclusions he had drawn from them. He agreed with the hon. member in the opinion that high prohibitory prices were injurious to the agriculturist, as well as to the consumer. From the experience of the last fifteen years, he agreed with him, that high prohibitory prices tended to drive out capital, and that they were not consistent with the state of our currency. He agreed that the system of the last fifteen years ought to be corrected; and those principles he professed, both when he supported Mr. Canning's bill of last year, and when he brought forward the present resolutions this session; but the hon. member would push these doctrines to extremes. The hon. gentleman had charged his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies, with inconsistency in not applying the principles which he had carried into operation in regard to other commodities to that of corn. The hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, that in all these commercial changes his right hon. friend had adopted one inflexible rule in respect to all commodities, and under all circumstances: but he should have recollected, that in regard to the various articles which had been formerly brought under the consideration of the House, his right hon. friend had adopted the rate of duties which he then proposed, to the peculiar circumstances and condition of each. He was not sure that his right hon. friend's principles had been adopted to their fullest extent, in regard to those various articles, but so far as they had been adopted, they were accommodated to their peculiar circumstances and condition. The hon. gentleman said, that corn should be dealt with in the same manner as any other commodity. To a certain degree it would be right so to deal with it; but the right hon. gentleman had himself shown that it must be also dealt with in a different manner from other commodities. On a former night an hon. gentleman had alluded to the two modes of imposing a duty on corn: namely, by
219
ad valorem
ad valorem
Mr. Maberly
denied that he had proposed an
ad valorem
Mr. Grant
said, the hon. gentleman had used the expression of an
ad valorem
220
s.
s.
Lord Howick
did not intend to follow the hon. member for Aberdeen through all his statements; he meant rather to confine himself to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, in what he had said of the advantages of a varying over a fixed rate of duty. He understood him to object to a fixed rate of duty, because the unequal burthens imposed on the agriculturist could not be calculated; but on what other principle than this did the
221
222
Mr. W. Baring
contended, that scarcity was the curse of war, and reprobated the Corn-bill as a means of inflicting on the country, in the twelfth year of peace, that curse. Some excuse might be made for adopting, at the commencement of the peace, a system of protection; but at this day, when English capital was united to foreign countries by projects for cutting canals and such national schemes, and when the labouring classes of this country were suffering for want of employment, was it wise to introduce a measure calculated to drive English capital to foreign countries, and, at the same time, to inflict high prices on a population which could not afford to pay them? He would support the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Mr. O. Cave
was of opinion, that the present measure would do a great deal of mischief. No doubt a period of scarcity might arise when a fixed duty, similar to the one now proposed, could not be exacted; but similar effects might occur under the bill introduced by government. By the measure now proposed, a tax would be levied on the poor and industrious to fill the pockets of the rich and the idle. He would therefore vote for the amendment.
Mr. Irving
said, he preferred the present measure to that of last session, because he thought the higher scale of duties afforded a considerable additional security; which, in his view of the subject, the welfare of the country, as well as the just interest of the landholders, stood in need of. One would suppose from the speech of an hon. friend, that no Corn-laws existed in any other country. Was there not a Corn-law in France, Spain, Portugal, and every commercial country in Europe? They had each of them, found the use and necessity of such laws. Gentlemen ought to recollect, that those countries from which we derived the principal part of our wheat, were not consumers of it; and we could not tell those people, because wheat was dearer here
223
Lord Milton
said, the hon. member who had just sat down had described this measure to be a modified adjustment of this question. Now, it appeared to him, on the contrary, to be a decided compromise between two great parties. That its general principle was good he never heard any individual admit—nor was it admitted by the right hon. gentleman. He lamented the erroneous views which those who were chiefly interested in the bill took of their own interest, in one sense; and still more did he lament that erroneous view as it operated against the country. When he saw gentlemen divide, from time to time, for the purpose of settling whether the price of oats, rye, or barley should or should not be a shilling more—when he saw them coming down even to peas and beans—it was in vain for him to listen to the high-flown speeches of hon. members, who declared that they had no wish to exalt their own interest to the depreciation of other classes of the community. They must give him leave to say, that he must place their words in one scale, and their actions in the other. Let it not be asserted, that all these pleadings for a shilling more for barley or for oats were destined for the farmer, who stood between them and the consumer. No such thing: the rent of the farmer depended on the price he received for the article he sold; and if, by a legislative enactment, he procured a higher price for his corn, the public might rest assured that the English gentleman would get a higher price for his acres of land. The fact was, that the landed interest were casting "a longing, lingering, look" to the high prices which they had at the end of the last war; but nevertheless, they appeared to him to have mistaken their own interest. The hon. member who had just sat down, had main-
224
Mr. Irving.—
I did not assert any thing of the kind. I stated, that according to the most accurate calculation, the price of labour was, in the cost of manufactures, about one sixth.
Lord Milton.—
Precisely so; but the inference which he drew from it was, that this one sixth was a matter of very little importance. Now, he, on the contrary, viewed it as a matter of very great importance. What was the course which the landed interest called on the House to take? They said "high price is a good thing." So did he; provided the high price arose from a steady and increasing demand. But the high price which they were called on to aid was not a high price arising from an improving population, but a high price caused by a stinted supply. Such a high price was not a symptom of misery; and it was against that high price that he contended. To think of forwarding the prosperity of the farmers by levying an impost which must be injurious to the manufacturers, was the most fallacious idea that could possibly be entertained. He did not wish to see one acre of ground thrown out of cultivation; but the owners of the land ought to cultivate it at their own expense; he did not like to see it cultivated at the expense of others. If they could not get it cultivated but at a certain price, and if that price were forced, by a legislative enactment, from the people, it was clear that they took it from the pockets of others. But, in 1819, the House took a step which rendered every attempt of this kind futile. They wisely determined to abandon the paper system, and to have recourse to a metallic currency; and he had heard, with great pleasure, the chancellor of the Exchequer declare, that it was the determination of government rigorously to adhere to that resolution. He hoped that no hints, no expostulations, which might come from those who favoured the present measure, would induce ministers to interfere with the determination which government came to in 1819; at the same time he would warn, them that six months
225
s.
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought that, on this occasion, the noble lord had done injustice to the representatives of the landed interest. He did not consider it to be fair for the noble lord to argue that the representatives of the landed interest in that House were actuated by their own private and personal views. In the first place, the speech which the noble lord rose to answer, and which was in favour of a protecting duty, was delivered by a gentleman not at all connected with the land, but by an individual whom the noble lord himself had described as one of the most enlightened and distinguished members of the commercial interest. Now if the noble lord found a gentleman against whom no possible imputation, on the score of personal interest, could be advanced, and whom he described as peculiarly capable of taking enlightened views, if he found such a man advocating the measure,
226
s.
227
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
228
s.
s.
s.
s.
valorem
Sir T. Gooch
congratulated the House upon the declaration made by the right hon. Secretary, that the currency had a
229
l.
l.
The House divided: For Mr. Hume's amendment 27; For the original resolution 139: Majority 112.
List of the Minority.
Baring, W. B.
Martin, John
Birch, J.
Milton, lord
Cave, Otway
Ord, W.
Davies, colonel
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Dundas, sir R.
Protheroe, E.
Dundas, hon. G.
Kancliffe, lord
Easthope, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Guest, J. J.
Sykes, D.
Harvey, D. W.
Thompson, C. P.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.
Howick, lord
Wood, alderman
Lumley, Saville
Wood, John
Maberly, John
TELLERS.
Marshall, John
Hume, Joseph
Marshall, W.
Warburton, Henry
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 1.
PROTESTS AGAINST THE CORPORATION
The following Protests were entered on the Journals against the third reading of this bill.
"Dissentient: 1.—Because, if it is expedient that so much of the acts recited in the bill as imposes the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as a test that the party receiving it is a member of the Established Church, should be repealed, some effectual provision ought to have been made by this bill, for the purpose of establishing that the persons who are to be placed in office, or employments, are Protestants, and mem
230
2. "Because, it having been alleged in the debates upon this bill, referring to the petitions which have been presented to the House, that persons cannot, with due regard to liberty of conscience, be precluded from holding offices in the State on account of their religious persuasions, we think it necessary to declare, that although every person ought to be at liberty to worship God according as his conscience may dictate, doing no injury to the State, we cannot admit that to the enjoyment of that liberty, rightly understood, it is necessary that those persons, who only profess that they will not, in the exercise of any power, authority, or influence, which they may possess by virtue of office, injure, weaken, or disturb the Church, should be considered as equally eligible to offices in the state as those who are members of the Church, connected and united with the state. It being, moreover, very possible that acts done by persons making such professions, which acts may disturb, weaken, or injure the Established Church, may be acts which such persons might deem it their bounden duty to have done if they had not been placed in office, and which, therefore, it might be unreasonable to consider as acts done by virtue of their office.
3."Because we think that, whilst the state ought to secure to all, who do not disturb the public peace, complete liberty of conscience, it is perfectly consistent with such duty of the state to determine by what persons, subjects of it, the offices of state should be executed.
4."Because it seems to us much more probable that peace, which, by the laws in being respecting the Church Establish-
231
5. "Because we think that the Bills of Indemnity, which have been for some time annually passed, whilst they from time to time confirmed the policy of having some test as to the religious opinions of those who are to hold civil offices, did, at the same time, sufficiently relieve those who dissented from the Established Church; and though it seems to have been thought and assumed, in debate, that, if this bill passed into a law, annual Bills of Indemnity would no longer be necessary, we conceive that experience will prove that such opinion is founded in error. (Signed)
"ERNEST.
ELDON.
NEWCASTLE.
WINCHILSEA and NOTTINGHAM.
WALSINGHAM.
KENYON.
FAVERSHAM.
BROWNLOW.
MANSFIELD.
FALMOUTH."
"Dissentient: 1. Because, by the law of the land, and especially by the solemn contracts made on the Union of England and Scotland, and on the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the United Church of England and Ireland, and the Church of Scotland as established by law, are parts of the constitution of the government of the United Kingdom; and it is declared that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, of the United Church of England and Ireland, as so established, shall be and shall remain in full force for ever; and the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be a fundamental part of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland.
2."Because the Sovereign on the throne of the United Kingdom is, by law, required to be a member of such Established Church, and to do all in his power to maintain that Church, as well as the Church of Scotland, and the ministers of both of those Churches, in all their rights and privileges.
3,"Because it has a direct tendency
232
was an evil,
233
234
4."That the laws sought to be repealed were expressly made to avoid similar distractions in the State, by excluding from, certain offices, giving political power, persons holding religious opinions hostile to the Established Church; and such laws were so made for the protection of such Church, and consequent preservation of the public peace, and were the result of the experience of those who framed those laws of the danger of intrusting political power to persons hostile to the Established, Church.
5."Because political power is the creature of political institutions; and. when in any country political institutions, forming the government of the country, have been established, every alteration in those institutions departing in principle from the institutions before adopted, and tending to change the balance of political power in the State, is so far a revolution in the government of the State, and may, in pro portion to the extent of the change made, tend to produce further revolution in the State; and therefore changes which may appear not to be in themselves of considerable importance may, by their effects, produce such further changes as may finally overthrow the whole constitution of the State.
6. "Because the perpetual endurance of the United Church of Great Britain and Ireland being, by solemn contracts, a fundamental law of the State, those who, on the ground of religious opinions, refuse to submit to the laws made for the preservation of that Church, might, with equal; propriety, allege religious opinions as war-
235
7."Because, as long as religious or political opinions influence the minds of men, so as to render them hostile to any of the existing establishments of the State, such men cannot be truly loyal subjects of that State to the establishments of which they are so hostile; and cannot, therefore, be safely trusted with political power, by means of which they may disturb the tranquillity of the State, and endeavour to overturn any of its political institutions placed by the law of the State under the protection and control of its government.
8."Because congregations of persons dissenting from the Established Church, but professing to be of some particular denomination of Christians, form, by their union under such denomination, a body which is, in effect, a corporation, but a corporation not regulated by law, nor, as a body, under the control of the law, and yet possessing, in a great degree, the influence and power of a corporation authorised and regulated by law, and capable of acting with a power which does not belong to individuals, or even to the same number of persons, not so assembled; and the union of many such bodies, how ever differing from each other in matters of faith or discipline, may form a power in the State, highly dangerous not only to the Established Church, but also to the general peace and good order of the State; especially if urged by religious zeal to de sire any change in the Established religion, or in the doctrines or discipline thereof, which may tend to the overthrow of the Established government, and breach of the solemn contracts entered into on the Union of England and Scotland, and the Union of Great Britain and Ireland; con tracts which every loyal subject of the Crown is bound to maintain, and which the Prince on the throne cannot consent to violate without a breach of his Coronation oath.
(Signed) "REDESDALE,
"KENYON."
236
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority, on the third reading of the Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill, April
MAJORITY.
Alvanley
Lauderdale
Arbuthnot
Leinster
Auckland
Limerick
Bathurst
Mendip (Clifden)
Boyle (Cork)
Manners
Braybrooke
Maryborough
Bristol
Melros (Binning)
Calthorpe
Melville
Camden
Monteagle (Sligo)
Chichester
Montford
Carlisle
Morley
Carnarvon
Napier
Carrington
Northumberland
Cleveland
Penshurst (Strangford)
Charlemont
Ranfurly (Northland)
Clarendon
Ross (Glasgow)
Clifton (Darnley)
Rosebery
Cowper
Rosslyn
Dacre
Salisbury
Dawnay (Downe)
St. Vincent
Ducie
Saye and Sele
De Lawarr
Selsey
Dufferin
Somerset
Dudley
Spencer
Dundas
Stuart of Rothesay
Durham
Stradbroke
Ellenborough
Suffolk
Essex
Suffield
Farnborough
Sussex
Fitzgibbon. (Clare)
Sundridge (Argyll)
Fitzwilliam
Tankerville
Gloucester
Thomond
Goderich
Teynham
Gordon (Aberdeen)
Thanet
Gosford
Wellington
Grosvenor
Wallace
Gower
Wharncliffe
Grantham
Winchester
Grey
Wilton
Grafton
Yarborough
Hereford
Bishops—York
Harrowby
Chichester
Heytesbury
Chester
Hill
Gloucester
Holland
Lincoln
Howard de Walden
Litchfield
Jersey
Llandaff
Kerr (Lothian)
London
King
Ossory
Lansdowne
St. David's.
PROXIES.—CONTENT.
Abercromby
Bedford
Albemarle
Berwick
Anson
Breadalbane
Ashburnham
Buckinghamshire
Bayning
Buckingham
Barham
Bute
Bagot
Clarence
Belmore
Crewe
237
Caledon
Oxford
Derby
Plunket
Devonshire
Ponsonby (Besborough)
De Dunstanville
Duncan
Portland
Erskine
Scarborough
Foley
Scarsdale
Fortescue
Seaford
Granville
Somerhill (Clanricarde)
Grenville
Hillsborough
Sondes
Howard of Effingham
Stafford
Hopetoun and Niddry
St. Helen's
Hutchinson (Donoughmore)
Verulam
Waldegrave
Kingston
Archb.—Canterbury
Lynedoch
Bishops—Bangor Hereford
Minto
Mount Edgecombe
MINORITY.
Abingdon
Mansfield
Arden
Mountcashel
Beauchamp
Newcastle
Bexley
Plymouth
Bolton
Pomfret
Bradford
Redesdale
Churchill
Romney
Clanbrassil (Roden)
Rolle
Colchester
Shaftesbury
Colville
Sheffield
Cumberland
Sinclair
Dorset
Skelmersdale
Eldon
Silchester (Longford)
Feversham
Willoughby de Broke
Grantley
Winchilsea
Guilford
Bishops, Bath & Wells
Hay (Kinnoul)
Bristol
Harewood
Durham
Howe
Ely
Kenyon
St. Asaph
Malmesbury
Salisbury
PROXEIS.—NOT CONTENT.
Farnham
Tenterden
Graham (Montrose)
Wigan (Balcarras)
Northampton
Wodehouse
Rivers
Bishops, Exeter Peterborough
Stowell
WOOL TRADE.]
The Duke of Richmond
rose to postpone his motion for referring the Petitions of the Wool-growers to a Committee of Inquiry, until Monday.
The Earl of Harewood
presented a petition from several merchants of London, who were not importers of foreign wool, but who prayed that no further duty might be levied on the importation of foreign wool.
The petition having been read,
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he was not surprised that the petitioners prayed that there might be no increase of duty on
238
The Earl of Harewood
disclaimed, on the part of the petitioners, any wish, in asking their lordships not to go into an inquiry, to prevent the complaints of the opposite petitioners being heard. They had other reasons for their petition. Their lordships were, he was afraid, not aware of the excessive mischief which was done to the manufacturer and merchant by-instituting an inquiry into all the minute details of their business. By that means many things were made known which were injurious to them. The simple meaning of the petition which he had presented was this:—after the lapse of a considerable time, the woollen manufactures were gradually reviving, under a duty of one penny upon the importation of foreign wool. The dismay talked of by the petitioners was the dismay which would be introduced into large manufacturing districts by the agitation of the subject; and they prayed their lordships not to go into a committee, in order to place an additional tax on foreign wool, as the experiment had been tried and had failed. The petitioners therefore simply said, that as the experiment had been tried and failed, they deprecated going into a committee of inquiry, where examinations would be taken and reported all over the world, throwing dismay into the minds of those engaged in the woollen trade, at the very moment when that trade was reviving.
The Earl of Malmesbury
thought, that the representations of these petitioners would not justify their lordships in withholding that fair inquiry to which the agriculturists were entitled.
The Duke of Wellington
said, he would give his consent to a committee of inquiry, on the very grounds stated by the noble lord—namely, on purpose to enter into a fair inquiry of the cause of depression of the wool-growers, but by no means with the intention of following that inquiry up by laying a duty on the imported article. His own opinion was, that the causes of
239
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, that the trade had decreased since the low duty. The alteration, therefore, had injured the manufacturers, decreased the revenue, and ruined the agriculturists. If ever a
primâ facie
Lord Wharncliffe
said, that as it was now declared, that ministers would not consent to any augmentation of duty, it would be losing time to go into a committee. Noble lords were mistaken, if they supposed inquiries of that kind did no I harm. Many of their lordships lived at a great distance from the manufacturing districts, and had no idea of the distress and alarm occasioned by a mention even of altering the duty.
The Duke of Richmond
said, he could conceive that the inquiry might be beneficial, although it led to levying no additional duty. He would suppose, as there were large tracts of poor land in this country, on which the short-woolled sheep were now reared, that it should be made out before the committee, that the price of short wool could not pay them; they might be induced to cultivate sheep with long wool, and of the market for that they had a monopoly. The wool-growers came to them in a respectful manner; and were they to be turned away without inquiry? He called upon their lordships to allow the agriculturists to prove their case; and if it should turn out not to be a strong one, he would pledge himself to vote against it.
Ordered to lie on the table.
STATE OF THE POPULATION OF IRELAND.]
The Earl of Darnley
then rose to bring forward the motion, of which he had given notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the State of the Distressed Population of Ireland. He was aware that he could command but little attention from their lordships, even on a subject of the greatest importance; but he felt, on the present occasion, that he laboured under much greater difficulties than usual, and nothing short of a sense of paramount duty, could induce him to trespass on their lordships' attention. Among the difficulties under which he laboured was that of bringing the leading features of the subject under their lordships' notice without fatiguing them with
240
241
eo intuitu,
242
243
"The irresistible tide of emigration from Ireland towards these countries has already set in, and has been materially facilitated by steam navigation, so much so that the credulity of the most ignorant will soon be convinced that six or seven millions of people, with all their natural powers and great energies of mind, will not much longer suffer without making an effort to find better quarters. Every year it is ascertained, that increasing thousands are coming over, and in a short time it is to be apprehended that, driven by want, and aided as they now are by the subscriptions of the richer classes in Ireland, they will come over in hordes, like the Goths and Vandals of other times, and make a settlement in this country, where they hope their labour will be duly rewarded, and from which no act of parliament will be able to dislodge them. By competition for employment they will defeat every humane effort, to keep up the present condition of the labourers of England. Their necessities will oblige them to work for half the usual wages of labour in this country; the English workman must either work for the same rate, or he will not get employment; he is thus thrown on the poor-rates for parish allowance, and in this way is the burthen of supporting the Irish poor put upon the parishes."
244
245
l.
246
247
248
l.
l.
249
250
"panem et aquam natura desiderat,"
251
"Oh we have ta'en
Too little care of this! take physic Pomp!
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayest shake the superflux to them,
And shew the heavens more just."
The Earl of Limerick
rose to oppose the motion, as he was apprehensive that the whole end and purpose of the noble lord, was to introduce the Poor-laws into Ireland; than which no measure could be more pregnant with mischief. He would appeal to the noble lords around him, many of whom were well acquainted with Ireland, whether they recognised any similitude to the original, in the highly-coloured caricature which the noble mover had presented to their view? At the opening of his address, the noble lord had stated, that it was not his wish to import the Poor-laws into Ireland, in the full rigour in which they were administered in this country; but the noble earl's speech, like many other noxious things, carried a sting in its tail, and closed, by boldly avowing that he wanted a general assessment of the property in Ireland, for the maintenance of the poor. The noble earl had described people falling down in the streets and highways for mere want of food; but the same thing not unfrequently happened in England, and could form no sufficient reason for inflicting the system of the Poor-
252
l.
"We all are equal; for my lot is thine;
That is your resting place, and this is mine."
253
l.
s.
d.
The Earl of Longford
, in opposing the motion, hoped it would not be understood that he meant to deny the existence of great distress in Ireland. He believed that much distress did exist in that country, and he should be most happy to lend his aid to any plan which seemed calculated
254
Viscount Lorton
said, that with his knowledge of the noble earl's being one of the best absentee landlords—but still an absentee—he could not help considering much of what the noble earl had advanced as theoretical, and therefore to be received with due caution. He concurred in the correctness of the statement, that much misery existed in Ireland; but in the noble earl's explanation of the cause of that misery he certainly could not agree. He therefore should state his opinion on the subject as clearly as a long practical experience would enable him. It was not necessary for him to enter into a view of the general state of Ireland: such an examination would open a vast field of discussion, and he should therefore avoid it; The whole bearing of the present discussion might be compressed into one narrow point—the extreme poverty and distress of the people of Ireland. Many causes were assigned for that distress, and numerous recipes were prescribed for the cure of the
255
fac simile
256
imperium in imperio
257
The Duke of Wellington
said, that before he proceeded to the question, he begged to assure their lordships that he was thoroughly convinced, that no part of his majesty's dominions so imperiously required the particular attention of his majesty's servants as Ireland did. The noble earl had stated, that there were in Ireland eight millions of people, the situation of six millions of whom demanded inquiry. He had told their lordships likewise, that all the wealth of Ireland was not sufficient to give employment to those people. Now, certainly, he could not but think that this was an exaggerated statement. It could I not be the fact, that there were six millions of the Irish population who required employment: but he could see no use for an inquiry into that part of this subject; because it was well known, from the evidence which the House already had before it, that the poor of Ireland did suffer very considerable distress. But, it was not true that they suffered this distress at all times: it was not true that they suffered the same degree of distress in different years; but it
258
259
The Earl of Mountcashel
opposed the motion. He observed, that the Catholic rent was principally collected from the poorest of the people, and if relief were generally extended to them, it would only enable the Catholic Association to take more money out of their pockets. He also opposed it, because it would tend to depreciate the value of land in Ireland; which already did not fetch more than half the price that it fetched in England. The people of Ireland did not require so much relief as was imagined: they were more prone to idleness, and were more easily satisfied than the people of England: give them their potatoes and their dirty cabins, and they thought they had got enough. With regard to the sick and aged, the bounty of private individuals had raised up numerous dispensaries, hospitals, &c. for their relief.
The Earl of Darnley
said, that perceiving the feelings of the noble duke, and that they were concurred in by many noble lords connected with Ireland, he felt that he ought not pertinaciously to press his motion. He had not a better opinion of the Catholic religion than other noble lords opposite; but he did not think that a constant vituperation of that re-
260
The motion was negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 1.
WAGES.]
Mr. Alderman Waithman
presented a petition from the Silk Weavers of Norwich, complaining of the grievances resulting from the reduced state of Wages in that city, and suggesting, as a remedy, the appointment of a committee, composed of masters and workmen, for the purpose of fixing an established rate of Wages. As far as the grievances went, he concurred in the statement of the petitioners; but with respect to the remedy which they proposed, it was his decided opinion that nothing could be more mischievous. The master manufacturers were willing to give good wages when they were able to do so; but their ability depended on the state of the trade. At present, the balance of trade between England and the continent was decidedly against us. Our imports of French silks amounted to a million and a quarter, while our exports did not exceed a million. Large portions of individuals were suffering deeply from this state of things. He trusted that the House would appoint a committee to inquire into the mode by which substantial relief might be most advantageously afforded.
Mr. Wodehouse
trusted the House would pay the attention which was due to so important a subject.
Mr. Bernal
said, that the subject deserved the serious attention of parliament. All that the petitioners required was, that the masters and men should be empowered to meet for the purpose of arranging the rate of wages.
Mr. Fyler
deprecated the application of abstract principles of policy in cases in which the general interests of whole classes
261
Mr. W. Smith
, while he was quite sensible of the grievances under which the petitioners laboured, was quite as adverse to the proposed remedy as the worthy alderman. He was convinced, that any legislative interference between the masters and the workmen would be productive of the most, injurious consequences.
Mr. C. Grant
could not bring himself to believe, when it was confessed by the petitioners, that they were receiving- from 15
s.
s.
Mr. Monck
thought it was the duty of parliament to interfere in all such cases of distress and oppression as that pointed out in the petition. The House had often legislated upon the principles on which the petitioners proceeded. It had passed a bill to prevent masters from paying their workmen in provisions or in kind; and a very humane bill to regulate the number of hours in the day during which children should be employed in manufactories. Parliament ought to be studious to keep the people at the highest standard of existence; and that could be effected only by high wages. Where wages were high, the revenue would be great, and the people more moral and happy. Ireland and Scotland were proofs of the truth of his position. Ireland, with a population of between six and seven millions, paid but little more of revenue than Scotland, the population of which was only two millions. This was, because, in Ireland, wages were reduced to their minimum. If the manufactures of England were to compete with those of the continent, it would be impossible for the labourers to get much higher wages than were paid in other countries.
262
s.
Mr. J. Wood
said, that the poor man's labour was his all, and that whatever concerned the price of wages was deserving of the attention of the House. He thought that a committee ought to be appointed, as its report might be useful in clearing up the delusions under which the manufacturing poor laboured, with respect to a minimum of wages. He wished that the report of the former committee might be reprinted and dispersed among the manufacturing poor, in order to dispel the erroneous views under which they laboured. He could trace much of the distress among the manufacturers to the tax upon bread, produced by the Corn-laws. If the House could not make wages high they might make bread cheap, which would amount to the same thing.
Ordered to lie on the table.
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LAWS—RECOVERY OF PENALTIES UNDER.]
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that in rising to make
263
264
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
265
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
l.
s.
266
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
267
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
268
l.
l.
269
l.
protegé
l.
270
The Attorney-general
said, that the hon. gentleman had stated the subject and arranged his case with great clearness and ability; but as he was not acquainted with all the facts to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, he trusted the House would not impute it to any want of respect, if he should omit to notice any point in the statement they had just heard. The hon. gentleman began by taking the two branches of the Excise and the Customs, the union of which he had described as productive of no good to the revenue. He had stated that government was still subject to the payment of 12,000
l.
l.
l.
271
l.
toto cœlo,
l.
272
cum grano salis.
nil.
annus mirabilis
l.
273
l.
l.
nil
nil
274
275
276
mare magnum
l.
Mr. Western
admitted that the proposition of the hon. member for Colchester was too general, and that he had not pointed out any particular remedy for the grievances of which he complained. He was of opinion that a more efficient control than that which existed at present should be imposed upon the Boards of Customs and Excise. With reference to the case of Mr. Stock, that individual had been convicted summarily under a mistake of the magistrates; who, he believed, had become sensible of their error. The evidence upon which he had been convicted was the false testimony of an Excise officer; and the individual did not himself know the charge against him. The magistrates were desirous of mitigating the penalty of 50
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that if he could sec any prospect
277
Mr. Bright
said, he was surprised that the country had not risen up against the system of Revenue-laws. The new Consolidated law had not got rid of the obnoxious penalties, but had in a few lines re-enacted them. He should not be constent with any consolidated Revenue-law that did not specify the pains and penalties. The returns which had been so trium-
278
Mr. Herries
said, he was astonished that the hon. member should not have been aware that the first and chief Consolidation-law had already passed, and contained a material correction of the former acts. By the former law, some inconvenience arose from the local jurisdiction; by the subsequent law, in all cases of prosecution before magistrates, there was an appeal to the quarter-sessions. The right hon. gentleman adverted to the prevalent error, that jurors received a larger remuneration if they found a verdict for the Crown than for another party, and stated that, from the best information he could obtain, such a practice never had existed.
Mr. W. Smith
rose amidst cries of "question," He said, there had been some cases within his knowledge of such extravagant injustice under the Excise laws, that he had had some intention of bringing them before this House. Then the expenses of these prosecutions: this was a subject which had not received an answer from the other side [The hon. member was here stopped by cries of "question."]
The House then divided. For the motion 39; against it 146. Majority against the motion 107.
List of the Minority.
Baring, A.
Lennard, S. B.
Baring, F.
Lumley, S.
Baring, sir T.
Marjoribanks, S.
Bentinck, lord G.
Milbank, R.
Bernal, R.
Marshall, W.
Birch, J.
Monck, J. B.
Craddock, col.
Martin, J.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Maxwell, J.
Dawson, A.
Maberly, colonel
Easthope, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Euston, lord
Russell, lord W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Rickford, W.
Grosvenor, hon. H.
Smith, W.
Hume, J.
Sykes, D.
Heneage, G. F.
Stuart, V.
Heathcote, R. E.
Wilson, sir R.
Howick, lord
Wood, J.
Jordan, Robt.
Western, C. C.
279
Warburton, H.
TELLERS.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Harvey, D. W.
Waithman, alderman
Bright, H.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 2.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
The Marquis of Salisbury moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill.
Lord Suffield
said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the bill, but relating as it did to a matter with which he had long been particularly conversant, and having as yet had no opportunity of remarking upon it during the present session, he felt desirous of addressing a few words to their lordships on the subject then under consideration. He rejoiced that he had been no party to the bill for two reasons: first, because he did not stand committed to the proposal of a measure which fell short of what he, consistently with his declared opinions, should have thought it his duty to recommend. He rejoiced, secondly, because, being no party to the bill, he could freely give its promoters that applause to which their labours so justly entitled them. In fact, much of that which, in his opinion, was due from the legislature to the public, respecting the Game laws, was attained by this bill.—Much concession was made of an exclusive privilege voluntarily, which as it had been lawfully, however unjustly, possessed, it became an act of liberality to surrender.—He rejoiced especially, that this proposed surrender originated with the aristocratical part of the legislature, remembering that nothing less "than a revolution forced similar privileges from the aristocracy of France. It was happy for the country, and highly creditable to those noble lords whose labours had produced this bill, that so much of the public odium would at length be removed from laws, which odium in fact, had rendered them ineffectual. In their present state, they were a disgrace to any free country, and from their oppressive and unjust nature, they were calculated to augment the evil which they were intended to repress. Inquiry after inquiry had been instituted for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the increase of poaching, and the most whimsical reasons had been assigned for it. Doubtless many circumstances might have combined to increase the number of violators of these
280
281
Lord Redesdale
said, that the Game-laws were originally laws of police. There were formerly large tracts of land in this country frequented by freebooters, such as Robin Hood and his company, and those laws were made for the purpose of putting-down bodies of that description. The country was now in a totally different condition. With respect to the sale of game, it seemed absurd to give a man leave to do that which you could not prevent his doing. But as it was impossible to prevent it, he was friendly to this bill, so far as it related to the sale of game. Neither had he any objection to give a man a right to kill game on his own land; but he could not see why it was to be limited to persons holding ten or more contiguous acres. Why was a man, because half his land happened to be on one side of the road and half on the other, to be in a worse situation than he whose land was all on the one side? In his opinion, every man who held land ought to have the right of killing game upon it.
Lord Suffield
was at issue with the learned lord as to the origin of the Game-laws. They originated in an act of Richard 2nd, which professed to be "an act for the better regulation of his Majesty's subjects, and for sending them to church;" but it was in reality intended as a pretence for disarming the subject. So far it certainly was, as the learned lord called it, a law of police. Its object was a political one.
Lord Wharncliffe
said, it now became his duty to endeavour to show the House, that the qualification system proposed by this bill never could have the effect which was apprehended—and which nobody would more deeply lament than himself—of driv-
282
prima facie,
l.
283
l.
284
285
The Earl of Malmesbury
gave the noble lord, who had devoted so many years to the consideration of this subject, great credit for the pains he had bestowed upon it; but he could not agree with him in the view he took of it. He considered this to be a perfectly new bill. He knew that their lordships were prejudiced against the present system, because the increase of poaching was attributed to the existing laws; but the evidence before the committee would not bear out this position. His lordship here referred to the witnesses called before the committee. There was, however, another description of persons, whose evidence he should have wished had come before the committee. He meant the persons, magistrates and others, who resided in places where the greatest number of commitments had taken place. In one county, for instance, there had been more commitments under the Game-laws than in all the other counties in England put together; and he must say, that he regretted the absence of this local information before the committee of their lordships. There was an hon. friend of his, the member for Oxford, who was chairman of the quarter-sessions in Wiltshire, and who, he believed, was not a sportsman. Now this gentleman must be aware of the description of persons who had been brought before him, and could have given the committee very valuable information. He
286
battûe
287
l.
l.
Lord Wharncliffe
said, that these words were inserted at the suggestion of an eminent lawyer. According to his own conception, if there were six joint tenants, they would all be qualified, so far as the land in which they had an interest was concerned.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that if that were the case, he thought the clause extremely objectionable. His noble friend had said, that no qualification was necessary in Scotland: but what said the lord Advocate? He did not say, that there would be greater litigation under the system of law in England than under the system of law in Scotland; but that the law of Scotland had not been productive of a great extent of litigation. As to the poulterers, as soon as they found that qualified persons were undersold by the poachers, they would buy of the latter in preference to the former. Then the part of the bill which made game found on unqualified persons seizable would be pro-
288
Lord Calthorpe
contended, that the evils complained of resulted from the Game-laws, rather than from want of employment. The greatest outrages which had been committed did not occur in places where the labourers were out of employment, nor in the agricultural districts; but in manufacturing parts, and where there was no want of employment. That proved to him, that the chief inducement to poaching did not arise from the scarcity of employment, but it resulted from the law which forbad the sale of game, and the demand created by those who were possessed of the means of purchasing every thing legally except game. It was clear that while that demand existed, it would be supplied by persons who could not resist the temptation of profit. It was also proved before the committee, that it was far more easy to get juries to convict poachers in agricultural parts, where the want of employment existed than in the manufacturing parts of the country, where it appeared that persons, who were not in want, committed the greatest outrages. He thought this a proof of the subversion of feeling produced by the Game-laws. Where the plea of poverty existed, no favour was shown; but, towards the individuals who had no such plea, and were only actuated by a desire to supply, for their own profit, the demands of the rich, favour was extended. The evidence before their lordships was decisive of the badness of these laws; and proved that, if game were allowed to be sold, it would diminish the inducements to
289
The Earl of Malmesbury
objected to it, but especially to that part of it which related to coursing, which would open a wide, field for poachers. Of course they had a right to suppose that none but respectable persons would be found following game on horseback; but the clause was worded in such a way as might give rise to a point, of law. Suppose an individual, when following game on horseback, happened to be thrown from his horse, would he not then be placed in the situation of a trespasser?
Lord Wharncliffe
said, the object of the clause was to allow persons who had raised game on his ground, for instance, to follow it on the next estate.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 2.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.]
Lord John Russell
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that it was extremely convenient, though it seldom happened, that an act of parliament should be so worded as to be susceptible of being understood. This did not appear to him to be the case with the Lords' Amendments
290
291
292
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he did not admit the right of the hon. member to put any question to him as to any amendments made in the bill in the other House. He would not, however, decline the explanation, as he did not see the slightest difficulty in the hon. member's objections. There was nothing in the amendments which ought to induce that House to reject the bill, or any on which a doubt could be raised as to the true meaning of the act. The hon. member objected, that the amendments took away the discretion of the Crown, as to the taking of the Declaration by ministers, or persons high in office; but then the question was, what did the Declaration require of them? That they would not exercise any power, authority, or influence, which they might possess in virtue of their office, to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as by law established. He begged to call the attention of the hon. member to those words. The Protestant Church was permanently established by the act of Union between England and Scotland, and also by the act of Union between England and Ireland. The fifth article of the latter act said, "That the Church of England and Ireland shall be united into one Protestant Church, to be called the United Church of Great Britain and Ireland; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, of the said United Church shall remain and continue as by law established; and that the continuance and preservation for ever of the said United Church, as the Established Church of the said United Kingdom, called England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental article and condition of the Union." It was clear that the amendments did nothing for the Church which was not done before. All that it required was, that the party taking office should declare that he would not use the influence or authority of his office to weaken, injure, or disturb in its rights or privileges, the Protestant Church so declared to be permanently established by law. There was no alteration made in the bill, of any consequence, except that could be so considered which substituted the words "in England" for the words "within this realm." The addition of the words, "I sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare upon the true faith of a Christian, "did not make any material difference. He was unwilling to throw any difficulty in the way of
293
Mr. H. Gurney
repealed his objection to the alteration in the bill which took from the Crown the power of dispensing with the taking of the oaths by ministers of the Crown.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the object of that part of the bill was, not to relieve ministers or others in high office, but was intended to apply to persons in subordinate situations, clerks, and others, in whose favour he could wish to see an exemption from taking a declaration which he trusted would bind all who took it. The dispensing power of the Crown was not intended to apply to ministers of the Crown, or others holding high offices. The oath did not apply to members of the legislature; it was only to persons taking office, and in that, view he did not see why the originally proposed dispensing power should be extended by the Crown to its own servants.
Mr. Croker
was sorry that the bill had not come from the Lords in the same state in which it had gone from that House. He would venture to say, that those by whom these alterations were made were not aware of the results to which they led.
294
Mr. W. Smith
did not think that the objections of his hon. friend (Mr. H. Gurney) were at all tenable; for there was no doubt that whenever the ministers of the Crown found it necessary to make any alteration in the discipline or government of the Church of England, it would be easy for them to make the public believe that such change was for the benefit of the country. This very act itself was an illustration of his argument; for it was truly said, that this measure would strengthen that Church; and any other measure which might be proposed hereafter, with the same tendency, would be passed with as little opposition. As to the fears of his hon. friend, that this measure would the up the hands of the ministers of the Crown from any future alteration, they were altogether groundless, and his hon. friend was only wasting his ingenuity in anticipating those cases. This bill was introduced to set at rest a question between the Dissenters and the Church of England; and as one of a numerous body of Dissenters he was satisfied with it. He was disposed to receive it, as he believed—from what he had heard in the other House from some of the dignitaries of the Church who had done themselves great honour by their conduct on this occasion—as it was in-
295
Lord Mandeville
said, he could by no means concur in the amendments made by the other. House, and if he stood alone would object to them. He thought the introduction of the words "on the true faith of a Christian" highly objectionable. They meant nothing as they then stood. If the principle on which they were introduced was worth any thing, it ought to have been carried much further, and some explanation given of what those words meant. There were bodies of persons in the country who called themselves Christians, and who would not hesitate to make that Declaration, but who hardly admitted that the Established Church came under the denomination of Christians. In some pamphlets which they had published (one of which he held in his hand), it was said, that the Church of England was an apostate Church; that it was made up of Popery and Paganism, and that its practice was idolatrous; that it was guarded by the sword of power, and that it was a part of that city described in the Scriptures, which made a merchandise of souls. Now, when the legislature called on such persons to declare on the true faith of a Christian, it should be stated, what that faith meant—that it meant, amongst other things, a belief in the Trinity in Unity. He therefore would object to the amendment, unless after the word "God," in the Declaration, there should be inserted the words" the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."
Lord, Sandon
hoped the noble lord would
296
Mr. J. Martin
objected to the words "in the presence of God," and also "on the true faith of a Christian." These words would exclude two classes, who ought not to be excluded from the benefit of this measure; he meant the Quakers, who would object to the first part as being in the nature of an Oath, and the Jews, who could not assent to the second. He did not see why either should be exempted from the bill; or why any legislative measure should debar the latter from the enjoyment of civil rights. Those restrictions were not creditable to the good sense or sound policy of the country, and he trusted the time would come when they would be wholly done away with.
The amendment was read a second time. On the motion, that they be agreed to,
Lord J. Russell
said, he could not allow the amendments to pass without a few words as to his view of them; and he was happy to perceive that the feeling of the majority of the House seemed to be, that they were not such as to induce them to reject the bill. The words which had been added to the Declaration by the Lords, could not be considered objectionable, as a Declaration of religious opinions, for they were not so intended. The Church of the country was Christian; and to whatever denomination of Christians a man might belong, he could not object to declare, "on the true faith of a Christian;" for when a party so declared, he could be understood to mean only on the faith of that community of Christians to which he belonged. The intentions of the Lords were, that a man should give a solemn assent to Christianity, without pointing out any particular sect of Christians. He did not think the Declaration was at all necessary; for many who were not Christians would not hesitate to take it. If he were to go to the history of our own country, he should find that Bolingbroke, who had given occasion to much writing on the subject of religion, employed the latter part of his life in attacks on Chris-
297
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, there were some parts of the bill which he could wish had been differently worded. The words "within this realm" he thought would be much better than the word "England." He also could wish to see clerks and persons in subordinate stations exempted from the necessity of making the Declaration. However, as the noble lord had not thought it expedient to propose any alterations in those parts of the bill, he did not feel called upon to do so. In taking his leave of the bill, he would say, that he had at first opposed the measure, because, as the question had not been discussed for nearly forty years, and as there had been a cessation of religious differences, he was afraid of sanctioning the introduction of a measure, by which those differences might be renewed. He did not, however, think, nor had he stated, that such a test as the acts had imposed was necessary; but he had said that the act was the less severe by the operation of the Annual Indemnity bill. When, however, he saw that a large majority of the House was in favour of the repeal, he had to deal with a new question—whether it was better to continue the act, or go on with the repeal; and in these new circumstances he was at liberty to act as they demanded, and he did from that time cooperate, and nothing that had been said,
298
Sir T. Acland
would have preferred the bill as it had been sent to the Lords.
299
Mr. Brougham
said, that now that the bill was in perfect safety, before which it would have been unwise in him to offer a word that might have given rise to discussion, he rose to express his entire disapprobation of the amendments which had been made by the Lords. The entirely concurred with the hon. member who had opened the discussion, as to the injustice done to the Quakers and Jews by the amendments. The declaration, in consequence of the additions which had been made to it, was worse, by a great deal, than it was in the bill originally introduced by his noble friend. He thought that the requiring of a declaration at all was inconsistent with the principle and spirit of the bill; because it sanctioned the doctrine which he held in abhorrence—the doctrine of tests—of making religious opinions of any kind whatever the passport to civil offices. If, however, a test must be adopted, and if that test must be in the form of a declaration, he could hardly imagine that one could be devised more judicious, and less liable to serious objection, than that originally proposed by his noble friend. But that declaration had been made a great deal worse indeed in the other House, by the introduction of words which confined its application to certainly the great majority of all sects, but still excluded some sects of great weight as to number, and of the highest respectability as to character and conduct. On this account, therefore, he thought, that the declaration had been made worse in the other House, he agreed with the noble lord, who said that both too much and too little had been done in the other House. Too much had been done to please those who held that no sect ought to be excluded, and too little for those who maintained the opposite opinion. The declaration of faith was left in a very vague and indefinite state. He concurred with those who stated, that the bill would be different to understand. He believed it would puzzle the legal ingenuity of most persons I to state what the law would be after the bill passed. All the circumstances which he had stated were serious objections to the amendments; but, considering the great good that would be obtained by the
300
CIVIL GOVERNMENT OF THE CANADAS.]
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said:—The subject, Sir, to which I wish to call the attention of the House, on the present occasion, is one which, however it may bear, and it chiefly floes bear, upon interests and feelings in a great degree removed from those which ordinarily affect, ourselves, is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance.—The question which I wish at this time to induce the House to investigate is, whether those extensive, valuable, and fertile, possessions of the Crown, the Canadas, are or are not administered under a system of Civil Government, adapted to the wants, the well-being, and the happiness of nearly a million of British subjects, and well calculated to maintain the allegiance of our settlements and preserve unbroken the affection and good understanding which should always subsist; between colonies and the mother country. If, upon inquiry, it shall be found, that the present system of government in those States is not calculated to answer this purpose, and that the remedy for the evil cannot be applied without the authority of parliament—it will be for parliament to deal with the question, with a view to the introduction of such modifications, improvements, and alterations in, the existing system, as may appear necessary.
301
302
303
régime
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
l.
311
l.
l.
312
313
314
315
316
Mr. Labouchere
said, that he fully admitted that the parliament of Great Britain, in what Mr. Burke had termed its imperial capacity, possessed the power of interference and control over all the subordinate legislatures of our colonies, but he thought that this power should be used with extreme caution, and only on a clear case being made out of the imperative necessity for such interference. He thought a fair exception might be taken to the light attempted to be thrown on the views of Mr. Pitt, in framing the constitution of 1791, which was the great charter of Canadian liberties. He could not help saying, that if those views had been carried into more complete effect, and that if the free governments thus formed, had been administered more fully in the genuine spirit of that great minister, the prospects of the Canadas would have been much advanced, and the present discontents would not have existed there. Mr. Pitt attached the utmost importance to the independence of the legislative council in both provinces, and even went so far as to desire to create an order of nobility, of which it might consist, in the Lower Canada. But the present system was to fill the legislative councils with placemen and dependents upon the government, and in the lower province to throw the whole power of that body into the hands of the English minority. The right hon. gentleman, therefore, in his opinion, did injustice to the memory of Mr. Pitt, when he said that his plan had failed, that plan having, in fact, never been acted upon. With regard to Lower Canada, he trusted that the House would not lose sight of the state of its population. There were at present, about four hundred and forty thousand French, and eighty thousand English in that province. He felt as strongly as any one could do for the
317
318
Sir James Mackintosh
said—I think I may interpret fairly the general feeling of the House, when I express my congratula-
319
320
321
322
323
324
à multi fortiori,
325
l.
l.
326
327
l.
l.
328
329
330
331
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, the right hon. member appeared to have completely misunderstood the argument upon which his right hon. friend had grounded his demand of a committee. But, before he entered upon this question, he wished to make one simple statement. The right hon. member
332
333
334
Mr. Stanley
said, that, after the clear and highly satisfactory statement of his right hon. friend, who opened the debate, and after the able comprehensive, and statesman-like, commentary of his right hon. and learned friend, there was but a very narrow ground for observation afforded to him. He could not forbear from expressing on this occasion the great pleasure which he derived from the speeches of the two right hon. gentlemen—the former of which was an historical detail of all the leading events connected with our intercourse with the Canadas since the commencement of it; the latter, a powerful review and illustration of that historical statement, enforcing the soundest principles of legislation with great wisdom, wit, humour, and eloquence. The subject before the House was one of as great im-
335
336
337
338
de novo;
339
Mr. Hume
concurred almost entirely in what had fallen from the right hon. and learned gentleman who had so ably and eloquently addressed the House. But, as the grievances of Upper Canada had not even been alluded to by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, he felt called upon to state shortly what he considered due to the people of that colony. He trusted that they would meet with ample justice in the course of this inquiry, though he differed entirely from his hon. friend who spoke last, who had applauded the motives, and approved the act of the right hon. Secretary, in referring the affairs of Canada to a committee of that House. The right hon. gentleman and his predecessors in office had raised the storm, which they were now afraid to meet, and
340
341
Mr. Warburton
said, that one grievance
342
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he had come down to the House with the intention of voting in favour of the committee; but if he had supposed that one of the objects of the committee was to consider the disputes between the government and the legislature of Canada, he should have had different feelings on the subject. The consideration of such matters, did not, he thought, belong to that House. He was anxious to learn whether the object of the committee was to take into consideration the civil government of Canada.
Mr. Baring
thought this one of the most important subjects that could come under the notice of the House. When he reflected upon the attempt of government to anglicise the people of Canada, and, under the guidance of Dr. Strachan, to establish a predominant religion there, he could not hesitate to attribute all the grievances complained of to misgovernment; nor could he wonder at the petitions of eighty-seven thousand of the people of Lower Canada, and of eight or nine thousand of the people of Upper Canada. The question was one of extensive importance, and nothing ought to be left untried to find out a system which would conciliate all parties. When he heard a right hon. gentleman talk of anglicising the Canadians, and imposing the Thirty-nine articles in Canada, and when he heard him cheered by a number of gentlemen who must know very little of either Upper or Lower Canada, he could not regret that that gentleman was no longer in the colonial department.
Mr. W. Horton
said, that the hon. gentleman had altogether mistaken his line of argument, which was, that if we did not anglicise Trinidad or the Cape of Good Hope, why should we anglicise Ca-
343
Mr. Hu skisson
, in reply, observed, that he had abstained from adverting to the character and conduct of lord Dalhousie, because he thought they were not concerned in this question, and because they required no vindication. The high situation which the noble lord would soon be called upon to fill would prove that he had not incurred the disapprobation of the government. An hon. friend behind him had asked him, if it was his intention that the committee should take into consideration the disputes between his majesty's government and the Canadian legislatures? The very wording of the motion distinctly showed that he had no such intention. Much had been said of the opinions of Mr. Pitt upon the subject. To that great man's authority he should always be disposed to bend; but he begged leave to read an extract from one of Mr. Pitt's speeches. It was to the effect, that if the legislative system of Canada were found to be defective, it was open to revision; and that there was nothing to prevent the parliament of Great Britain from correcting any part of that system which seemed to demand correction. What he was most anxious to do was, if possible, to conciliate all parties in that country. To effect that, the most judicious course which it seemed practicable to adopt was, to refer it to a select committee. His right hon. and learned friend, the member for Knaresborough, had in some degree advocated the cause of the population of Lower Canada; and in doing so had, like an advocate, introduced much misrepresentation. Me had addressed him, as if he had charged the Canadians with being bad political economists. That was not the case. What he charged them with was, that they excluded English manufactures. He had also to complain of his right hon. and learned friend, and of the hon. member for Aberdeen, that they both very fluently recommended ministers to put an end to the existing difficulties, by immediately conceding every possible demand of the Canadian legislature. But, was the conduct of that legislature such as to justify such a concession? The fact, that in a petition from eighty-seven thousand persons there were only nine thousand names signed, the rest being-marks, was a lamentable proof of the little attention which had been paid to the
344
The motion was agreed to, and a select committee appointed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 5, 1828.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The Bishop of Norwich
said, he held in his hand a petition from the Roman Catholics of Newport in the county of Mayo. The petition complained of the distinction made by the law between themselves and other loyal subjects. Nothing could be more reasonable than the prayer of the petitioners; and it must be highly satisfactory to every liberal mind to observe, that there was a sincere disposition in both Houses of parliament to pay attention to the subject. In all classes, with the exception of a few ultra-Tories, there was an anxious wish for the total abolition of all penalties and disabilities on account of religious opinions. When that wish should be carried generally into effect, the hearts of all his majesty's subjects, of every denomination, would be united as one man; and could any one venture to say, that such a union would not add to the security of the Established Church more than any test or declaration which could be enacted? He had also two other petitions to present, signed by many respectable Roman Catholics of Norwich. A residence of twenty-three years in that city, and a personal acquaintance with many of the petitioners, enabled him to say, that men of more exemplary conduct were no where to be found; and, to use their own language, they yielded to no men in a sincere and unshaken love for the constitution. They could not, therefore, but feel much hurt at being considered as objects of suspicion; but the time was approaching, he was happy to say, when greater attention would be paid to their merits. It appeared to
345
Ordered to lie on the table.
WOOL TRADE.]
The Duke of Richmond
said, that in rising to move for a Committee to inquire into the state of the Wool-trade, he was satisfied he should be able to lay a case before their lordships which called for inquiry. He would begin with the year 1819, in which a duty of 6
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
346
prima facie
The Duke of Wellington
said, that as he did not mean to object to the motion of his noble friend, he did not feel himself called upon to follow him through the details into which he had entered. He considered it but just, when a number of persons came to that House and complained of the great inconvenience under which they laboured, in consequence of the state of the wool-trade, that the House should grant the inquiry which they sought. But although he was willing to consent to an inquiry, he was bound to say, that, having himself made inquiries in other quarters, he was satisfied that this committee, if granted, would not end in affording the relief which his noble friend sought. He would consent to an inquiry respecting long wool as well as short; not that he thought there was any ground of complaint laid with respect to the former, but he would allow an inquiry to be gone into as to both; because, as it was not his intention to impose any additional tax upon this article, he wished to show that there was no ground of complaint whatever on the subject. He was much mistaken if the result of the inquiry would not convince his noble friend, that there existed no ground for this complaint.
The Earl of Harewood
said, he was ready to admit, that the woollen trade, both in long wool and in short, laboured under considerable pressure, and that the exports did not keep pace with what they had been in former times; but was he to conclude from that, that no advantage accrued to the agriculturists from taking off the duty? Supposing that the woollen manufacturers abroad were competing with
347
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that to show the falling-off which had taken place in the trade since the duty had been taken off, he would state the number of yards exported during the last ten years. During the first five years of that period there were thirty-five millions and odd; and during the latter five years there were only thirty-four millions and odd. He stated tins to show, that the wool-growers laboured under a grievance; and if he succeeded in proving that a grievance existed, then a remedy might be considered. Now one cause of the grievance to which he referred was this: it appeared on the face of the return of the quantity of foreign wool imported during the last nine years, that for the first three the quantity was forty-two millions; during the next three, it was sixty-one millions; and in the last three years, it increased to eighty-nine millions. Now, such an advance in the import of foreign wool was truly alarming, particularly as there had been a proportionate decrease in the exports. He was one of those who considered the interests of the agriculturist and the manufacturer dentified, particularly in the state of the
348
Lord Wharncliffe
said, he would have no objection to the appointment of a committee, if his noble friends would be satisfied with inquiry; but he knew they expected that the result would be an increase of duty. Now, was this right or wrong? He would say it was the duty of government to ascertain whether or not there existed any grievance. They had a board of Trade too: that was open to this inquiry, and they might say whether or not it was right to impose any further duty on this article. An inquiry at present would completely unhinge the manufacturers. The agitation of the question had excited a great ferment already; and if ever there was a moment when the bringing it forward was more inconvenient than another, it was at this particular period, when the manufacturers were just sending off to the continent. The effect of it visited every cottage in those districts: there was not an individual who would not feel it. However, if they did go into an inquiry, he should be able to show, that there never was a greater fallacy than the grounds on which his noble friends proceeded. In his opinion, the more wool that came into the country, the better for the English wool-grower. The Southdown wool had become so deteriorated, that it could not be used without being mixed with foreign wool; and a great change in the manufacture of cloth had taken place on the continent. If we, therefore, did not make finer cloths, we should have no chance of a market for them. It had now become the fashion to wear foreign wool; nay, our servants were nothing else. He saw the smile of triumph in which his noble friends indulged, but
349
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.,
d.
d.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the committee was proposed to be appointed for the satisfaction of the wool-growers; and persons who came to the legislature with so strong a
prima facie
Lord Redesdale
was decidedly opposed to the opinion, that the committee should sit merely for the purpose of satisfying the agriculturists that nothing could be done for them. Throughout the country there was the growth of three or four years on hand, for which no price could be ob-
350
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed. After which, the House went into a committee on the Penryn Disfranchisement bill, and several witnesses were examined.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 5, 1828.
LAW OF EVIDENCE BILL—OFFENCES
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that in moving that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Offences against the Person Bill, he would shortly explain the general objects of that measure, as well as of another which was before the House. One of the bills was intended to make an alteration in the existing mode of receiving evidence, and the object of the other was to consolidate the existing statute-law with respect to offences against the person. These bills had been prepared in furtherance of the system which had been for some time acted on of consolidating the statute-law. They had been prepared under the immediate and direct superintendance of the noble marquis (Lansdowne) who lately held the situation of Secretary of State for the Home Department. The object of this enactment was to introduce into our existing law some alterations which had been considered for years desirable, by persons whose knowledge of the subject and experience entitled their opinions to credit and respect. There were four clauses only in the bill. The first referred to the admissibility of the evidence of Quakers and Moravians in criminal cases. At present, their asseveration was admissible in civil cases and civil cases only. This clause proposed, in order to assimilate the administration of justice in criminal to that in civil cases, that these persons, whose evidence was objected to on their asseveration, should be placed with respect to criminal cases on the same footing as they had long since been with reference to civil cases. As far as cases went, he could cite enough of them to show, that numbers of these per-
351
352
353
354
inter Christianos non no-minandum.
355
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Law of Evidence Bill,
Mr. Wynn
objected to the clause which permitted the affirmation of Quakers and Moravians to betaken in courts of justice, instead of an oath, in criminal cases.
356
Mr. G. Lamb
was at a loss to know in what way it was to be ascertained, whether a man, who offered an affirmation instead of an oath, was or was not a Quaker, or a Moravian. Was it to be considered sufficient for an individual, when examined before a court of justice, to say simply, "I object to an oath, and wish to give my affirmation?" The case, as applicable to Quakers, would equally apply to all separatists.
The Solicitor-general
observed, that the Quakers and Moravians were not sects of yesterday, and therefore could not be easily mistaken.
Mr. W. Smith
observed, that the exemption now proposed was no boon to the Quaker; on the contrary, it imposed upon him an inconvenience, which, however, he was ready to bear for the sake of public justice. He thought there was little fear of any person claiming to give evidence under the proposed affirmation, who had not a right to do so. He had no hesitation in saying that, with an admonition given to the witness, as in Scotland, a man would feel himself as much bound as by the most solemn oath; and a greater effect would be produced on the minds of the spectators.
Mr. Wynn
thought, if the suggestion of the hon. member were acceded to, it would create great injustice to the public; for there were many who would not now give their evidence against a man upon oath, who would give it when that restriction no longer existed. In the same manner, an infinity of evidence would be tendered to effect a man's escape by an
alibi,
Mr. Secretary Peel
was also of opinion, that a considerable laxity of evidence would be introduced by acceding to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. It would lessen the amount of the public confidence in evidence given in the courts. He was surprised at the hon. member's reference to Scotland; for there an oath was administered, and that by the judge, in the most solemn manner; the words being, "I swear in the presence of Almighty God, as I hope to be saved on the great day of Judgment." Without strong practical proof of the injustice of the present system, he should be
357
Mr. W. Smith
said, he had recommended, not that oaths should be exchanged for affirmations in all cases, but that, where a party objected to take an oath, an affirmation should be administered to him in the solemn manner of the Scotch courts, which he considered as impressive as our oath. With respect to the laxity of the testimony given at the bar of that House, he begged the House to remember, that the witness was in no fear of prosecution.
Lord J. Russell
thought the subject well worthy of the right hon. gentleman's attention. Every one was agreed as to the propriety of taking the affirmation of Quakers; and there was a small sect in Ireland, called Separatists, who entertained the same opinion with respect to the immorality of taking an oath. The smallness of their number ought not to be made an argument for denying them the same privilege. It was also to be considered, that they bad the same tie upon persons who made an affirmation, which they had upon those who took an oath. They were liable to the same punishment for falsehood. He would require those who asked to be exempted from the oath to say that they belonged to some religious society which entertained conscientious scruples against the practice. In several courts in America, the affirmation of persons having religious scruples were taken in the room of oaths, and it was worth the right hon. gentleman's while to inquire how the practice was found to answer in that country.
Mr. Warburton
thought it was a greater evil to lose altogether the evidence of a man who would not give it upon oath, whether he religiously objected to the oath or said it was not binding on his conscience, than it was to incur the danger which the right hon. gentleman seemed to fear, but which would be found not to exist.
Sir E. Carrington
said, that the first object of the legislature, and of the tribunals of justice in this Country, was, that a sufficient sanction should be imposed on
358
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Offences against the Person Bill,
Mr. Portman
wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman intended to introduce any provision for giving magistrates a summary jurisdiction in cases of petty assaults. He instanced the case of a soldier's wife, who having been assaulted and robbed on passing through a town, applied to a magistrate for redress. The magistrate wanted to bind her over to prosecute, but the poor woman stated, that she must follow her husband, and the ends of justice were thus defeated in her case.
Mr. Peel
admitted that hardships might, and no doubt did, arise under the law as it stood; but if they were to introduce any clause on the subject, it would be liable to the objection of increasing the summary jurisdiction of the magistrate; and great caution should be observed to guard that power against abuse. It might also have the effect of encouraging frivolous prosecutions, and of giving rise to great animosity in cases of slight affrays, which had better be settled between the parties.
359
Sir T. Baring
alluded to the shortness of the interval between the conviction and execution of a murderer, according to the present law, and observed that the period was too short to admit of that reconsideration which, in some instances, might lead to the respite of the convict.
Mr. Peel
defended the present practice on the ground of the advantage arising from the example, when the punishment immediately followed the conviction. He did not recollect an instance where a man had suffered from want of time to communicate to the government any strong circumstances in his favour.
Mr. Van Homrigh
said, he knew an instance where a danger of that kind had nearly occurred. He was present at a trial where the judge recommended the jury to find a verdict of wilful murder. They did so under his direction, and the man was ordered for execution; but he (Mr. Van Homrigh) agreed with the jury, that it was a case of manslaughter only. In consequence of that he went to the judge for a respite, that he might apply to the government; but the judge refused. He went to Dublin the next day, and on passing through Drogheda met with chief justice Downes, to whom he told the circumstances, and who recommended him to go to the Castle. The lord lieutenant was not at the Castle, the Secretary of State was in England, and Mr. Gregory, the under Secretary, said he could do nothing. He told that gentleman that, in that case, the man would be murdered. The Attorney-general was then called in at 5 o'clock in the evening, and when they had heard the circumstances they agreed with him; but Mr. Gregory said, what was the use of it, since no express could arrive in time to save the man's life? He answered, "Do you give me the authority, and I will take care that it shall arrive in time." The respite did arrive in time, and the man's life was saved.
Mr. Peel
said, that under such circumstances there should be no hesitation in suspending the execution. The fact did not prove that it was impracticable to do justice in such a case under the existing law; and, as far as his own experience went, it was not attended with inconvenience.
Sir T. Baring
thought that the case alluded to was a case in point.
A long and desultory conversation then took place on the respective clauses. Several
360
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 6, 1828.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
The Marquis of Salisbury
The Earl of Malmesbury
merely wished to say, that his noble friend who had brought the measure in its original state before their lordships, had brought it forward as a temporary measure,—a bill to continue two years,—to try whether the sale of game would produce any effect on the crime of poaching. Whatever objections he might have had to that bill, he should nevertheless have given his assent to it as an experiment; but since the bill had been first brought forward, an alliance had taken place between his noble friend and another noble lord, in consequence of which the bill had been totally altered. He confessed he could not consider, that facilitating the disposal of game would diminish the crime of poaching. Under the existing law, a person might be seized, and was liable to conviction, for having game in his possession; but under the present act, with all the precaution which his noble friend had used, a man having ten acres of land might sanction any one for having game in his possession. In his opinion, the measure would operate very much to disturb society, and produce litigation. For, in districts where property was divided among a number of tenants, and where each began to be a game-preserver, what would be the result? There would immediately spring up a great deal of jealousy: the farmers would be out at night looking after the game when they ought to be in their beds, and, instead of going on with the plough, they would be running to see who was shooting at what would not be game, but property; for it became a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. With respect to their lordships' tenants, in how different a light would they see their lordships going over their farms to what they did before? They used to be glad to see their lordships amuse themselves, as they always got a share in the amusement: but how different would be the case, when any of their lordships, after having killed ten head of game,
361
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he was one of those who sincerely supported the present measure, with the deep conviction that the subject was peculiarly entitled to the attention of their lordships, as affecting the morals of the country from one end to the other. He hoped their lordships were aware, as he was sure they ought to be, that they were dealing with the question at a time when, from some cause or other, there had been an increase of crime, progressively advancing in this country, of a nature most appalling to every man who felt an interest in the religion, morality, and prosperity, of the country; which prosperity depended on the presence of religion and morality. Their lordships were dealing with a measure at a time when, by the returns recently made up in the public offices, it appeared that the amount of committals in England and Wales last year exceeded by one-hundred and seventy the amount of committals in the preceding year; and not only that, but it exceeded, by a third or a fourth, the amount of the committals on the average of six years. He knew that the noble earl, who was much alive to these considerations, was of opinion that the extent of poaching and the system of the Game-laws had no connexion with that state of things. If he looked at the state of the country generally—if he went into the prisons, his noble friend would find, that though all other crimes had increased, the crime of poaching had increased in an infinitely greater proportion than any others. He would refer particularly to the northern part of Wiltshire. In the House of Correction in Devises, he found, in February 1827, that one hundred persons, out of two hundred and twenty-seven, had been committed to that gaol for offences against the Game-laws. He had thought it possible that this might have arisen from accidental circumstances, and he had, therefore, taken the
362
363
364
Lord Goderich
contended that, whether they passed the bill or not, it would be impossible to prevent the sale of game; and in proof of his argument, he referred to the evidence of a man before the committee, from which it appeared that that individual had sold nineteen thousand head of game in one year alone. The question was, then, whether or not it was fit to maintain a law which could not be enforced. The only effect of so doing would be, to destroy all respect for the laws generally, but more especially for the laws connected with this subject. With respect to the clauses proposed by his noble friend (lord Wharncliffe), he thought they would tend to diminish the crime of poaching, and facilitate the detection of crime when it was committed, by giving a greater number of persons an interest in the preservation of the game. His noble friend near him (lord Malmesbury) was mistaken in attributing the increase of poaching to the operation of those causes to which he ascribed the depression of agricultural property. The persons who were most frequently engaged in the offence of poaching
365
s.
s.
The House divided; Contents 54; Not-contests 29. Majority 25.
GAME LAWS—NIGHT POACHING PREVENTION BILL.]—
Lord Wharncliffe
366
The Marquis of Salisbury
agreed that a man ought not to suffer as great a punishment for a first offence as for a repetition of it; but then he thought that his noble friend had gone into the opposite extreme; He should prefer, that, instead of three months, the first offence should be punished with six months imprisonment and hard labour; and the second with twelve months. The third he should leave as it was, namely, rendering the offender liable to transportation.
The Earl of Carnarvon
was favourable to the principle of taking security, in preference to extending the term of imprisonment; and he also thought that a great deal of good might be done by allowing poachers the option, under given circumstances, of volunteering into the army, instead of undergoing punishment. Many a man, who was an idle or dissolute labourer, under different control would
367
Lord Tenterden
thought that three was the number which should constitute a gang: three was the number which the law held necessary to constitute a riot. He was opposed to the clause for allowing the poacher an option how he would be tried. It would be better, he thought, to leave the word "poaching" out of the bill altogether. The words "destroying game," included all that was necessary.
Lord. Wharncliffe
agreed to give up the clause as to the option, and the word "poaching," if the noble lord desired it; but he differed from the noble marquis entirely upon the subject of the duration of the imprisonment. It was certainly the policy of the law to mark its disposition to punish the offence of the poacher at first lightly, and to increase its severity as his habits of crime became confirmed.
The clause for making the imprisonment for the first offence three months was then put and carried. On the clause fixing the amount of sureties to be demanded,
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, that he thought the offender himself in 10
l.
l.
Lord Wharncliffe
said, that by a law recently passed, the levy in such cases was made easier; and he fixed the security low purposely, in order to enable the poorer people to obtain it.
The several clauses were agreed to. After which the House went again into a Committee on the Penryn Disfranchisement bill; in which several witnesses were examined.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 6, 1828.
FRAUDULENT DEVISES—LIABILITY
368
Mr. Sugden
rose to move for "leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 3rd of William and Mary, chap. 14th, for the Relief of Creditors against Fraudulent Devises, and a similar Act of the 4th of Anne, relative to Ireland." The hon. and learned gentleman went into an historical review of the law of Devises, from the enactment of the law called Statute Merchant, passed in the reign of Edward 1st, for the assurance of debts, which he observed proceeded on the basis of the old law of that day, evidently founded on the still older system of the feudal law. That law had been framed with reference to the exigences of the times, and like most laws thus judiciously framed, it had, either by the ingenuity of the judges, or the consent of the people generally, been accommodated to the improved state of society, and generally acted on since. By this law, an attempt had been made to render the property of the higher orders extra-commercial; which, in effect, proved a public benefit to the community. At that period the existence of a great public debt was unknown in this country, spreading itself over a large portion of the property of the community, and the enactment he contemplated would have been almost needless. Since that period, the state of society and of property had materially changed; and this change had produced an impression on his mind, that it would be wise to extend the statute of king-Edward, for the assurance of debts, which now only affected landed property, to property in the funds; for why should a man who was possessed of large property in the funds, be allowed, as he was at present, to live in prison, rioting and wasting that property in defiance of his creditors, and defeating the intentions of the legislature? The object of this bill was, to render the property of any man dying in the possession of a large sum of money or funded property, liable to the payment of that person's debts, though in the hands or possession of the heir or a devisee. Our law knew of but two sorts of debts—specialty debts, and debts on simple contract. Estates descending to the heir were bound by specialty debts; but in case of a devise to a stranger, if the party possessed himself of the property under the devise, and spent it before this action was brought by the testator's creditor, no remedy remained for the
369
370
371
Mr. Wallace
supported the motion, and expressed a hope that the learned member would obtain, as he deserved, the thanks of the country for his exertions to amend the law in this respect.
Mr. Hume
said, he congratulated the learned gentleman upon the course he had taken upon this occasion, as he, for one, had set the learned member down as an opponent of all reform in the court of Chancery. If the hon. member acted up to his statements of that evening, he would effect all that was desired by those most anxious to reform the abuses of that court. He thought that the estates of a debtor, dying possessed of landed property, ought to be made available to the payment of his debts, as well as personal property.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SCOTCH PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS
Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Estcourt
said, that his opposition to the bill was solely with a view to induce the House to assimilate the bill to the law of England. Great inconvenience was felt in this country from the permission allowed to foreigners of gaining a settlement here in a year, or he believed in less time; while in Scotland, even according to the present law, a settlement could not be made under three years. It was now attempted to extend the period to seven years; a change which would have the effect of relieving Scotland at
372
Mr. Fergusson
thought it would be very difficult to assimilate the laws of England and Scotland in this respect, while there existed so great a difference between their laws in other respects. He bore testimony to the good conduct of the poor Irish who emigrated, and some of whom settled in Scotland, but represented their multitudes as most alarming. It was a mistake to suppose that they had not poor-laws in Scotland. They had, but the people were too independent in mind to depend upon those laws. The present facility of gaining a settlement in Scotland would burthen it beyond its capability.
Mr. Maxwell
said, that the present bill was anxiously desired by the people of Scotland, under an apprehension that, without it, that country could not bear the burthen imposed on it by the emigrations from Ireland; especially as in Ireland they had no reciprocal provision for their poor.
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that though the effect of this measure would be one which he must regret as far as England was concerned, it could not fail to be of considerable advantage to Scotland. The object of the bill was to keep the poor Irish out of Scotland; but he feared the effect of it would be to make them come in greater numbers into this country; and if Scotland was exempted from the consequences of that evil, and England was more exposed to its influence, hon. gentlemen must not wonder that the English representatives should show some jealousy as to its success. The bill seemed scarcely to place England and Scotland on a fair footing; since it went to free the former from an evil which would only fall the heavier upon the latter.
Mr. Hume
did not consider it fair to object to a law on the ground that, though it was a good law in itself, the people of Scotland ought not to have it, because the people of England had a bad law upon the same subject. He thought the people of England were called upon to protect themselves against the additional pressure which the influx of the Irish poor flung upon their poor-rates, if no measure were
373
Mr. Fergusson
said, that though he supported this bill, he did not object to the introduction of Irish labourers into either England or Scotland, on the score of the reduction which it produced in the rate of wages. It might be an evil; but he did not know how to prevent it, unless they prevented all intercourse between the three countries. The times were bad now, but it was not unreasonable to hope that they would be better soon. It was intended to prevent any future burthen from being imposed on Scotland, in the shape of poor-rates. The Scotch had no means of preventing the Irish labourer from settling among them; neither did he wish that they had. What he wished was, to prevent the Irish labourer from obtaining any settlement in Scotland without a previous residence of three years or more within it. In Scotland, the people wanted no support for their poor, either from England or Ireland: all they wanted was, that each country should support its own poor. How that consummation was to be brought about, was another question; but he thought it unjust that England and Scotland should be called upon to provide for the poor of Ireland, merely because Ireland would not provide for them herself.
Sir J. Newport
said, it must have been observed by the House, that almost every gentleman who admitted the benefit which had accrued to England and Scotland from the introduction of Irish labourers
374
375
Mr. Kennedy
said, that so far was he from feeling any hostility towards the natives of Ireland, that he had absolutely introduced this bill to do away with any hostile feelings which their influx into Scotland might have generated. For his own part, he wished to be able to deal more liberally with the Irish paupers than he could do under the existing law. The Irish poor were at present relieved in Scotland upon as niggardly a scale as was possible, from a prevalent belief, that if they were relieved more liberally, a greater number of them would come over, and thus a greater burthen would be thrown upon the country. The hon. member for Kent seemed to dread the effects of this measure upon England. Now, he was sanguine enough to hope that this measure would confer benefit upon Scotland, though not to any large amount; and he was quite certain that England would not suffer by it. He did not think that this bill would turn the tide of Irish emigration from Scotland into England, nor that it would even turn it from flowing direct to Scotland. He did not believe that the crowds of Irishmen who landed almost every day in Scotland, came there for the purpose of obtaining a settlement in either three years or seven. They were driven by the craving wants of nature to get that support in Scotland, which they were not able to find at home. He hoped that when they did come to Scotland, the people would treat them well; but he also hoped that they would not permit them to become a permanent burthen upon their industry. Such was the principle of the measure which he had introduced into the House.
The report was further considered; and the amendments agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 8, 1828.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Numerous petitions were this day presented for and against Catholic Emancipation. After which,
Sir Francis Burdett
rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
376
377
Tu vero felix, Agricola, non vitœ tantum claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis."
378
"—quantaque nostræ,
"Pars tua sit, Cornute, animuæ tibi, dulcis amice,
"Ostendisse juvat."
"Maudlin's learned grove."
379
380
" I think it necessary," said the right hon. gentleman, "to state, that I will not shrink from what I said, when this question was discussed in 1825, and which was as follows—that if I could be satisfied, that any of the political privileges which were withheld from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, were withheld in violation of the Treaty of Limerick, it would very materially influence my judgment in deciding on the present question: but, after having examined into this matter, with the greatest attention, I feel a more perfect conviction, that that Treaty afforded the Roman Catholics of Ireland no claims whatever to have their disabilities removed."
"The Roman Catholics of this kingdom "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 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 disturbances upon the account "of their said religion."
381
382
"and shall be put in possession, by order" of the government, of such of them as "are in the king's hands, or in the hands "of his tenants, without being put to any "suit or trouble therein; and all such "estates shall be freed and discharged "from all arrears of Crown rents, quit "rents, and other public charges incurred "and become due since Michaelmas, 1688, "to the day of the date hereof; and all "persons comprehended in this article, "shall have, hold, and enjoy, all their "goods and chattels, real and personal, "to them or any of them belonging and "remaining, either in their own hands or "the hands of any persons whatsoever, in "trust for, or for the use of them, or any" of them, and all and every the said persons, "of what profession, trade or calling "soever they be, shall and may use, exercise "and practise, their several and respective "professions, trades, and callings, as freely "as they did use, exercise, and enjoy, the "same in the reign of king Charles the "2nd; provided that nothing contained be "construed to extend to or restore any "forfeiting person now out of the kingdom, "except what are hereafter comprised, "provided also, that no person whatsoever "shall have or enjoy the benefit of this "article, that shall neglect, or refuse, "to take, the Oath of Allegiance made "by act of Parliament in England, in the "first year of the reign of their present "Majesties, when thereunto required."
383
384
385
386
387
" Whatever we, the Irish Papists, may have done, yet surely the Dissenters did not do any thing to render them liable to the same injustice, or to deserve worse at the hands of the government than other Protestants; but, on the contrary, it is more than probable, that if they (I mean the Dissenters) had not put a stop to the career of the Irish army at Enniskillen and Londonderry, the settlement of the government both in England and Scotland might not have proved so easy as it thereby did; for if that army had got to Scotland,—as
388
389
390
391
392
393
"Each new morn
New widows howled—new orphans cry'd—new sorrows
Struck Heaven on the face."
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
"Where e'en the peasant knows his rights to scan,
And learns to venerate himself as man."
415
416
417
418
cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex
Id enim est firmissimum imperium quo obedientes gaudent
419
The motion being seconded by Mr. Brougham,
The Solicitor-general
said, that nothing would have induced him to offer himself at that early period of the debate, but his great anxiety to explain to the House and to the country the grounds on which he intended to give his present vote. He would endeavour to make that explanation with the same moderation and candour which
420
421
422
l
423
424
"Sensus moresque repugnant,
Atque ipsa utilitas, justi propè mater et æqui."
425
426
427
Premunire
428
429
430
431
432
Mr. Perceval
said, that in rising to support the motion which had been brought forward by the hon. baronet, he felt himself bound, in duty to himself and to the House, to state the reasons which induced him to do so. The opinions which had been entertained on this subject by his lamented father were well known, and if he did not feel a reverence for that father's opinions, he should not only not be worthy of a seat in that House, but he should not be worthy to hold up his head in society. It might be well supposed, that the sentiments of his lamented parent had had a great influence in the formation of his political opinions; indeed, from his habits and education, he was naturally biassed against the question which had been that night submitted to their decision. But when he came to reflect upon the subject, he began to waver, and when he first had the honour of a seat in that House, his mind had already been pretty nearly convinced that the fears and alarms which were excited upon the subject were not the offspring of sound wisdom, and had not any foundation in fact. Impressed, however, as he then was, with those doubts, yet wishing to pay a due deference to the opinions of that parent whose name he should ever respect, and being unwilling to hazard his own judgment in opposition to them, he gave at the time a silent vote against the measure. In acting thus upon that occasion, he trusted he had done nothing which was unbecoming, or which could now be thrown in his face as inconsistent with his present line of conduct.
433
434
435
436
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, there was one point in the speech of the hon. baronet who had introduced this motion, in reference to the Union, to which he was desirous to advert, as he had been intimately connected with that transaction. But before he did so, he could not refrain from offering some observations on what had fallen from the learned Solicitor-general. The admirable exposition of the Treaty of Limerick, which had been given by the hon. baronet, had been characterized by the learned Solicitor-general as a most unstatesman-like view of it. Now, he did imagine, that when the learned gentleman applied such an epithet to what he considered a masterly and statesman-like view of that transaction, he would have been prepared to justify his description of it, not by a point of special pleading, but by some special act of parliament which followed that treaty. He was sure the hon. and learned gentleman must feel, that he had put not alone an unstatesman-like, but an illegal, construction upon the articles of that treaty. He would beg to call his attention to the words of the second article of the Treaty of Limerick. This article, the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to think was confined exclusively
437
438
439
440
441
seriatim
"The Protestant, so long as the Establishment remains separate, and is impeached on local grounds will feel his power, his property, and his establishment insecure, and must naturally look with distrust, and jealousy, on the Catholic. The Catholic will feel proportionate alienation and resentment, and will continually urge his claims against the establishment of the minority; and there appears no hope whatever of a termination to distrust, jealousy, and alarm. But so soon as the Church Establishment of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one Church, the Protestant will feel him-self at once identified with the population
442
"The Protestants would of course lay aside their jealousies and distrusts, being certain that against any attempt to endanger the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, the whole strength of the United parliament would be exerted, and, on the other hand, every Catholic who is a friend to the connexion with Great Britain, but is desirous to obtain any indulgence, and be admitted into a participation of every privilege and benefit consistent with that connection, would be confident that their cause would be candidly and impartially considered by a United Parliament, the great body of which would be free from those apprehensions, jealousies, and inveterate animosities interwoven into the frame and constitution of the separate Parliament of Ireland."
443
"Ireland requires a legislature founded on a broader and more liberal basis to administer important laws to all, and reconcile security with justice. In the United parliament, right may be done unaccompanied with wrong, Irish Catholics may be invested with their political capacities without the slightest danger to Protestant establishment or property. He considered the probable admission of the Catholics as the principal recommendation of the measure of Union, when disposed to have an article to that effect, but would not hazard the measure, and would expect it as a natural consequence of the Union."
444
445
446
"Whatever was at first the subject of conversation, it soon turned to the impending measure of Union, and with me generally to the interest the Catholic would derive from it. He always called the exclusion of Catholics the odious monopoly, and repeatedly urged that the measure was the only means of getting rid of it. But he further, particularly on two occasions, desired me to speak to all the Catholics I knew, and which I did, to urge them to place confidence in him for success. 'If they will only place their trust in me, it will be to their best advantage.' Of course I repeated this to every Catholic I knew, and among the rest to lord Fingall, who will remember it, and to whom he had said this and more. I recollect also, that Dr. Moylan told me that lord Cornwallis had spoken to him to the same effect. I do not believe that lord Cornwallis was capable of deception; and inferred then, as I must now, that this had been assented to by both the king and the cabinet (and though this did not amount to an absolute pledge in words, yet, from a gentleman and a chief governor, it could not be interpreted otherwise), I cannot attribute the failure in any other way than to the subsequent state of the king's mind."
"Speaking" observed Mr. Howard "of the inflamed state of the mind between sect and sect, I said that I thought it was owing to him that it had not come to the full extent of mutual extermination, which I conceived had been daily gaining ground. This, lord Cornwallis said, must have been the event. I trusted, however, that with respect to the Catholics, as it appeared to be the interest to conciliate them, that would be an object of the Union, and that without it, I thought the Union was nothing. He repeated that certainly without it the Union was nothing; that it was, however, impossible to bring any thing forward before, because in an Irish parliament it would not be carried. I said that, however, the silence and mystery created both uneasiness and impatience. He answered, that he believed it to be so, but that he thought the Catholics had shown a great deal of temper, more than he could have expected, by some joining for it, none appearing
447
448
449
"The leading part of his majesty's ministers, finding insurmountable obstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body, whilst in office, have felt it impossible to continue in administration, under their inability to propose it, with the circumstances necessary to carrying the measure with all its advantages; and they have retired from his majesty's service, considering this line of conduct as most likely to contribute to its ultimate success. The Catholic body will, therefore, see how much their future hopes must depend upon strengthening their cause by good conduct in the mean time. They will prudently consider their prospects as arising from the persons who now espouse their interests, and compare them with those which they could look to from any other quarter: they may rely on the zealous support of all those who retire, and of many who remain in office, when it can be given with a prospect of success. They may be assured that Mr. Pitt will do his utmost to establish their cause in the public favour, and prepare the way to their finally attaining their objects; and the Catholics will feel, that as Mr. Pitt could not concur in a hopeless attempt to force it now, that he must at all times repress, with the same decision as if he held an adverse opinion, any unconstitutional conduct in the Catholic body. Under these circumstances, it was not to be doubted that the Catholics will take the most loyal, dutiful, and patient, line of conduct; that they will not suffer themselves to be led into measures which can, by any construction, give a handle to the opposers of their wishes, either to
450
451
"Should the necessary concessions be decided on, the advantages of its proceeding from government will naturally suggest themselves. Much benefit might arise from the boon being attributable to that settlement under which we are hereafter to live. It would make the Catholics in Ireland feel that their exclusion has been the necessary consequence of a separate constitution, and that their advantages have arisen out of an incorporation with Great Britain. It is idle to hope that Dissenters of any denomination or description can ever be so zealously attached subjects as those who are of the established religion; but the question is, what system, without hazarding the power of the state itself, is best calculated, if not warmly to attach, at least to disarm, the hostility of those classes in the community who cannot be got rid of, and must be governed. This latter consideration is of most pressing importance with respect to Ireland. That kingdom must in fact be considered as a country of security, and if we are to indulge an expectation that it may be redeemed from its present miseries, it must be by the adoption of some system, which, without relaxing the energy of government, shall relieve the public mind from its fundamental principles of perpetual struggle. Unless the power and stability of the united government shall afford the means in safety of adopting some principles of compromise amongst the contending factions, the difficulty of governing the country will rapidly increase, as every war adds materially to the relative importance of the dissenting interests. If the same internal struggle continues, Great Britain will derive little beyond an increasing expense from the Union. If
452
453
454
455
Mr. Moore
said, he felt it his duty to make one observation upon what had been thrown out with respect to the Treaty of Limerick. It was not his intention to discuss that subject fully; the able manner in which the learned Solicitor-general had answered the arguments founded upon that treaty precluded the necessity of his adding any thing upon the subject. He wished, however, to call the attention of the House to a cotemporary authority, a proclamation that was issued by the Irish parliament, which, making use of the same language as the treaty, said, that they should be allowed the free exercise of their religious worship. He would ask the House whether the terms meant to imply any thing of a political nature, and whether their meaning must not be limited by the preamble of the proclamation, which was confined to religion? He would now add a word or two upon the line of argument which had been pursued by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. "With respect to Mr. Pitt, he would say, that that statesman told them that in argument, and in argument alone, the Union would give facilities, not so much to the accomplishment of the measure, as to the fair discussion of it. He would appeal to the authority of Mr. Pitt himself, not only for the correctness of the spirit of this proposition, but for carrying the proposition farther than he had stated it. Mr. Pitt, in holding out the advantages which would result from the Union, not only held out to the Catholics, but to the Protestants also, the prospect of a fair and calm discussion of their rights. Mr. Pitt, on the 13th of May, 1805, in reply to what had fallen from Mr. Fox, said "I also felt that, in no possible case, previous to the Union, could the privileges now demanded be given, consistently with a due
456
457
458
459
460
461
Mr. Doherty
said, he trusted the House would excuse in him the natural anxiety which he felt to state his sentiments on the present occasion, and the more especially, as he never before had addressed the House on this question. The anxiety he felt to be permitted to say a few words, did not arise from any expectation on his part, that he could add any thing to what had been already urged upon that important subject; that he could by any new fact, or any new argument, give the slightest additional weight to those of the speakers who, on that and on other occasions, had addressed the House. For many years he had been an attentive observer of all that had been passing in Ireland, and he trusted he had observed what had been passing on that distressful scene, with a temper which entitled him to be called impartial. He had mingled with the ardent and the violent of both parties, he hoped without having imbibed the prejudices of either, he threfore trusted that the House would bear with him, while he shortly stated the
462
463
464
465
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that his only apology for obtruding himself on the House was one which he shared in common with his hon. and learned friend who had last spoken, as, since the subject had been under discussion, he had never offered his sentiments on the general question, although he had frequently done so on incidental matters connected with it.
466
467
468
469
470
The debate was then, on the motion of sir Robert Inglis, adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 9, 1828.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned debate on sir Francis Burdett's motion,
"That this House do resolve itself into a committee, to consider the state of the Laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects in Great Britain and Ire-
471
Sir R. H. Inglis
rose, and addressed the House as follows
*
Mr. Speaker
: when, at one o'clock this morning, I proposed that the further discussion of this question should be postponed to the present time, I should, if I had consulted my own inclination only, have greatly preferred to solicit the attention of the House to the observations which at the time I was desirous of addressing to you. But, though I have always experienced the indulgence of the House, I felt, that, at such an hour, and after such a debate, I could not hope to receive, and certainly had no right to ask, their patience.
ad verecundiam
*
472
s
s
l
l
caste
*
*
473
which the duke of Norfolk, the premier duke and earl of England, is withheld from his seat in parliament, with the privation by which a freeholder of 39
s
474
*
*
475
*
*
476
i. e.
*
*
† The last words of Tyrconnel were, "not to let things go to extremities, but to accept of such terms as could be got;" "and his words," says Burnet, "seemed to weigh more after his death than in his life-time, for the Irish began generally to say, that they must take care of themselves, and not be made sacrifices to serve the ends of the French." [Burnet, ii. p. 80.] This is further evident from king James's own Memoirs. On the surrender of Galway in the preceding month, 20th July, 1691, Tyrconnel, after making all preparations for the defence
477
of Limerick, "dispatched an express to St. Germain's, to beg either a speedy succour, or leave to make conditions for themselves."—[King James's Memoirs, ii. 459]. He goes on, "but the enemie pressed too hard to give any great hopes they (the Irish) could wait the relief which was to come from a country so remote: they made my lord Tyrconnel aprehend the army would capitulate in spite of his teeth; and many persons of distinction were so much inclined that way, as had like to have brought it about even before the enemie apeared in sight of the town."—ii. 460. Again, in p, 462. The Irish officers were so impatient to make terms with the English army before Limerick, (1691), that Tyrconnel had great difficulty in managing them: "but he pressed them only to have patience twenty days, there being no likelyhood of their being forced so soon, and that in so much time an answer might be had from the king:"—but, whilst he was thus struggling, he was seized with apoplexy, on St. Lawrence's day, and died two or three days after, 14th August, 1691.—See Story's Wars in Ireland, ii. p. 187.
478
*
*
479
*
*
† Mr. O'Connell is reported to have said [Speeches, 12mo. Dublin, 1828. p. 53], "Yet Mr. Peel pretends to have discovered that all the immunities guaranteed by the Treaty of limerick are included in a power merely to pray. What impudent nonsense! How could that
480
*
l
be granted or taken away?
*
*
*
† Story, vol. ii. p. 200.
‡ By the proclamation of the lords justices, dated Jan. 1692, this phrase is explained to mean "housekeepers with estates of freehold of one hundred pounds a year"—Story, vol. ii. p. 298.
481
*
*
482
*
*
‡ Speeches of Daniel O'Connell, esq. and, Richard Shiel, esq,—Dublin, 1828. p. 48.
483
*
*
484
*
*
pari passu,
pace domini regis,
485
totidem literis,
*
in that particular"
in the exercise of their religion;"
*
486
*
*
*
*
*
*
† Brief Review of the Question, whether the Articles of Limerick have been violated, by Arthur Browne, esq. representative in parliament for the University of Dublin.—Dublin, 8vo. 1783.
‡ 17 and 18 Car. 2nd, c. 6. § 6. See Browne, p. 33.
487
*
*
† Leland, iii. 466.
‡ Browne, p. 33.
§ Curry, p. 93. in Browne, p. 23.
║It appears by Story, ii. 165, that major general Talmash was believed to be inclined o lay aside the treaty, i. e. not to grant even such terms to the garrison and town.
488
489
*
*
490
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
‡ Journals, 4th of March, 1692, Vol. x. p. 842–3.
‡ The King's Answer is dated 10th of March 1692, Journals, x. p. 848.
491
492
*
*
† Burnet, ii. 81.
‡ Speeches, 1828, p. 54.
§ See Story, ii. 257. See also Continuation of Rapin, xiii. 474.
║ Speeches, 1828, p. 55.
493
*
*
† The protest in the Irish House of Lords against this bill was signed by fourteen peers, of whom seven were bishops; and seems to have been founded in some measure upon the injury which would arise to property by expunging, at such an interval, words introduced into the treaty at its ratification. "Because we apprehend many Protestants may, and will, suffer by this bill, in their just rights and pretensions, by reason of their having purchased and lent money upon the credit of the said articles, and as we conceive in several other respects." Lords' Journals (Ireland), 23 Sept. 1697, vol. i. p. 635.
494
*
*
† See Art. 1st, 5th, 12th, besides their majesty's own reference to it in their words of confirmation.
495
*
*
496
*
*
497
*
comme ci-devant,
*
498
*
*
† Arguments for and against an Union between Great Britain and Ireland, considered Dublin and London, Dec. 1798.
499
*
*
† "In discussing the subject, I must often allude to a speech published as Mr. Pitt's, and as various editions of it have been circulated, I shall select that to which the government has given the sanction of it's authority, the one printed by the king's printer, under their direction, of which ten thousand copies have been circulated gratis by them, and all of which have been paid for at the public expense." Speech of the right hon. John Foster, 11th April, 1799, p. 1. London, 1799.
‡ Speech of the right hon. W. Pitt, on the Union, 31st Jan. 1799, pp. 39, 40. Wright. London. 1799.
500
501
*
*
*
*
*
‡ Plowden's "Ireland since the Union," vol. ii., p. 120.
502
*
*
*
Ibid.
503
*
animus impon-
*
504
entis,
conscience
judgment,
505
*
*
506
507
*
*
† Berkley's Miscellanies, p. 108–9.
‡ He was of the House of Ormonde [see evidence before the Commons, 1825]. His work is entitled "Justification of the Tenets of the Roman Catholic Religion, and a Refutation of the Charges brought against its Clergy, by the Right Rev. Lord Bishop of Cloyne. By Dr. James Butler." 1787.
508
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
† Butler, p. 10.
‡ Butler, p. 14. See a similar passage by the late Dr, Milner, in the Appendix p. 168.
509
*
*
† Dr. Doyle's letter to Mr. Robertson, in Letters on the Re-union of the Churches, p. 4.
510
*
*
*
*
*
† Journals, 1824, p. 446.
‡ "Gratitude soon wears out," as Wolfe Tone says, speaking of the feelings of his Roman Catholic clients in respect to the concessions of 1793, while he was pointing out to them other and higher objects, i. 187—"When Mr. Secretary Hobart pressed the Roman Catholics of that day to say that they were satisfied, those who were willing to say so argued that the minister did not say the Catholics were to acquiesce for ever under the measures intended, but only that the public mind should not be irritated; that every accession of strength enabled them the better to secure the remainder," &c.—Wolfe Tone, i. 93,
§ Votes, 1827, p. 632,
511
*
*
512
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
† Irish Debates, vol. i. p. 257–259.
513
*
*
† Feb. 15, 1782. Irish Debates, vol. i. p. 243.
‡ In the collected works, vol. i. p. 100, the phrase is vague, and dilated "into every privilege compatible with the constitution." If the phrase were altered by Mr. Grattan on the ground of any growing disinclination to "the Protestant ascendancy," it is a fresh proof of the hazard of taking the opinions of any advocate of the Roman Catholic claims as a given standard at any one time: if the phrase were altered not by him, but by others, it loses all the authority due to his name. I give a definition of Protestant ascendancy by a high constitutional Irish whig in 1792. "By Protestant ascendancy" (said Mr. Sheridan, cousin of R. B. Sheridan), "he meant a Protestant king, to whom only, being Protestant, we owed allegiance; a Protestant House of Peers, composed of Protestant lords spiritual in Protestant succession, of Protestant lords temporal with Protestant inheritance; a Protestant House of Commons elected and deputed by Protestant constituents; in short, a Protestant legislative, a Protestant judicial, and a Protestant executive, in all and each of their varieties, degrees, and gradations." Irish Debates, vol. xii. p. 135, 18th Febr. 1792. Of Sheridan, then member for Charlemont, see Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, vol. ii. p. 316–320.
514
*
*
515
*
*
† If every state ought to establish the religious sect which is the most numerous, the establishment, so elected by the state, may vary every year, or with every parliament. The true principle appears to me to be this, viz. that the governing powers of a state, being responsible to God for the well-being of the people committed by Him to their charge, should give to that people such facilities of education and of worship as they, the governors, think to be most consistent with truth and wisdom; leaving to the people to choose, as they will, any other modes either of instruction or of religion.
516
*
*
† Letters of J. K. L. p. 35.
‡ Letter to Mr. Robertson, in Letters on the Re-union of the Churches, p. 47.
§ Speech on Church Rates, 1827, p. 12. It is no more "foreign" to Dublin, than it is to Cornwall or to Cumberland. The whole passage is this: he is speaking of the Church-rate Bill—"In fact, this Act was stolen upon us by the means of that ignorance of what is going on in a foreign parliament, which that most mischievous measure, the Union, necessarily produced."
517
*
*
†Dr. Phillpotts has quoted the unanimous thanks of the Meeting at Ballinasloe, (present "His Grace the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam in the Chair,") to Mr. Shiel, "the pride and bulwark of his suffering fellow-countrymen."—Phillpots' Letter on the Coronation Oath, 1828, p. 201.
‡ Edinburgh Review, vol. xlvi. p. 253. "The friends of the Catholics have, indeed, too long kept out of sight the real difficulty which impedes the progress of all measures for their relief. There has been a nervous reluctance—perhaps a natural unwillingness, to approach this subject. Yet it is of the utmost importance that it should at last be fully understood. The difficulty, we believe, is neither with the King nor with the Cabinet—neither with the Commons, nor with the Lords. It is with the people of England; and not with the corrupt nor with the servile, not with the rude
518
ad verecundiam,
adverecundiam,
and uneducated, not with the dissolute and turbulent—but with the great body of the middling orders; of those who live in comfort, and have received some instruction. Of the higher classes the decided majority is beyond all dispute, with the Catholics. The lower classes care nothing at all about the question. It is among those whose influence is generally asserted for the most salutary purposes—among those, from whom liberal statesmen have, in general, received the strongest support—among those who feel the deepest detestation of oppression and corruption, that erroneous opinions on this subject are most frequent.
"They think as the most enlightened men in England thought seventy or eighty years ago. Pulteney and Pelham would no more have given political power to Papists than to Ourang-outangs."
519
*
*
† Foreign and Domestic View of the Catholic Question, by H. Gally Knight, Esq. 1828.
‡ Letter to a Layman on the Coronation Oath, 1828.
520
*
*
† Supplementary Papers, 1817, p. 41–43.
‡ Eighteenth Section of the Regulation dated Stockholm, February 10th. 1810. Supplementary Papers, 1817, p. 43.
521
*
*
‡ Appendix to Report (1816) p. 464.
522
*
*
523
*
*
524
quoad hoc
*
*
525
526
527
*
Sir John Newport
said, he could assure the House that he would only trespass on its attention for a few moments. Indeed, he should be guilty of great presumption were he, after all the indulgence which he had received at its hands, to venture upon occupying their time on so important a question at all unnecessarily. He would refrain from entering into the numerous questions which hon. gentlemen had raised upon the construction of the Treaty of Limerick; for he was content to leave it on the argumentative explanation of his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, on the one side, and on the bare and naked statement of the hon. baronet who had just sat down, on the other. He made this declaration with one exception only; and that was, that he was happy to find that the hon. baronet who spoke last was not inclined to follow the precedent of bishop Doppin, who, shortly after the signature of the Treaty of Limerick, had preached a sermon against the faithful observance of it, and had publicly defended the doctrine, that no doctrine should be kept with recreants. The hon. baronet had disclaimed that maxim, and had marked his reprobation of that abominable sermon in the most pointed terms. He would not refer to times so distant as those in which the Treaty of Limerick was passed; but would come at once to the period of
*
528
529
The Hon. William Duncombe
said, that entertaining, as he did, a strong and decided opinion upon this subject, and representing, as he did, those who entertained opinions equally strong and decided with himself, he could not reconcile it to his sense of public duty to give a silent vote upon this occasion. It had been stated, during- the debate of last night, by an hon. gentleman below him, who had addressed the House with great effect, that although the Roman Catholic religion was still unchanged and unaltered in its principles, he considered it to be greatly modified, mitigated, and controlled by the spirit of the age in its practice. Now, although he was ready to subscribe to the first part of the hon. member's proposition, he could not see any reason for sub-
530
semper eadem
531
Mr. Villiers Stuart
said, he was ready to take up the mode of discussing this subject which had been suggested by the hon. gentleman opposite, and was accordingly prepared to do so without reference to the principle of abstract right, and merely upon the point of expediency. Agreeing, therefore, on this basis for the argument, he desired no more remote reference than the act of Union furnished in support of the view which he was prepared to take of this question. Among the great variety of feelings and opinions which prevailed in Ireland, with reference to her moral
532
533
534
535
536
537
"Thus have I politicly begun my reign,
And 'tis my hope to end successfully:
My faulcon now is sharp, and passing empty;
And till she stoop, she must not be full gorg'd."
538
Mr. Leslie Foster
began by asserting, that he was no Orangeman, belonged to no party, and had never been at a public meeting where this question had been discussed. He saw a specific danger in. the proposition of the hon. baronet; and he had not yet seen, nor been able to understand, what preservative was intended. It was now nearly twenty years since he had first resisted the claims of the Catholics, who required political power and to become agents in the constitution of the country. The statements he had then made were, by many, considered visionary, and especially the anticipation in which he had indulged, that the time would come when the Catholic clergy would be seen exerting their influence at elections. His fears had been verified, and at an earlier
539
540
541
542
" Sed te
" Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam, cæloque locamus."
543
544
Mr. Doherty
in explanation, said, that his observations had been applied, not to an individual, but to a class of members, whose opinions might, possibly, be the means of dispossessing them of their seats. For should they persevere in the maintenance of such opinions, the Catholics would make the votes of members on this question (most unwisely as he thought) the sole criterion of their merits as representatives in Parliament.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he hoped for the indulgence of the House, as the present was the first occasion that he had taken to express his sentiments upon this subject. His hon. friend who had just addressed the House, appeared to him to
545
546
" Sed te,
"Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam, cæloque locamus:"
"Nullum numen abest si sit prudentia."
547
548
Sir James Mackintosh
said, it was once more his pleasing duty to support this question, which had been advocated by all the wise, all the great, and all the good men, who had adorned that House and done honour to their country, since the termination of the last century. It had been well remarked by an hon. gentleman who was himself opposed to the measure, that such a combination of intellectual superiority had never before been united for the attainment of any single object. Now, he did not think so highly of his own judgment as not to feel great relief when he found it strengthened and corroborated by the judgments and opinions of such an illustrious body of men. He did not think so ill of the moral and intellectual character of England and of Ireland, as to believe it possible that this whole class of persons, comprising her first statesmen and most celebrated men, had acted contrary to their substantial interests for the period of eight-and-twenty years. If he could really believe that such a conspiracy had been formed, and by such men, what idea should he then entertain of the character of the English intellect? What was this question, upon which, during this long period, all these great men had uniformly agreed? It was not a matter of speculation, but of civil policy and national redress. The whole first class of statesmen in this kingdom, who differed, perhaps, upon all other questions, combined upon this. This was not an appeal to authority against reason. The concurrence of the judgments of so many great men respecting this question, was a proof in itself that it was founded upon reason, and based upon the immutable principles of justice. Otherwise they must suppose that the splendid array of the greatest characters that adorned this country in modern days had combined to maintain a delusion upon this question; and the absurdity of such a supposition was too evident to require any comment.
549
550
551
auto da fe
552
Hœc sapientia quondam.
in bella internecine
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
prœmunire
564
565
566
567
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the right hon. gentleman who had last spoken held out little encouragement to discussion, on the part of those opposed to him. According to his view, those who happened to think the laws which he desired to get rid of connected with the security of the Protestant Church, stood opposed to such a mass of authority, as well as such a force of general opinion, as ought to induce them at once to defer, almost without taking the trouble to exercise their judgments. But though he admitted the combination of talent by which those who resisted the question before the House were opposed, and the truth and the sincerity of the conversions which had recently taken place upon it, still those in whose minds no disposition to change existed, but who rather found their original belief strengthened by consi-
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
sub silentio:
575
sub silentio.
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
Lord W. Paget
said, he should vote for the motion of the hon. baronet, and felt convinced that, if the Catholics were admitted to equal rights, they would prove as loyal and as grateful subjects as any in the realm. He was anxious to vote in favour of a cause, the success of which he conscientiously felt to be intimately connected with the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and the well-being of the empire.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
rose to explain. The right hon. gentleman, he said, appeared to think that he had stated his belief of the existence of a combination among the Catholic population of Ireland, excited by the influence of the priesthood. Now, what he said was, that the spiritual influence of the Catholic priests was under the political dominion of the Catholic leaders, and that the entire population
589
Mr. Brownlow
said, that when he considered the manner in which the question had been introduced to the notice of the House by the hon. baronet, and reflected on the way in which it had been conducted up to the present moment, he could not but entertain a hope of its ultimate success. He should not say one word in relation to the Treaty of Limerick. The right hon. gentleman, after what had been adduced by the hon. baronet on the subject, was, no doubt, justified in discussing it in the copious manner he had that night done. At all events, he could readily conceive how much easier and more agreeable it was to do so, than, as a British minister, to deal with the necessities of the present case and period. With respect to the Union it was not his intention to add any thing to what had been already said. It might be desirable to know what were the views of Mr. Pitt and the cabinet of the day in regard to the connection between that measure and Catholic Emancipation; but it was still more important to learn what the right hon. gentleman opposite and the present cabinet were disposed to do with respect to the latter question. The proposition of the hon. baronet affected the interests of seven millions of people, who came before the House, praying to be admitted to equal rights with the rest of their fellow-subjects. He never could admit that there was any thing unconstitutional in the case which the petitioners brought before the House. It was certainly the duty of a government to protect itself from those holding opinions hostile to its interests. No one, for instance, would give the office of chancellor of the Exchequer to an Anabaptist, who held that all things should be in com-
590
591
592
The Hon. William Lamb
said, that the situation which he had the honour to hold in the government of Ireland, imposed upon him the necessity of trespassing, for a short period, upon the attention of hon. members; and he could not avoid feeling that the repeated discussions of this question—argued, as it had been, over and over, and considered in every possible point of view—justified him in the determination to be brief in his observations; and, considering this question, as he should do, with reference to the times in which we lived, and the circumstances under which we were now called upon to consider it, he felt himself bound to exclude many of those topics which had been, on former occasions, introduced. He should leave out of his arguments all those laws passed at the Reformation and the Revolution; not because he had no respect for those laws, but because, if parliament should think that they were irreconcileable with present times, and that it would be wise to change them, parliament had unquestionably the power so to do. Those laws were not irrevocable, and might be changed. He should also omit from his arguments all comments on the spirit manifested by the Roman Catholic laity and clergy; because if he admitted it was hostile and to be condemned, his opinion was, that it was aggravated by exclusion, and might be softened by conciliation. The only means of meeting, the certain method of averting, all danger was by some such measure as that proposed by the hon. baronet. If the removal of disqualifications was to be considered as not consistent with a Protestant government, he should deeply regret it; because it would not augur well for the future peace and tranquillity of the country. He would say to the British House of com-
593
594
595
Mr. C. Grant
rose to address the House, but the cries of "question," "with draw," and "adjourn," became so loud and general, as to prevent the right hon. gentleman from being heard. After several ineffectual attempts to gain attention, he resumed his seat. Lord Sandon then moved the adjournment of the debate to Monday; which was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 12, 1828.
SALE OF GAME BILL.]
The marquis of Salisbury
The Earl of Winchelsea
said, it had been contended, that the crime of poaching would be diminished by legalizing the sale of game. He, however, still entertained the opinion which he held last year, that such a measure would have a contrary effect. He was convinced, that the greater the facility which was given for the disposal of property stolen, the more would that property be stolen. He could not agree in the opinion that the great increase of crime was owing to the game-laws, because it would be found that crime had increased in those districts where there were no game-preserves, in the same proportion as in those where
596
The Earl of Darnley
thought the principle upon which the bill was framed was the right one. He could not agree with his noble friend, that making game saleable, would increase poaching, any more than that the taking the duty off tobacco would increase smuggling. The present law was violated, not only by persons of low condition, but by titled gentlemen, and he put it as an
argumentum ad verecundiam,
The House divided: For the original motion, Present 48; Proxies 21–69. For the amendment, Present; 43 Proxies, 19–62. Majority 7. The bill was accordingly read a third time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 12. 1828.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned debate on the question, "That this House do resolve itself into a committee, to consider the state of the laws, affecting his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland; with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be con-
597
Mr. Charles Grant
rose and said:— Sir, before I proceed to offer to the House the remarks which I feel called upon to make upon this question, I beg to express my regret at having offered myself to the House at so late an hour of the discussion on Friday last. I hope I am not guilty of obtruding myself improperly upon the House; and I beg to assure those who hear me, that nothing but an anxiety not to give a silent vote upon the question could have induced me to act as I did upon the occasion. I now hope for the indulgence of the House, while I express the opinions which I have entertained ever since I first came into parliament, and which, upon the coolest consideration which it has been in my power to give the subject, I still entertain upon this great question. I have narrowly watched the working of the present system of exclusion, both in this country and in Ireland; and I make allusion to this fact, in order that hon. members may know the very peculiar situation in which I am placed, and the grounds upon which I have held my present opinions, unchanged. The question now before us has been regularly brought under the consideration of the House during a long period, and upon every succeeding occasion it has become more and more connected with the state of Ireland. At this moment, we cannot enter upon the discussion without looking directly at the internal state of that country; and the more we do so, the more necessary it becomes for us to enter into an inquiry, with a view to our coming to some satisfactory results.
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
experto credite quantus.
605
— "quacunque viam virtute petivit,
Successum dea dira negat."
606
"—Paribus se legibus ambæ
Invictæ gentes æterna in fœdera mittant."
Colonel Davies
said, he was anxious to be indulged for a few moments, while he stated, for the first time, the opinions he entertained on this subject. When he first heard of the motion he was disposed to give it his decided negative. He supposed that little new, either in fact or argument, could be adduced in its support. He had been of opinion, that the question was not intimately connected with the existing situation of Ireland, and that the distresses of that country arose from other
607
608
609
Mr. Henry Grattan
deprecated the reasoning of the hon. member for Worcester, in denying the existence of unalienable rights on the part of the people. Would the hon. gentleman deny that we had a right to liberty? If so, he might with equal justice go one step further, and deny that we had a right to our existence. It was not from the articles of treaties, but from the principles of the constitution that we derived those unalienable rights, which the hon. gentleman had ventured to question and deny. The question of emancipation
610
611
612
613
"Hœreticos proposse persequar et impugnabo,"
" Hœreticos, proposse persequar et humiliabo."
"persequar"
"impugnabo,"
humiliabo,
614
concordat
" Quæ regio in terris nostri non pinna laboris."
"nomen inter hœreticos non nominundum"
615
616
617
venerabiles
venerati
l.
l.
618
l.
l.
—" I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood."
619
ferœ natureâ,
620
Lord Ennismore
said, it might appear
621
622
623
624
Mr. George Bankes
said, he could not accede to the proposition he had heard so often advanced in the course of that debate; namely, that emancipation, as it was called, would carry with it whatever securities would be desired. He had listened to the speeches of his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that evening, and of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, on Friday evening, with some pleasure, but mingled, in no inconsiderable degree, with pain and disapprobation. They had told the House very decidedly, nay, imperatively, what must be done, and he had expected they would tell the House also how it was to be done. His right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had particularly failed in that respect; and when he considered that his right hon. friend held a station in which it was his duty, mainly to direct his talents to the consideration of the interests of that part of the empire which was most likely to be affected by this question; and when he considered that his right hon. friend had told the House, and the same assertion had been confidently repeated that evening by his other right hon. friend, that this measure, and this measure only, was the remedy for all the evils of Ireland, he thought the House had some right to expect, as this measure must have been under his right hon. friend's consideration so earnestly and so long, that he would have been able not only to tell the House that they must do it, but also how it was to be done. It might be very well for
625
626
627
628
629
630
premunire,
631
Mr. J. E. Denison
said, he could not conceive by what process of reasoning the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had arrived at the conclusion, that nothing ought to be done in regard to this question. What better witnesses, or what greater authority, could the right hon. gentleman require than the Solicitor-general for Ireland, and the Secretary for that country? As to the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), it seemed to be a mere recapitulation of the opinions of those who had preceded him: the only arguments which it contained were drawn, as it appeared to him, from those brought forward in the course of the debate, and in this manner, the arguments which the right hon. gentleman had made against the motion, were weaker than those which he had made for it. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the House had asked, how the conciliation of the Catholics could be carried into effect? His answer to that question was,—by the House appointing the committee moved for by the hon. baronet. Great apprehensions were entertained by the hon. gentleman, of the admission of Catholic members, as if they would unite and thwart the measures of government. Had any inconvenience been produced by the introduction of the Scotch and Irish members into that House? "But," said the hon. member, "do we not see many instances of union and confederation amongst them?" That might be a good argument for expelling the Irish members from the House altogether; but it was no argument for the maintenance of that system of exclusion which it was the object of this motion to put down. The hon. member had pointed their attention to the example of Mexico. He, on the contrary, would call the attention of the House to a country belonging to the same continent, but to a different division of it. While they saw in Canada, great divisions and differences, while they beheld the disputes there carried to a high pitch and serious consequences resulting from them, there was one ingredient absent from this civil turmoil. There were no differences upon the subject of religion. In Canada there existed a mixed population of Catholics and Protestants, but they all enjoyed equal rights and liberties. It could not be denied
632
633
Mr. North
said, he had been anxious to follow the hon. member for Corfe Castle; for, differing, as he did, so widely from him in his conclusions, he had heard nothing which had given him so much pleasure as that hon. member's speech. Indeed, he hailed that speech as a happy omen of the success of the present motion. The hon. member had endeavoured to obtain a triumph over parallels and comparisons; while he quarrelled not with the arguments of the supporters of the question, he thought it not beneath him to deal with metaphors and similes, while he shrunk from grappling with the arguments upon which the measure was founded. Did that hon. member, when he asked the House what was the mode in which they would consent to Catholic Emancipation, conceive that that of itself was the question before the House? Or did he suppose that the quere might not be retorted upon him, and that he might not be asked, whether the real and practical question before the House was,—not whether they were prepared to emancipate the Roman Catholics, but whether they were determined to effect the tranquillization of Ireland? If the hon. member should object to Catholic Emancipation as the mode of tranquillizing Ireland, could he point out any other mode by which that country could be tranquillized? What was his scheme?—in what consisted his plan? That this House should go on considering this question year after year?— that they should debate it, night after night, and session after session, and never come to a decision?—that they should produce a balanced government and a balanced legislature, rendering every man who otherwise might be neutral or passive interested on one side or other, and each discussion of the question furnishing new topics for irritation and division? This was the hon. member's plan for tranquillizing Ireland! The House should pause long before they adopted such a course. They could not keep back the question. He was glad that they had at length put aside the Treaty of Limerick, and the engagements said to have been made at the Union, or whatever other matters might have been recorded in history, and that the question was put
634
635
s.
636
637
Admiral Evans
expressed his determination to oppose any further concession to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. When he recollected the conduct of that body in 1798, he was not inclined to trust them with power. In that year, one hundred and twenty-five persons were massacred
638
639
Colonel Chichester
said, that the gallant admiral, though he had talked of the massacre on the bridge of Wexford, and had referred to the feelings of the inhabitants of that town on the subject of Catholic emancipation, was not, he believed, very conversant with the sentiments of those whom he had mentioned. The gallant admiral was not sent to parliament by a large population, but by the mayor and a few burgesses of Wexford. Now, he was perfectly prepared to deny that the gallant admiral had uttered the real sentiments of the town of Wexford.
Admiral Evans
said, that the position of the hon. member was not tenable; because the town of Wexford contained ten thousand inhabitants, and the freemen amounted to upwards of two hundred and seventy [a laugh.]
The Attorney-general
said, that the objection made to the observations of the gallant admiral, on account of the paucity of his constituents, had no relevancy whatever to the question, It would be very
640
damus, petimitsque vicissim."
641
642
Mr. Brougham
intimated, that he was reading an important document.
The Attorney-general
said, that if his learned friend had an important document, he also (producing a book) had another. When it was contended that, by the terms of the treaty, every Roman Catholic in Ireland had a right to sit in parliament, and to serve in office, it was exceedingly strange that Sir Toby Butler, that great lawyer, should leave those important points unnoticed. No stipulation was made with respect to the right of sitting in parliament and of serving in office, but it was stipulated, that every nobleman and gentleman in Ireland might ride, carry a sword, and display a pair of pistols. He might ride on a bay colt or a white colt (Sir Toby Butler did not set forth the colour of the charger or palfrey), but the right was secured to every man in Ireland to ride a horse, to carry a sword, and to have pistols in his holsters. The hon. baronet had said, he should like to see this point argued in a court of law—but if it were brought before lord Tenterden or Mr. Justice Bailey, either of those learned persons would say, "It is too much to say that, under this treaty, such rights can be claimed, when the question of eligibility is wholly left out of it—when the most important part of the subject is not even hinted at. The Roman Catholic may ride about on a palfrey, and carry a sword and pistols—that is provided for; but there is no provision in this treaty which gives him a right to sit in parliament and to serve in office." He was very sure that, if the subject were entertained judicially, the court would hear only one side of the question, and would not ask the counsel on the opposite side to answer it. He concurred entirely with his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department; namely, that if it could be shown that the right claimed by the Roman Catholics was borne out by the Treaty of Limerick, the argument was at an end. There would then be no use in abstract reasoning, with respect to the expediency or inexpediency of conceding those claims. It would be unnecessary to show that expediency, because the compact would give the right. And he thought his right hon. friend acted wisely, when, he saw that the Treaty of Limerick did not give any such right, to apply himself particularly to that point. It was a
643
substratum
644
veto,
645
646
647
648
ipso facto,
fulcra,
649
650
Index Expurgatorius,
Index Expurgatorius,
fulcrum,
de hœretico comburendo.
651
badinage
652
653
" Oremus pacem, et dextras tendamus inermes."
654
Mr. Wallace
said, that although he certainly was not one of the young and highly-gifted members, of whom the learned Attorney-general had spoken so tauntingly, he would beg leave to trespass shortly on the attention of the House. The last observation which had fallen from the learned gentleman appeared not a little extraordinary. The learned gentleman had used an expression which conveyed rather the watch-word of a party than the meaning of any thing which had been addressed to the House in the course of the present debate; namely, the word "intimidation." In his conscience he believed, that no hon. gentleman who had spoken had had the least idea of saying any thing which could be justly called intimidation. On so momentous an occasion, it was the duty of every gentleman to put forward all that he thought calculated to throw a light on the subject; and to state, honestly and fairly, the black part of the prospect as well as the white. It was scarcely fair, on the part of the learned gentleman himself, to "intimidate" hon. members from explicitly declaring their sentiments by the use of such a phrase. The learned Attorney-general had advanced some singular positions with regard to the Treaty of Limerick. Having observed that the hon. baronet who introduced the motion had dwelt emphatically upon the violation of that treaty as one of his arguments, he had added that an hon. and learned friend of his had tossed both that and the argument grounded on the Union overboard as worthless. The fact was, that the arguments derived from the vio-
655
656
657
658
Mr. Butler Clarke
begged pardon for obtruding himself on the House at that late hour, but he rose at that moment, conscious that another opportunity would not be afforded to him before the close of the discussion. As the representative of a large county in Ireland, not pledged to any party, not sent there, as had been said by an hon. member, by the Catholic Association, but as the representative of a most numerous body of respectable Roman Catholics, he felt it his duty to state his opinion on this question. What an hon. member had said of the Catholics was not correct. They were not hostile to the Church: if so, why had they paid tithes so cheerfully, and why had they agreed to the commutation? The manner in which they acted concerning tithes was a proof of their cheerful obedience. The Catholics were deserving of great praise. That they were increasing in numbers was a fact not to be denied; and if out of seven millions of people, there were two millions of men in rags, who cared nothing for life the House could not expect that they would not show what their feelings were when an opportunity offered. The learned Attorney-general had not thrown overboard the Treaty of Limerick, though he had done so with the Union. Now, he would appeal to every Irish member, whether the Union could have been carried, if Catholic emancipation had not been promised to be conceded? If the Catholics had been hostile to the Union, it never could have been carried; but, in fact, they had been cajoled into an acquiescence in that measure.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said:—At this late hour of the night, Sir, I must crave some little indulgence, for offering myself to the House. I confess that, on a preceding evening, I was not sorry at the adjournment of the discussion; and if I was not sorry then, I am much less so now that the postponement of the question has had the effect of preventing the able and eloquent speech of my right hon. friend
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
Mr. Brougham
assured the House, that it was with unfeigned satisfaction he expressed his intention of detaining them only a few minutes on this very important subject [cheers]; and he took leave to say, that the House could not receive this declaration with greater satisfaction than he, on his part, made it. He should not have thought it becoming in him to intrude at that period of the debate, after the speeches which had been delivered,—
671
672
673
felo de se,
674
675
The House then divided: For the Motion 272; Against it 266; Majority in favour of sir Francis Burdett's Motion 6. The House then went into the Committee, Mr. Spring Rice in the Chair, in which it was agreed, upon the motion of sir Francis Burdett, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient to consider the State of the Laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's Subjects." The House being resumed, the Resolution was reported. — Adjourned at half-past three o'clock on Tuesday morning.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Abercrombie, rt. hn. J.
Baring, F.
Acland, sir T. D.
Bective, earl of
Anson, sir G.
Belgrave, visc.
Anson, hon. G.
Benett, John
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Bentinck, lord G.
Althorpe, visc.
Bingham, lord
Bernard, T.
Birch, J.
Baillie, J.
Boyle, hon. J.
Balfour, J.
Bourne, rt. hon. S.
Baring, A.
Bouverie, hon. D. P.
Baring, W. B.
Brecknock, earl of
676
Brougham, H.
Fergusson, R. C.
Brougham, J.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.
Browne, J.
Fitzgerald, John
Brownlow, C.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Bruce, earl of
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Bruen, col.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Buller, C.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Burdett, sir F.
Forbes, lord
Buxton, T. F.
Forbes, John
Byng, G.
Fortescue, hon. G.
Canning, S.
Frankland, R.
Calcraft, John
Fremantle, rt. hon. W.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
French, A.
Calthorpe, hon. A.
Gordon, R.
Calvert, N.
Gower, lord F. L.
Calvert, C.
Graham, sir J.
Campbell, W.
Grant, right hon. C.
Carew, R.
Grant, R.
Carrington, sir E.
Grattan, J.
Carter, John
Grattan, H.
Castlereagh, visc.
Grosvenor, T.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Cavendish, H.
Guest, J.
Cavendish, C.
Guise, sir W.
Chichester, A.
Hulse, sir C.
Cholmeley, M.
Hardinge, sir H.
Clarke, hon. C. B.
Hay, sir John
Clerk, sir G.
Heathcote, sir G.
Clements, lord
Heathcote, G. J.
Clifton, lord
Heathcote, R.
Clive, E.
Heneage, G. F.
Colborne, N.
Heron, sir R.
Cockburn, sir G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Cocks, J.
Honywood, W. P.
Coke, T. W.
Horton, R. W.
Colthurst, sir N.
Howard, H.
Coote, sir C.
Howick, visc.
Courtenay, T. P.
Hughes, W. L.
Cradock, S.
Hume, J.
Croker, J. W.
Hurst, R.
Daly, J.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Davenport, E.
Hutchinson, J. H.
Dawson, J. M.
Ingilby, sir W.
Dawson, A.
Jephson, C.
Denison, W.
Jermyn, Earl
Denison, J. E.
Jolliffe, Hylton
Doherty, John
Kavanagh, T.
Douglas, W. R.
Kennedy, T.
Drummond, H.
King, hon. R.
Du Cane, P.
Knight, R.
Darlington, earl of
Knox, hon. T.
Duncombe, T.
Lamb, rt. hon. W.
Dundas, C.
Lamb, hon. G.
Dundas, hon. T.
Labouchere, H.
Dundas, hon. G.
Lambert, J.
Dundas, sir R.
Lascelles, hon. W.
Easthope, J.
Latouche, R.
Eastnor, visc.
Lawley, F.
Ebrington, visc.
Lennard, T. B.
Eliot, lord
Leycester, R.
Ellis, hon. G.
Lester, B.
Ellis, hon. A.
Lewis, T. F.
Ennismore, visc.
Liddell, hon. H.
Euston, earl of
Littleton, E.
Ellison, C.
Lloyd, sir E.
Farquhar, sir R.
Lloyd, T.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Loch, J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Lumley, J. S.
677
Maberly, John
Smith, hon. R.
Maberly, W. L.
Smith, G.
Macauley, gen.
Smith, W.
Macdonald, sir J.
Somerville, sir M.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Stanley, lord
Maitland, visc.
Stanley, hon. E.
Maitland, hon. A.
Stewart, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Stuart, lord J.
Marryat, J.
Stuart, H. V.
Marshall, W.
Sykes, D.
Marshall, J.
Talmash, hon. F.
Martin, John
Talbot, R. W:
Maule, hon. W. R.
Taylor, M. A.
Maxwell, John
Tennyson, C.
Milbank, Mark
Thompson, P. B.
Mildmay, P. St. John
Thomson, C. P.
Milton, visc.
Tomes, John
Monck, J. B.
Tufton, hon. Henry
Morland, sir S. B.
Twiss, Horace
Morpeth, visc.
Tynte, C.
Mountcharles, earl of
Tuite, Hugh
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Valletort, lord
Nugent, lord
Van Homrigh, Peter
North, John
Vernon, G. G. V.
O'Brien, W. S.
Villiers, T. H.
O'Brien, Lucius
Waithman, R.
O'Hara, J.
Wall, C. B.
Ord, W.
Warburton, H.
Oxmantown, lord
Warrender, rt. h.sir G.
Paget, lord W.
Westenra, hon. H.
Palmer, C. F.
Western, C.C.
Palmerston, lord
White, S.
Parnell, sir H.
White, H.
Pendarves, E.
Whitmore, W. W.
Philips, sir G.
Wilbraham, G.
Philips, G.
Wallace, T.
Phillimore, J.
Wilson, sir R.
Perceval, Spencer
Wodehouse, E.
Planta, J.
Wood, alderman
Ponsonby, hon. W.
Wood, C.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Wood, John
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Wortley, hon. John
Portman, E.
Wrottesley, sir John
Power, R.
Wynn, sir W.
Powlett, hon. W. F.
Wynn, right hon. C.
Poyntz, W. S.
Williams, sir R.
Prendergast, M.
TELLERS.
Price, Robert
Duncannon, visc.
Pringle, S. W.
Normanby, visc.
Prittie, hon. F.
PAIRED OFF.
Proby, hon. G.
Whitbread, S.
Protheroe, E.
Boyd, Walter
Rancliffe, lord
Howard, hon. G.
Rice, T. S.
Mostyn, sir T.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Gurney, Hudson
Robarts, A.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Robinson, sir G.
Lindsay, hon. Hugh
Robinson, G.
Wyvill, M.
Rowley, sir W.
East, sir E.
Rumbold, C.
Smith, J.
Russell, lord W.
Cholmondeley, lord H.
Russell, lord John
Whitbread, W.
Russell, R. G.
Tavistock, marq.
Russell, W.
Osborne, lord F.
Sandon, visc.
Sefton, earl of
Scarlett, sir J.
Ramsbottom, John
Sebright, sir J.
Sinclair, hon. capt.
678
Barclay, D.
Innes, sir H.
Arcedeckne, A.
Mackenzie, sir J.
Lushington, S.
Mackinnon, C.
Hill, lord A.
Forbes, sir C.
Phipps, hon. gen.
Lombe, E.
MINORITY.
A'Court, E. H.
Corry, hon. H.
Alcock, T.
Cripps, J.
Alexander, H.
Cuffe, col.
Antrobus, G. C.
Curteis, E.
Apsley, lord
Curzon, hon. R.
Arbuthnot, hon. col.
Cust, hon. P.
Archdall, M.
Cust, hon. E;
Ashurst, W.
Cole, hon. A.
Ashburton, hon. P.
Chichester, sir A.
Ashley, lord
Cockerell, sir C.
Astell, W.
Dalrymple, A.
Astley, sir J. D.
Davenport, D.
Attwood, M.
Davidson, D.
Arkwright, R.
Davis, R.
Baker, E.
Dawkins, H.
Bankes, H.
Dick, Hugh
Bankes, G.
Dick, Quintin
Barclay, C.
Dickinson, W.
Barne, M.
Dottin, A.
Bastard, E. P.
Dowdeswell, J.
Batley, C.
Downes, lord
Beckett, sir John
Drake, W. T.
Belfast, earl of
Divet, T.
Bell, M.
Dugdale, D.
Benson, R.
Duncombe, hon. W.
Beresford, sir John
Dundas, hon. H.
Beresford, major
Dundas, R.
Blackburne, John
Eden, hon. R.
Blandford, marquis of
Egerton, W.
Bonham, H.
Elphinstone, col.
Borradaile, R.
Estcourt, T.
Bradshaw, J.
Evans, adm.
Bright, H.
Fane, hon. H.
Brudenell, lord
Fane, John
Brydges, sir John
Fane, col.
Buck, L.
Farquhar, J.
Burrell, sir C.
Fetherston, sir G.
Buxton, J.
Fleming, J.
Byron, T.
Foley, E. T.
Calvert, John
Foley, J. H.
Capel, J.
Forester, hon. G.
Cartwright, W.
Fyler, T.
Cawthorne, J.
Gascoyne, gen.
Cecil, lord T.
Gooch, sir T.
Chandos, lord
Gordon, J.
Chaplin, C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Chaplin, T.
Graham, marq.
Clinton, sir W.
Greene, T.
Clinton, J. F.
Greville, hon. sir C.
Clive, lord
Gye, F.
Clive, H.
Halse, J.
Cotterell, sir J.
Hancock, R.
Collett, E. John
Hart, gen.
Cooke, sir Henry
Harvey, sir E.
Cooper, Edward S.
Hastings, sir C.
Cooper, R. B.
Heathcote, sir W.
Cooper, John
Herries, J. C.
Cooper, hon. W. A.
Hill, sir G.
Corbett, P.
Hill, sir R.
Corry, lord
Hodgson, F.
679
Hodson, J.
Philips, sir R.
Holmes, W.
Pitt, Joseph
Hope, sir W.
Petit, Louis
Hotham, lord
Peach, N.
Houldsworth, T.
Pollen, sir John
Inglis, sir R.
Powell, col.
Irving, J.
Powell, A.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Price, Richard
Jones, J.
Pellew, hon. captain
Keck, G. A. L.
Rae, rt. hon. sir W.
Kekewich, S.
Raine, J.
Kemp, T. R.
Rickford, William
Kerrison, sir E.
Roberts, W. A.
King, hon. H.
Rochfort, G.
King, sir J. D.
Rogers, Edward
Knatchbull, sir E.
Rose, right hon. sir G.
Langston, J.
Rose, G.
Lascelles, hon. H.
Ross, C.
Legge, hon. A.
Ryder, right hon. R.
Lennox, lord G.
St. Paul, sir Horace
Lethbridge, sir T.
Saunderson, A.
Lewis, W.
Stopford, lord
Lindsay, J.
Scott, hon. W. H.
Lockhart, J. I.
Scott, hon. W.
Lott, H.
Scott, Samuel
Lowther, lord
Scott, Henry
Lowther, hon. H.
Seymour Horace
Lowther, sir John
Seymour, H.
Lowther, John
Shelley, sir John
Lushington, col.
Shirley, John
Luttrell, John F.
Sibthorp, col.
Lygon, hon. col.
Smith, C.
M'Leod, John R.
Smyth, sir G.
Macnaghten, Edm.
Somerset, lord G.
Macqueen, T.
Somerset, lord F.
Maitland, E. F.
Somerset, lord E.
Malcolm, N.
Spottiswoode, A.
Mandeville, lord
Stephenson, R.
Manners, lord C.
Strathaven, lord
Manners, lord R.
Strutt, col.
Maxwell, sir W.
Sugden, E.
Maxwell, H.
Sotheron, adm.
Meynell, H.
Talmash, hon. L.
Moore, G.
Talmash, hon. F.
Morgan, sir C.
Taylor, G. W.
Morgan, G.
Thompson, alderman
Mundy, F.
Thompson, L.
Mundy, G.
Thynne, lord W.
Newborough, lord
Thynne, lord J.
Nightingal, sir M.
Tindal, sir N.
Northcote, H.
Tomline, W.
Norton, G.
Trant, W.
O'Neil, hon. John
Townshend, lord J.
O'Neil, Augustus
Townshend, hon. J.
Onslow, Arthur
Trench, col.
Owen, sir John
Trevor, hon. G.
Owen, sir E. W.
Tullamore, lord
Palmer, R.
Ure, M.
Pallmer, C. N.
Uxbridge, earl of
Palk, sir L.
Vaughan, sir R.
Peachy, general
Vyvyan, sir R.
Pearse, John
Vivian, sir H.
Peel, rt. hon. Robert
Walker, J.
Peel, William
Walpole, hon. J,
Peel, L.
Ward, W.
Peel, J.
Wells, J.
Pennant, G,
Wemyss, J,
680
West, F.
Dundas, rt. hon. W.
Vetherell, sir C.
Carmarthan, marq.
Whitmore, T.
Smith, T. A.
Wigram, W.
Smith, S.
Williams, Rt.
Bouverie, hon. B.
Willoughby, H.
Owen, H.
Wilson, R.
Hope, sir A.
Wilson, col.
Pigott, col.
Worcester, marq.
Webb, E.
Wyndham, W.
Drake, T. F.
Win, O.
Duff, hon. gen.
Yorke, sir J.
Manning, W.
TELLERS.
Brogden, J.
Dawson, G.
Burrell, W.
Foster, J. L.
Nicholl, sir J.
PAIRED OFF.
Clive, hon. R.
Montgomery, gen.
Campbell, A.
Bastard, capt.
Downie, R.
Penruddock, J.
Grant, col.
Grant, sir A.
Cole, sir C.
Fellowes, W. H.
Walrond, B.
Martin, sir T. B.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 13.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
On the motion of Sir F. Burdett, Mr. Spring Rice brought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House upon the Roman Catholic Claims. The resolution being read,
Sir John Brydges
said, he felt deeply impressed with the importance of the subject, and he should feel it a great dereliction of duty if he were not to use every means in his power to oppose the progress of the measure. He believed that so far from what was called Catholic Emancipation being a subject of such deep interest with the Irish, if he were to travel through Ireland with emancipation in one hand, and a sovereign in the other, he should scarcely find a man that would not take the money in preference to the boasted panacea.
On the motion, that the resolution be read a second time,
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the resolution was the same as had been passed on the preceding night, after three days' debate, and he did not mean to say that the subject had not been fully discussed. He rose merely for the purpose of tendering his formal dissent from the measure; and, with reference to the course to be pursued, he trusted the hon. baronet would, at least, give the House some time to consider this very important part of the question.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he was not aware
681
After a short conversation, sir F. Burdett gave notice, that he would on Friday move, "That the Resolution agreed to by the House on the subject of the laws relating to Roman Catholics be communicated to the Lords at a Conference; and that their Lordships concurrence be desired thereto."
PROVISION FOR THE FAMILY OF
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Offices Pensions Bill,
The Chancellor of the Exchecquer
said, he rose to discharge a public duty under the influence of feelings which were in some degree of a painful, and in some degree of a grateful, nature, — painful, inasmuch as the task he had undertaken to perform brought to his recollection the loss which the House had sustained by the death of one of its members most distinguished for his abilities and virtues,— painful, also, as regarded the interests of a family, who had a right to look to that right hon. gentleman, not only for honours and distinctions, but also for the means of future support;— grateful, however, inasmuch as it gave him an opportunity of recording the opinion which he entertained of the talent and ability of that right hon. gentleman, and as it made him the instrument of rendering to his family what he considered an act of justice on the part of that House. His object in rising was, to propose an alteration of the Offices Pensions act, with the view of affording a provision to the family of Mr. Canning. He did not recommend the measure to the House on the ground of precedent, nor did he mean to propose the resolution in order that it might become a precedent. He did not mean to say that in every case the fact of an individual having held an exalted situation, either in public office or in that House, should be a sufficient ground for the interference of
682
683
l.
684
685
Lord Althorp
confessed he felt surprise that, previously to bringing on such a motion, no allusion had been made to the financial state of the country. Without any such reference, they had been called on to make an advance of the public money to the family of a late high officer of state. Not that he thought the sum of 3,000
l.
686
Mr. Stratford Canning
said, that, however delicately he felt himself placed with respect to the discussion of the merits of a distinguished statesman, he could not, without a dereliction of duty, abstain from addressing a few words to the House. The noble lord had confessed, that if this grant had stood, not on the grounds of liberality and generosity, but on justice, he would even then have opposed it. The force of this objection went to the extent, that let the merit of the party be what it might, he would not sanction the application, because, forsooth, the country was in so impoverished a state, that the paltry debt of gratitude to that merit, amounting to no more than 3,000
l.
687
Lord Milton
said, that the difficulty he felt in delivering his sentiments on the subject was greatly increased by the course which had been pursued by his noble friend. He entirely agreed with his noble friend as to the financial difficulties in which the country was involved, though he could not go with him the length of supposing that those difficulties were of such a nature as to prevent the House from considering, even for a moment, the propriety of coming to such a vote as was now under their consideration. If he could bring his mind to that state, he would be saved all the trouble of further deliberation. But, great as he admitted the difficulties of the country to be, they were not so insurmountable as to put an absolute veto on the proposition of the chancellor of the Exchequer, supposing there existed fit grounds for making that proposition to the House. It was not his intention to enter into the history of the political life of Mr. Canning. He could not have sat so many years in the House of Commons, without having, upon many and upon most occasions, differed from him in opinion. It would, therefore, be easy for him to select grounds of opposition, which would justify him, were he to confine himself to particular acts, in voting against the motion; but, as there appeared, in the course of every man's life, a mixed character, he could not feel himself authorized, in judging of another, to decide upon his merits, without taking the whole of his conduct into consideration. Could the stoutest partisan of any political leader, get up and say of the political conduct of him whom he supported, that it was free from all reproach?
688
Lord Morpeth
said, that, as he was the person who had, at an early part of the session, given notice of his intention to bring forward a motion on this subject, he felt no doubt that the committee would exercise some degree of forbearance towards him, while he addressed a few observations to their notice. Indeed the speech of the right hon. gentleman, and still more the speech of his noble friend, made it impossible for him to refrain from uttering his sentiments upon the subject. On a former
689
690
691
692
Sir R. Wilson
said, he would state, in a few words, the reasons which induced him not to give a silent vote upon the present motion. No one was more deeply impressed than he was with the duty which he owed to his constituents and to the country at large, to watch over the public expenditure; but, whilst he held that frugality was a duty, and economy a growing necessity, he likewise held that there was a generosity becoming the character of a great nation, and a remunerative liberality which was calculated to promote the best interests of the country. He was not one of those persons who thought that these remunerative rewards and distinctions should be applied only to those great men who were employed in the military and naval service of the country: but that they should be extended to those who, by their laudable exertions in the civil departments of the state, had promoted the public welfare. Did the late Mr. Canning stand in such a situation with regard to the public, or did he not? Had he established his claims to the remunerative rewards and distinctions of the state, or had he not? He agreed that there might be found in his conduct public transactions which might not secure for him the general suffrage of that House. He might lament over inequalities, which were inse-
693
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that nothing could be more painful to him than to oppose a motion, in which considerations of a personal nature were inevitably involved; but, painful as it might be, he would shortly state the reasons which led him to concur with the view of this motion, which had been taken by his noble friend, the member for Northamptonshire. The right hon. gentleman who followed his noble friend was mistaken in supposing that his noble friend's objection to the motion rested on the amount of the grant proposed. It rested on no such foundation. The amount of the grant was, he admitted, only 3,000
l.
l.
l.
l,
694
l.
Lord Clifton
said, he felt himself very unexpectedly called upon to make a few observations to the committee. He was one of those members who last year had endeavoured to express to the government, of which Mr. Canning was the head, the confidence which they were inclined to repose in its disposition to husband the resources of the country, and to secure the welfare of the state. Though it was with considerable diffidence that he ventured to differ on any subject from his
695
Mr. Hume
said, he was anxious to offer a few words to the committee on this motion, because he was afraid it was likely to be led away by the eloquent appeal which had been made to its passions, by the noble lord who had addressed them in support of this grant, and also by the right hon. relative of the departed statesman. He considered the present motion to be of great importance in a public point of view. If it were carried, they could never refuse to make a similar grant to the family of any gentleman in office which thought proper to apply for it. What had Mr. Canning done for the public, which entitled his family to so munificent a reward for his services? Had he, like the duke of Wellington, done any thing for his country which ought to make the House of Commons anxious to signalize his career, and to mark his decease? He was not aware of any such occurrence. If, then, their vote on this occasion could not rest upon such a basis, would hon. gentlemen consent that it should rest on the whole of Mr. Canning's conduct during the thirty-two years of his political career? He was sure they would not: for Mr. Canning had been the regular and unwearied advocate of all the measures which, during that time, they had denounced, as unconstitutional. Until Mr. Canning became premier, none of the gentlemen by whom he was surrounded, had been in the habit of approving the measures which obtained his uniform support; and he was certain that if this measure had been proposed five years ago, it would have been vehemently attacked by many of the gentlemen who were most strenuous in defending its propriety. He should like to know what Mr. Canning had done for his country during the last five years, which entitled him to such a tribute of their esteem and gratitude. If he did his duty as a minister, did he do any more? Was the mere performance of his duty sufficient to justify the chancellor of the Exchequer in calling upon the House to make a provision for Mr. Canning's family on the score that, when his majesty had appointed him to a lucrative situation in India, in which he might have amassed a fortune, he chose to stay at
696
l.
697
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
Lord George Bentinck
said, he had no intention to have taken any part in a debate which must naturally be so interesting to his feelings; but, after the sentiments to which the hon. member for Aberdeen had given utterance, and the expressions in which he had clothed those sentiments, he felt himself compelled to address the committee, lest he, as one of the connexions of the late Mr. Canning, should be supposed to concur in their justice. With respect to the objections which the hon. member had raised to this grant, either on account of the alleged demerits of his illustrious relative, or on the narrow grounds of that false economy to which the hon. member was so partial, he would only make one observation, and that was, that he was quite sure the hon. member would not carry the committee along with him. The hon. member had found fault with the friends of Mr. Canning for the grounds on which this demand had been brought before parliament. He would tell the hon. member for Aberdeen, that if there were no other grounds for the remuneration now proposed, his right hon. relative had laid sufficient grounds for it in having always been the foremost in opposing the hon. member's theoretical reforms, and his petty, paltry projects of
698
l.
Mr. Bankes
said, that in the line of argument which he was going to pursue, it was his intention to speak of the late Mr.
699
l.
l.
l.
700
701
l.
702
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that, having been alluded to by the hon. member for Montrose as one of the nearest and dearest friends of the late Mr. Canning, and having been connected with him by the ties of personal attachment throughout rather a long political life, he felt perfectly sensible, before he came down to the
703
704
l.
l.
705
706
"Would to God I were now on beard the Jupiter!"—the name of the ship des-stined for his voyage to India. So much, therefore, for his lamented friend's gratifying option: so much for the pleasures and profits of office, which he was supposed to have enjoyed with so much satisfaction ! He entirely concurred with his hon. friend, as to the necessity of enforcing a principle of economy; but, if he was not mistaken, his hon. friend had more than once acknowledged that the great offices of the state were not in this country sufficiently paid. He (Mr. H.) had, indeed, always thought it would be a most unwise policy even with regard to economy, to raise the stipends of the high officers of state. His reason had been, that, circumstanced as this country was in having an aristocracy possessing great wealth, a number of commoners likewise with large fortunes, among whom great talents were so often found suited to the service of the country to whom the salary of office would be no object; such a feeling ought on principle to be cultivated, while at the same time the Crown should not be deprived of the means of calling into its service those talents which might be found placed in less fortunate circumstances in the community. He should be sorry to see the Crown restricted in the privilege of benefiting by the talents of any of these classes, whether by being excluded from the choice of servants among the less wealthy ranks, or tied down to the aristocracy, to the exclusion of whatever advantages might be available in other quarters. His conclusion therefore was, that it was a wise principle to keep the salaries of high and efficient offices at a comparatively low rate; and, whenever great services had been received, and want of adequate means the result to the individual or his family, to come down to parliament, once perhaps, in a quarter of a century, to make an appeal for the payment of the debts of some statesman like Mr. Pitt, or some provision for the family of such a person as Mr. Canning. This was an infinitely more economical course, than raising the salaries of officers of state, which would entail a permanent expense to the nation. Instances would often occur when, as in the case of the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the earl of Dudley, or in that of the late Secretary for the Home Department, the marquis of Lansdowne, salary would be nothing for
707
708
709
710
711
l.
l.
Mr. Stanley
said, that there were some points on which he should have addressed the House, had not the right hon. gentleman who had preceded him answered the hon. member for Dorsetshire on everything that had been so invidiously urged by him against the late Mr. Canning. But, though those points had been much more efficiently answered by the right hon. gentleman than he could have hoped to have done, he could nevertheless not consent to give a silent vote on this subject, as there were some matters in the course of the debate which had struck him as proper to allude to, at the same time he must dissent from an expression which had been used by a noble lord opposite, in reference to the hon. member for Aberdeen, and those who sat with him on that side of the House. The expression was one which had, no doubt, escaped from the noble lord (G. Bentinck) in the heat of debate, and which he would not have employed upon calmer reflection. He certainly was of opinion that in the present instance the hon. member for Aberdeen had acted upon a mistaken economy as to trifles, which would only lead to greater expenditure in more considerable matters: but he was sure that credit would be given to that hon. member, for his incessant exertions to curb the public expenditure. It was for this reason that he was sorry that his noble friend, in speaking of Mr. Canning, had made use of the expression that he had caused the member for Aberdeen and those who went along with him to shrink into their native and miserable insignificance. It was with the turn of the expression, and not with the substance, that he quarrelled; for certainly Mr. Canning had caused those minorities to shrink into insignificance; but how had he effected that? By the adoption of those liberal measures which that minority had for
712
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, that he should certainly vote in support of the motion; and he thought that the House, when it took into consideration the zeal and the talent which the late Mr. Canning had uniformly displayed in the cause of his country, and the line of policy upon which he had acted, would follow the course which he intended to pursue.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he felt it his duty to offer a few observations to the House, in consequence of what had fallen from a noble lord (Althorp). The noble lord seemed to labour under the impression, that this vote had been proposed in consequence of some compromise between the members of the present administration. He could assure the noble lord that that impression was entirely erroneous. For himself he would say, that if he never had happened to have had any official connexion with the late Mr. Canning,—if he had been but a private member of that House,—he would have given his cordial vote for this proposition. The proposition appeared to him to be founded upon the broad grounds of its being perfectly consistent with policy, and reconcilable with the practice which had been adopted in reference to former ministers under similar circumstances. It was a proposition affording a reward for talent which had been devoted to the service of the country. He could not concur in the gloomy view which had been taken of the finances of the country. He did not believe that this country was so degraded as not to be
713
l.
714
715
Mr. Western
regretted that a sense of public duty would prevent him from agreeing to the motion. He did not think that the public services of Mr. Canning called for such an expression of the national gratitude.
Sir George Murray
said, it seemed to him, that some hon. members were desirous that the country should imitate the example of those states of antiquity who were remarkable for the ingratitude with which they had treated those illustrious men, through whose talents alone their existence had now descended to posterity. It was a satisfaction, however, to perceive that the younger members of the House were net tainted with this blameable apathy. He heartily concurred in the motion.
Lord Palmerston
did not consider the proposition in the light of a reward for services rendered, nor as an act of generosity; but as a measure of strict justice. He regretted that the debate should have taken so decidedly a party turn. With the life of the eminent individual, all party differences ought to have ceased; and, as to the plea of economy, the setting it up upon the occasion, was calculated to disgust the House with the very name.
Mr. Wynn
said, that even if he had differed with the late Mr. Canning, on the question of policy, he would still vote for this motion, upon the same principle that
716
The committee divided: For the motion 161; Against it 54. Majority 107.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord
Knatchbull, sir E.
Arbuthnot, col.
Keck, Legh
Archdall, col.
Knight, H.
Bankes, H.
Lloyd, sir E.P.
Bankes, G.
Lushington, S.
Bastard, E. P.
Mankind, Viscount
Bright, H.
Maitland, hon. A.
Burrell, sir C.
Monck, J. B.
Burdett, sir F.
Palmer, Fyshe
Bell, M.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Brudenel, lord
Robinson, G. R.
Carter, J. B.
Sebright, sir T.
Chaplin, C.
Sibthorp, col.
Cholmeley, M. J.
Strutt, col.
Drake, T.
Tavistock, marquis of
Dawson, A.
Thomson, C. P.
Davenport, E. D.
Townshend, lord C.
Egerton, W.
Vivian, sir R.
Fane, J.
Waithman, ald.
Fellowes, W. H.
Warburton, Hen.
Ferguson, sir R
Webb, col
Forester, hon. J.G. W.
Western, C. C.
Howick, lord
Wells, J.
Hay, lord J.
Wilbraham, G.
Heathcote, G. J.
Wood, John
Heron, sir R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLER.
Ingilby, sir W.
Joseph Hume
SUMMARY CONVICTIONS—PETTY
Mr. E. Davenport
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to afford to criminals accused of Petty Felonies the option of Summary Conviction by two or more magistrates. In the first place, he begged gentlemen not to suppose that the object of his motion was to increase the power of magistrates. He thought that, in many cases, magistrates had too much power, and he should be happy to see it contracted. It did not however follow, that because they had too much power in some cases, they had not too little in others. He believed that their power of inflicting severe punishments was too great, and that their power in tempering justice with mercy was too small. He begged hon. gentlemen to observe the inconsistency of giving two justices at quarter sessions the power of transportation, while it deprived the same two justices at petty sessions of inflicting the most trifling punishment. All they could do was to commit the offender to prison, where he must remain for months, probably, until the period of his trial approached; and this, too, perhaps, for an offence which, some years ago, would have been much
717
Mr. Fergusson
said, he was convinced that a bill of this nature could never pass through a single stage in that House. Until that part of the law which made the forfeiture of property consequent on a conviction for felony was altered, he was quite sure that the House would never trust such a matter to magistrates. This deprivation of property seemed to be entirely forgotten by the hon. member. Cases of misdemeanor, such, for instance, as assaults, might be advantageously disposed of in the manner now suggested, but in felonies nothing of the kind could be done, while the law remained as it was.
Mr. Sykes
hoped the House would give his hon. friend leave to bring in this bill, because it was probable that some measure
718
Mr. Western
thought the forfeiture of property consequent upon felonies should be removed, before the magisterial jurisdiction, proposed by the bill, was adopted. There were many cases of juvenile offenders, in which a summary power of conviction by the magistrates would be infinitely better than subjecting them to the contamination of a prison before trial. He felt how jealous the legislature ought to be in giving the magistrates this summary jurisdiction; but he did not believe that any evil could result from the measure now proposed. In truth, there were many little offences which it would be much better wholly to overlook, than to bring them before any tribunal.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 14.
GAOL DISCIPLINE.]
Mr. E. Davenport
719
Mr. Western
coincided in opinion with the hon. gentleman. He thought that a committee might find much to amend and new model in the existing system.
Mr. Peel
said, he considered it quite impossible to establish a uniform system of gaol discipline throughout the country. Indeed, his opinion was, that there already existed too much minute investigation on the subject, and therefore he would oppose the motion.
After a few words from Mr. Leycester, sir F. Burdett, sir J. Yorke, sir W. Guise, Mr. S. Rice, and Mr. Estcourt, the motion was negatived.
PROVISION FOR THE FAMILY OF MR. CANNING.]
The order of the day was read, for bringing up the report of the resolution of the committee of the whole House on the Offices Pensions Act. The report being brought up by Mr. Planta,
The Marquis of Chandos
said, that not having been present on a former occasion, when the grant to the family of Mr. Canning was proposed, he availed himself of that opportunity of stating his decided objection to the measure. He begged that his objection might not be considered to rest upon economical principles, but as being intended to mark his disapprobation of the principles of Mr. Canning, principles which he considered to have been productive of the greatest calamities to this country.
Sir T. Acland
expressed his deep regret, after what had occurred on a former night, that any member should have expressed his opposition to the grant.
Sir James Scarlett
said, he was not sorry that the noble marquis, by reviving this subject, had given him an opportunity of expressing his regret, that he had not been present last night when this measure was proposed. He had not been aware of the proposition or he should have made it his duty to attend, for the purpose of expressing his warm approbation of it. He could not agree with the noble lord, that a difference of judgment upon certain political measures of itself afforded a sufficient ground for withholding that approbation, he was not disposed to think that a minister, whose personal honour and integrity were above suspicion, was less sincere and zealous in devoting his life to the Service of his country, because he might
720
721
722
Lord Palmerston
felt himself called upon, as a member of Mr. Canning's government, to reply to the observations which had fallen from the noble marquis in a tone of such apparent rancour. He could not allow that statement to remain uncontradicted, considering, as he did, that the government of this country would be entitled to parliamentary support, in proportion as it adhered to the principles of Mr. Canning, whose name would be venerated long after his detractors had been consigned to oblivion.
Sir T. Lethbridge
felt it his duty to say, that however much he had differed with Mr. Canning in his latter days, in consequence of his attempt to carry on the government by the most unnatural alliance ever contracted in politics, still he could not but recollect Mr. Canning's eminent services, his unrivalled genius, and his public spirit. On these grounds he gave his unqualified assent to the motion.
Mr. Spring Rice
wished to seize the last opportunity that was likely to arise, to express his entire assent to the proposed grant. He considered the present likely to be the only opportunity that would present itself; for he could scarcely imagine that an opposition, so singular in its character, could be continued; and he anticipated, that the measure in its further progress would meet the unanimous approval of the House, as it undoubtedly would that of the country. The opposi-
723
Mr. Dawson
regretted that any personal warmth should have found its way into the debate, and conceived the observations made by the hon. gentleman who preceded him not calculated to produce the unanimity they desired. Had he to give a vote as a private member of parliament, he could equally as at present, have supported the proposition; feeling that such a grant was deserved by the length and eminence of the public services of Mr. Canning. He, however, thought that expressions had fallen from his noble friend (lord Palmerston) stronger than, on reflection, he could have wished to apply to the noble marquis.
724
Lord Palmerston
regretted that an occasion should have arisen that called on him for the expressions he had employed, but that occasion having arisen, he did not regret what had fallen from him.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
concurred in the vote, and explained his connexion with Mr. Canning's government. In continuing in office, he had made very considerable sacrifices, of a personal nature, to his public duty.
Lord Morpeth.
—I rise to mention one circumstance which I omitted to state when I addressed the House yesterday evening; it is, however, a debt of justice due to individuals not to pass it over in silence. A rumour has gone abroad, that the peerage conferred upon the widow of Mr. Canning, was not so conferred until after it had been solicited by her. If such an impression does exist, from whatever quarter it may have been derived, I can say, that a more unfounded and flagrant calumny never proceeded from the lips of man. I am glad to take this public opportunity of stating, that this mark of favour was bestowed at a time, and in a manner, which reflected equal credit upon the Sovereign who so feelingly conferred it, and the statesman whose memory he thus honoured.
Mr. Planta
expressed his feelings with respect to the zeal, talent, and industry, with which Mr. Canning had applied himself to the discharge of his official duties; and to which his health had been sacrificed, and to which he had ultimately fallen a victim.
The Resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 15.
CASE OF MR. SERJEANT ROUGH.]
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he had a petition to present from Mr. Serjeant Rough, late president of the court of justice of the united colony of Demerara and Essequibo, to which he earnestly desired the attention of the House. The petitioner's case was one of peculiar hardship, and if it should meet with no remedy, it was deeply to be deplored. He was a man who, for his learning, integrity, and abilities, had been promoted to the office of president of the Supreme Court of a very important colony. From that office he was suspended by the governor. Such suspension was afterwards pronounced illegal and un-
725
726
727
Mr. Wilmot Norton
said, the Privy Council did not decide that the suspension of the petitioner was illegal; but they said that, under all the circumstances of the case, they thought the lieutenant-governor was not justified in suspending him. The Privy Council added, that they saw cause to regret the indiscreet conduct pursued by Mr. Serjeant Rough. The object of the presentation of the petition was to procure the appointment of Mr. Serjeant Rough to some judicial situation in the colonies. Now, it ought to be known, that lord Bathurst had offered Mr. Rough the chief-justiceship of Dominica, which he refused on account of ill-health. The right hon. gentleman was wrong in supposing that the petitioner had been advised by the Colonial Department not to resort to legal proceedings. Mr. Rough was merely informed, that it would not be desirable to adopt both courses; namely, to bring an action, and to appeal to the Privy Council. Under these circumstances, Mr. Rough adopted the latter proceeding, and he received every assistance from the Colonial Department in bringing forward his case. Upon the whole, he thought the House must be of opinion that this was a case which ought to be left entirely to the discretion of the executive government.
Mr. Sykes
hoped that something would be done to alleviate the sufferings of the petitioner.
Lord F. Gower
said, it was quite evident that an act might be legal, and yet come within the description given of the suspension of Mr. Rough by the Privy Council; namely, that it was not justified by absolute necessity.
Ordered to lie on the table.
USURY LAWS.]
Mr. P. Thompson
presented a petition from certain merchants of London, praying "for the Repeal of the Usury Laws." The hon. member took occasion to say, that if any intention existed of taking the sense of the House I upon his motion, which stood for that evening, for the repeal of the Usury-laws, he would postpone it to a future day.
Sir R. Williams
expressed his determination to divide the House on the question.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he also would oppose the motion, though he would have no objection to the bill being read a first time
pro forma,
728
Mr. Maberly
expressed his surprise that the agricultural interest should be adverse to the repeal of the laws which restrained the commerce in money.
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought it would be best to fix a day for the discussion of the question. He was sorry he could not undertake that government would bring forward the measure.
Sir G. Philips
thought it betrayed great partiality in hon. members to declare their intention to oppose a motion before they had heard the grounds on which it was to be supported.
Mr. Bright
said, the question had already been so often discussed, that every person must be supposed to be acquainted with its merits.
Sir J. Wrottesley
declared himself unwilling to adopt any theoretical opinions upon the subject, unless they were reconcileable with experience, which was, after all, the best guide that practical men could adopt.
Ordered to lie on the table.
CITIES AND BOROUGHS POLLS BILL.]
—Colonel Davies
Mr. Jones
thought the clause was particularly objectionable, which curtailed the period of voting from fifteen days to six, because it affected the rights of the electors. Besides, there would be a great difficulty in identifying the voters at the different booths. The provision, which empowered the returning officer to close the poll on any day when two hundred voters had not polled, intrusted too great a power to such persons. He trusted the hon. gentleman would delay his measure till another session.
Colonel Davies
was persuaded that six days would be sufficient to answer all the purposes of borough elections, and would persist in his motion.
Lord Lowther
was anxious to facilitate the taking of polls at elections, but thought that the present bill would, in most cases, have the effect of limiting the elections to two days, and was, in its general tendency, injurious.
Mr. Baring
thought the bill calculated to produce entire confusion in the proceedings at elections. It gave great power to returning officers, a class of persons who ought not to be intrusted with much power; and the plan of dividing counties into different districts would add
729
Mr. Ross
stated several clauses in the bill which he considered objectionable, and would render it inoperative. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the report be taken into further consideration on that day six months.
Mr. Bernal
said, that the bill required pruning with no sparing hand, several of its clauses were too obnoxious to be carried into effect.
Mr. North
considered it desirable that a bill similar in principle to the present should be introduced in Ireland, where it was even more necessary than in this country.
Mr. Bright
objected to the bill, as it contained such exceptionable minutiæ that he believed it was unwise to attempt to amend it. For these reasons, he was for getting rid of the bill for this session.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, that whilst others found fault with the bill for doing too much, he was opposed to it because it did too little. Although he approved of the principle of the bill, he thought it inefficient, and should support the amendment.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
thought this bill was a very fair exemplification of the difficulty so generally experienced in attempting to make a measure palatable to every one. The bill certainly was good in principle, though ill-shaped and defective in its application. It destroyed also the responsibility of the returning officer, who was too often a partisan at elections. If it passed, its effect would be to render it absolutely necessary to bring down all the metropolitan freeholders and voters in the first instance, even from the most distant parts of the kingdom; which would prove enormously and often very needlessly expensive.
Mr. Sykes
hardly knew whether the hon. mover of this bill had been treated worse by his friends or his foes. He admitted that the bill ought to be simplified. With that view he hoped leave would be given by the House to his gallant friend to recommit it.
Mr. Wynn
approved of the provisions of the bill, so far as they related to em-
730
Mr. Robinson
felt the objection as to limiting the polling days to six, so strong, that he would vote for the amendment, although friendly to the general principle of the bill.
Sir J. Newport
believed the evil intended to be redressed by this bill was inherent in the system, and not to be reached by any thing short of a positive enactment to prevent the rights of the actual resident freeholders and persons having property in the county or city from being invaded and rendered valueless by the out-voters at elections. That corrupt influence was generally more easily discernible in that class of voters, no person, who had experienced the consequences of a contested election, would deny. He would confine the right of voting in boroughs to persons either residing or having property within them, for, without some such enactment, it would be impossible to have any security against corruption.
The House divided: For the amendment 20; Against it 23; Majority 3. On the question, that the bill be now recommitted,
The Attorney-general
said, he could not give his consent to a bill which was at once egregious injustice and egregious absurdity. He then entered into a minute investigation of its clauses, for the purpose of showing that it was calculated not only to multiply the expense, but to increase the confusion of elections.
Mr. Wynn
objected to the course taken by the opponents of the bill; which, to say the least of it, was most unusual. After an amendment had been negatived for deferring the consideration of a bill to that day six months, it was not very usual to call upon the House, within ten minutes afterwards, to reconsider its determination. He expressed himself favourable to the principle of the bill.
Lord Lowther
objected to the bill entirely.
Mr. Ross
defended the conduct of the Attorney-general. Surely hon. members were not bound to let this bill go into another committee, if the only object of the gallant officer was to alter the bill in such a manner as to make an entirely new bill of it.
731
Colonel Davies
entreated the House to let the bill go into a committee. Hon. gentlemen did not so much object to the principle of the bill as to its clauses.
The House resolved itself into a committee. After some discussion, finding it difficult to proceed with so few members in the House, colonel Davies moved that the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again; which was assented to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 16.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Sir F. Burdett,
accompanied by several members of the House of Commons, brought up the following message:—"My Lords—I am desired by the Commons to state, that they desire a conference with your lordships on the subject of the laws affecting his majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty's subjects." On the motion of the earl of Shaftesbury, the members of the House of Commons were informed, that their Lordships would send an answer to the Commons by a messenger of their own. On the motion of the duke of Wellington, their lordships agreed to the proposed conference, and appointed Monday, at half-past five o'clock, for the same.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 16.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in moving the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply, wished to say a few words, for the purpose of laying before the House what he conceived would be sufficient grounds to justify it in entering upon the consideration of the Navy Estimates, previous to its receiving the Report of the Finance Committee. On the appointment of that committee, it was expected that it would be enabled to make its Report in sufficient time to admit of being taken into consideration, antecedent to voting the estimates. In the course, however, of their investigations they had met with difficulties and delays, which in all probability,
732
Lord Althorp
would not now have offered himself to the notice of the House, if he had not observed that the chairman of the finance committee was not then in his place, to confirm the statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite, relative to its being the wish of the committee that the mode now suggested for the disposal of the estimates, should be adopted. There was another reason which induced him to address the House. He alluded to a question of great public importance, on which it had long been his anxious desire to submit some observations; namely, that of impressment in the navy. He wished to state his opinions upon the subject, because he knew that he went to an extent upon this point, to which others refused to go. He felt there were many and great evils in the system of impressment, but he believed that much of the evil was necessary and unavoidable. It would be impossible for us to maintain our naval superiority, or to man our fleet so efficiently and quickly as was desirable in the event of a war, without possessing the power of enforcing compulsory service; but many things might be done in mitigation of the evils occasioned by impressment. As matters now stood, circumstances rendered it impossible to dispense with the power of impressment at such a time. If we could not man our fleet rapidly, the commerce of the country might be ruined at the commencement of hostilities. Besides, the principle of compulsory service was not confined to England—the practice, in one shape or other, existed in all countries of the world. He did not exactly know how America was circumstanced in this respect. He would point out some of the evils connected with the practice of impressment. In the first place, he reckoned as an evil, the interference with the personal liberty of the seaman, who was, perhaps, at the time, serving aboard a merchant vessel; and the circumstance of his being deprived of the right to choose the nature of his employment. But this was an evil which, as if formed the basis of the system, he feared it was impossible to get rid of. Another
733
734
Sir G. Cockburn
said, he should be glad to induce men to enter into the navy voluntarily, instead of compelling them to serve. At the same time, he agreed with the noble lord, that we could not give up our power of impressment without endangering the naval superiority of the country. He admitted that it was our duty to restrict the exercise of the power within as narrow limits as possible, and that the necessity of resorting to impressment should always be made apparent whenever it was practised. The House had done much to mitigate the evils complained of in the navy in the course of the last war. By giving pensions to the men, the practice of desertion was greatly diminished, and the present situation of the navy was such, and the facility of obtaining sailors so great, that the Admiralty had been obliged to issue strict orders, restraining the officers in all the ports from taking men from the merchant service. Although this was the present condition of things, he feared insuperable difficulties stood in the way of the noble lord's proposal, and that the system on which he proposed to act was impracticable. However, every attention would be paid by the Admiralty to that, or to any other suggestion that had for its object to lessen the necessity for impressment.
Mr. Sykes
said, that in the course of the last war, he had witnessed scenes of horror arising out of impressment, to get rid of a repetition of which no exertion ought to be wanting. During the whole of the war he had seen the port of Hull disturbed by broils and contests, brought on by the state of the law as it regarded compulsory service. Men who had gone long voyages, and had just come home to enjoy the society of their friends and families, were put on board king's ships, and kept afloat six or seven years. To avoid so terrible an infliction, men would go to all extremities. He remembered an instance of some men, who, having picked up a little of the Prussian language, all swore they were Prussians, with a view to escape. It was a shocking state of things under which men could be so seized and torn from their families for years. Arbitrary punishment was another great evil in the navy; and the consequence was, to occasion among seamen a dislike to the service. If any plan could be devised to induce seamen voluntarily to enter the service, it would be ex-
735
Sir J. Yorke
said, the noble lord had chosen a singular time for introducing the subject. It would have been much better if he had asked for a select committee. Whenever such a committee should be called for, to examine the knotty question of compulsory service, he would be one of the first to recommend investigation, with a view to improvement; for he was satisfied that many modes might be devised to mitigate or do away with a vast deal of the horrors which had been so forcibly described.
Mr. Maberly
spoke of the length of time the discussion of the estimates had been deferred. The whole of them, it was agreed, should be submitted to the finance committee, under the expectation that it would have been able to examine and report upon the subject this year. The House, however, was now given to understand, that the committee had not gone fully into the evidence connected with the estimates. But the committee, though unable to make a report, was in possession of a great deal of information, which would, in all probability, prevent its members from voting for the estimates, as now proposed by ministers, for the adoption of the House. Thus, the members of the finance committee were in possession of information not calculated to induce them to approve of these estimates, while the House was shut out from the information referred to. It must be allowed, that there was a great deal of difficulty in the situation of the House in this respect, yet it was called on to exercise that judgment which it would have had to exercise if no finance committee had ever sat. Again, the committee must deal with our existing establishments, and report upon them as if the country was in a perfect state of peace, for the committee had not, and ought not to have, any political information upon the subject of peace or war; therefore the House would also have to judge of the estimates with respect to the present state of the country, and without reference to future contingencies. But the difficulty which the House must feel in dealing with the estimates consisted in this circumstance—that the chancellor of the Exchequer had not stated in what state the country really was. The House
736
Mr. Calcraft
declared it to be his fixed opinion, that impressment was necessary in the navy, under existing circumstances. The state had a right to command the services of its subjects in its defence. The navy was our principal defence, and must be supported by compulsory service until a substitute could be found. The principle of compulsory service was also recognised in our militia system. From what he could collect, the naval service was now infinitely more popular among seamen than formerly, in consequence of the wants and comforts of the men being attended to, and great improvements having taken place in the whole system. The hon. gentleman proceeded to argue, that we were not at war. The occurrence at Navarin could not be denominated war. We were at peace, though not, perhaps, in a profound peace. He was surprised that the finance committee had not made a report on the subject of the estimates. It had now sat three months, and the only report that had been obtained from it was that respecting annuities. He therefore thought that the committee proceeded rather tardily in its labours, and that the House had a right to expect information, which, he was sorry to say, had not been afforded. His hon. friend, who preceded him, was in possession of information obtained as a member of the finance committee, and could, therefore, discuss the estimates with additional advantages,
737
Sir H. Parnell
defended the finance committee from the charge of the want of due diligence or discretion in the course of its labours. It had had already forty-seven sittings; thirty-eight witnesses had been examined: it had ordered the production of three hundred and thirty-seven accounts, and two thousand sheets of letter-press, the results of its investigations were already actually printed. He thought, therefore, there had been no lack of diligence. On the subject of discretion, with respect to the course it was prepared to follow, no blame attached to the committee. It had acted upon the principle, that no report should be made to the House until it was in possession of every thing which could enable it to report with accuracy upon the important subjects submitted to its consideration. The committee was well aware of the wish of the House for a report from it on the public estimates; and it had already gone through those of the army, navy, and ordnance, in a general way. In attempting to prepare reports upon these branches of public expenditure, the committee found that its inquiries went to such an extent, as to render it impossible to make any thing like a perfect report. Had it originally taken up one branch the result might have been different. However, as the case stood, it appeared that public business would have been greatly delayed, if the right hon. gentleman had been compelled to wait for the committee's report; and, accordingly, the present course was resorted to as the best that could be adopted.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the hon. baronet had completely justified the committee from the charges of negligence and inefficiency. With respect to the subject of impressment he was sure that a disposition existed to remedy as far as possible the evils to which it gave rise, but he was completely satisfied that it was a power that never ought to be relinquished.
Sir J. Newport
said, that on sitting days the finance committee had seldom or
738
Mr. Hume
said, it was impossible for one committee to do the duty devolved upon this. When he stated to the House that the committee had as yet only taken up three branches of the public service out of twenty that ought to come before them, and that it had not yet got half through these, it would be perceived that hon. members must exercise their patience. He had before stated that several committees would be necessary to perform the duties devolved upon one. The hon. member for Wareham had as good a chance for obtaining information as the finance committee, for they had as yet only had before them official men, who, without attempting to convey any personal imputation on their honesty, were, generally speaking, disposed to defend the establishments with which they were connected. In consequence of this, the committee had only succeeded in obtaining general information. Under all the circumstances, he thought the House must regret that so much time had been suffered to pass without taking the estimates into consideration. As far as he knew at present, there was no intention on the part of government, to reduce a single pound of the expense of any one of the estimates. If we went on as we did last year, we should be unable to pay our expenditure, without having a loan from the Bank. There was not an amount of income sufficient to defray the expense of the estimates then on the table; and he should, therefore, oppose them as long as they continued on their present scale. He called on the ministers of the Crown to say what reduction they contemplated on the whole of the estimates; and he did this because he was aware it rested with, the minister, and not with the finance committee, to reduce them. The committee calculated upon what was necessary in a state of peace. And he was ready to say, that if we were in a state of peace? We only required the same number of seamen as we had in 1793. Why ask for thirty-thousand seamen if we were in a state of peace? The ministers ought to declare in what condition the country really was, as it regarded, our foreign relations, and it
739
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, that the hon. member for Montrose had stated, that it was impossible for the finance committee to diminish the amount of the estimates, and he had added, that the right of determining that point rested with his majesty's government. Now, he must say, the decision upon this subject rested neither with the finance committee, nor with his majesty's government, but with parliament. There was no wish on the part of the government to throw any difficulty in the way of inquiry, or to prevent the examination of any person able to give information. The hon. member had stated his main principle to be, that the naval service required no more men now than was required in 1792. Now, without considering that the naval powers of other countries had grown up and assumed an important aspect, he would leave the House to consider, whether the principles of the hon. member were just or not. He believed, that the best course the finance committee could have taken was to recommend this grant to be received by the House, without making any report, which at present they were not prepared to make.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that, as he was a member of the finance committee, he would say a few words on the present subject. The hon. member for Aberdeen had told them, that the House and the public would be greatly disappointed by the report of that committee. On that assertion he would merely observe that, if the country was disappointed, it would be owing to the exertions of the hon. member himself and others, who had systematically deceived it on all matters of this nature. The hon. member had told them that great reductions ought to be made, he believed to the extent of seven or eight millions. Now, in examining the truth of such a position, he should have no occasion, in the course of his remarks, to bring any principle into dispute, for no difference could exist as to the propriety of remedying abuses, when they were once detected, or reducing the establishments as low as was compatible with the interests of the country. The difference existing amongst them was a difference as to the degree of reduction. The House would certainly he disappointed if it expected that the committee, keeping faith with the national
740
l.
l.
741
prima facie
Mr. Baring
said, that he too must claim the attention of the House for a few minutes, as he also was a member of the finance committee. He was sorry to say, that there had been greater irritation among the members of the finance committee in the course of the discussion of that evening, than had ever been felt among them during all its former sittings. He would say, that in the whole course of his parliamentary experience, he had never known any committee appointed to examine into an important subject in which greater harmony and good feeling had prevailed, than had all along prevailed in this committee; and he believed that there would be a general admission by individuals of all parties, that nothing could be more fair than the examination of the witnesses which had been brought before it. He differed entirely from the views which had been taken of the labours of the finance committee by the member for Aberdeen, and by his right hon. friend, the member for Newcastle. Both of them had spoken as if little was to be expected from the labours of the committee. The impression on his own mind was very different. He anticipated a considerable result from its labours; not, indeed, in any great reduction of the naval estimates, but of the expenses of the other departments. He had already seen enough in the finance committee to be convinced, that there was a great deal in them, all which required regulation, and which, when judiciously regulated, would be productive of a considerable saving to the country. His impression was, that it would, before it concluded its sittings, confer considerable benefit upon the community. This was one of the few committees of finance which had been conducted upon fair principles; and in which some person had not been employed on behalf of the ministry of the day to throw out some plan for the consideration of the
742
Colonel Davies
complained that, though the finance committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the army, the navy, and the ordnance, departments, not a single naval or military officer had been appointed a member of it. The consequence was, that, from its want of professional knowledge it could not conduct its inquiries as well as it ought to do. He censured the right hon. member for Newcastle for the manner in which he had taunted the member for Aberdeen, on account of what he chose to style his extravagant notions of economy. He was one of those who approved of those notions, and, though he did not think that a reduction could be made to the amount of 7,000,000
l.
l.
Mr. John Wood
said, he had heard with considerable surprise the statement which had been made by the right hon. member for Newcastle. He had said, that hon. members had no right to allude to the finance for the year, as the statement of it had not yet been laid on the table of the House. It was of that very point that he rose to complain. In his mind, a financial statement the House ought, as a matter of necessity, to have, now that it was going to vote the different estimates; for surely, before they voted the establishments, they should know what amount of revenue they had to pay them with. He was not a member of the finance committee; but he understood that a statement of the finances of the country had been laid before it; and, if his information was correct, there was an actual deficiency of 127,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
743
l.
l.
l.
Lord Howick
said, the public had some right to be disappointed as to the result of the labours of the committee; but it was the House, and not the committee, who were to blame, the House having put too much upon the committee. The committee ought to carry on its labours without reference to political circumstances. They must, then, consider what the circumstances of the country required. How was it possible to go into a detail of so many subjects in a short time? As to the navy, for instance, the committee must inquire into the best possible means to be adopted for diminishing the expense of ship-building. On this point they must examine scientific men; and this was only a small branch of the subject. The committee should have confined their attention to the actual state of the country. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman, that certain es-
744
Mr. Herries
said, he would not have risen but for the broad proposition stated by the noble lord who had just resumed his seat. From that proposition he most positively dissented. It amounted, in fact, to this, that not one farthing ought to exist in the shape of public revenue, unless its existence had been previously justified by a proof of its absolute necessity. He could not conceive how any man who looked at the origin of revenue in England, could say it was necessary that we should know the amount of our income before we proceeded to dispose of it in our expenditure. He said boldly, that the manner in which all supplies in that House were voted proved distinctly that the principle on which they were voted was, that all that was possible should be saved to the country. If he was right in that statement, then the whole speech of the noble lord must be founded in error. He agreed with the hon. member for Callington, that, if the House were to judge of the good understanding and harmony of the finance committee from the specimen which they had seen of it that night, it would form a very wrong opinion on the subject. Among the members of the committee who had spoken, there were some who had spoken, as it appeared to him, with more warmth than the occasion required. In none of the committees, at which he had been present, had he ever seen so much cordiality, and so strong a disposition to arrive at the wisest conclusions, as he had seen in the finance committee. It therefore surprised him extremely to hear, from the hon. member for Montrose, so severe an attack upon the committee. It surprised him extremely to hear an hon. member get up in his place and desire them to throw away all hope of good from a committee so discharging its numerous duties. He was surprised to hear the hon. member say, that the committee had regularly taken that evidence which was least sufficient for its own purposes. If that charge were true, then had the finance committee failed most lamentably in its duty; and, what was more to
745
Mr. Maberly
said, that the statement which the hon. member for Preston had read was given to that hon. member by himself, and he would vouch for its correctness.
Mr. Wood
denied, that he was capable of garbling any extract.
Mr. Herries
assured the hon. member he meant no personal imputation by the use of the word garbled.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
agreed with the noble lord, that on going into the committee they ought to be guided by one principle; namely, the means of meeting the expenditure; but he did not agree with the noble lord, that no vote ought to be granted until a necessity for the grant was shewn actually to exist. Such a principle could not be reduced into practice. If the Crown should think it necessary, for the support of the public honour, to go to war to-morrow, the question would not be whether there was enough in the Treasury for the war, but how best to supply the means of supporting what the Crown had determined on. It was not the principle of the constitution, or the practice of the country, to suppose that any means preexisted. He expressed his anticipations of much benefit resulting from the finance committee. The hon. member for Aberdeen supposed a vast saving could be effected. He disbelieved this; but he thought that, if they assented to the appointment of a committee, they should allow no appeals from it to that House; at least until its report was laid before them. Nothing had been publicly heard upon the subject
746
747
748
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
said, the information of the right hon. gentleman was not altogether correct. As an humble member of the committee, he was able to state, that that body did not think great national questions within its province. The subject of colonial policy, for instance, had been placed entirely out of view on that account; and it had been determined that it belonged to the executive government.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
expressed his conviction, in accordance with his previous sentiments, that neither the House nor the country would trouble itself much about the labours of the finance committee. He had much confidence in the exertions of the individual members; but he maintained that, however proper it might be to appoint a finance committee, it ought not to supersede the functions of the government, and that the discussions on the estimates ought not to be postponed. He looked at that appointment chiefly as an expedient for getting over the session, and not with any expectation that its labours would produce any effect on the estimates. Late as it was in the session, it was still the duty of the House minutely to investigate every thing relating to the expenditure of the country, more especially under the admission, that in the last year the receipts had fallen short of the expenditure. Whether the finance committee had travelled out of its proper course, was not a question for the House at present to consider; but whatever had been done by the select body, it was the duty of ministers to come forward with some proposition to meet the exigencies of the country, by making a most material reduction. The first point was, to consider what the country could afford, and not what it wanted. In 1817 lord Castlereagh had stated the amount of the army and navy he considered necessary; and what had happened since that year, to warrant an increase of eighteen thousand or nineteen thousand men in the former, and a proportionate augmentation in the latter? The
749
The House then went into the committee of supply.
Sir George Clerk
rose for the purpose of detailing the estimates for the naval service in the present year. It would be recollected, that in the early part of the session, only half the sum to be required had been voted, under the expectation that the finance committee would soon make its report, regulating the expenditure of the different departments. The labours of that body having been unusually extended, it had become necessary to call for the remainder of the money; and it was proposed only to take the balance of the estimates, as originally laid upon the table. Hence he should secure the acquiescence of the hon. member for Wareham, who had said, that he should not object to vote the sum remaining due upon the estimates some months since laid upon the table. The number of seamen and marines was thirty thousand; and he was sure that no man who had turned his attention to the subject would wish that number to be reduced. Although the nation was at peace with all the world, its commerce was spread to every corner of it. In many parts of the globe serious disturbances prevailed, and a large naval force was therefore necessary for the protection of our trade, independent of the depredations to which it had been exposed in the Levant and in the West Indies. It was unnecessary for him to say more upon this point, because not a single member had stated that he thought the number too great, excepting the hon. member for Montrose; who, as usual, had insisted upon the naval establishment of 1792. When the hon. alderman (Waithman) expressed his surprise at the addition to the naval force since 1817, he
750
l.
l.
l.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that when he last spoke, it was in his capacity of Chairman of the Committee of Finance: he now appeared in his own character—that of an individual member of parliament. He felt no disposition, under the circumstances, to resist the vote; but if it was proposed as the final peace establishment he should decidedly object to it. He did not think that any correct standard could be arrived at by referring back to former periods of undisturbed tranquillity. There was one part of the service in which he was of opinion that a reduction might properly be made. The committee of finance had taken into consideration the expediency of continuing the coast blockade, and, from the evidence taken, he, for one, had arrived at the conclusion that it might be dispensed with. The object of preventing
751
l.
bona fide
l.
Sir J. Yorke
congratulated the House and the government, that the chairman of the finance committee had been able to do no more than suggest a reduction of two thousand seamen. It was well understood that the coast blockade was, as it were, the dépôt of the Admiralty, from which, on an emergency, it could be furnished instantly with men for three or four vessels if needed; and for this reason he should vote against the amendment. Me was rather surprised to find that no report had been made upon the subject of the experimental squadrons, which had been built and sent out in order to try the respective merits of particular modes of construction. The scientific individuals who were engaged in building the vessels had themselves commanded them; or, in the language of the turf, they had jockied their own horses. No expense was spared; various alterations were made in the placing of the masts, and in the size of the sails, in order that the experiment might end satisfactorily; and he hoped that the prin-
752
Sir George Cockburn
said, that the hon. baronet (sir H. Parnell) and other gentlemen of the finance committee, had stated the partial evidence taken be-
753
754
755
756
bona fide
Admiral Evans
said, that as he was one of those officers whom the gallant admiral had called "yellow admirals," he must tell the House, that the yellow flag was formerly the signal for punishment in the navy, and that he considered the allusion entirely gratuitous on the part of the gallant admiral,
757
Sir G. Cockburn
begged his gallant friend's pardon. He did not anticipate that a familiar term like that would have given him offence.
Admiral Evans
said, that as his gallant friend had disclaimed any reflection on him, he was satisfied. The reason that induced him to intrude upon the House, was his desire to vindicate his profession, He would say, that knowing the privations naval officers endured, and the anxious hours they passed, it was the duty of the House to save them from disappointment and injustice. The officer in the navy looked to a flag as the pinnacle of his ambition; but if, by patience and perseverance, he finally became a post captain, it was as much as he could ordinarily expect The gallant admiral had asked, what right the naval officer had to expect to be an admiral, because he might be on the post-list? He answered that he had every right. If there was nothing against his character, he had a right to look to a flag. Not one officer out of ten who entered the service, attained the rank of post-captain: yet, if he served with an unblemished character, he deserved all that the country could bestow on him. Under the present system, a man served for six years, and then, by interest, or excellent conduct, was made a lieutenant, and placed on half-pay. He thus became an annuitant on the public, a burthen to himself and to the country. Perhaps he was made a commander, and after serving a few years with credit and distinction, by special favour, good luck, or great merit, was appointed on the post-list. Then he was to be told by the gallant admiral, that he had no right to expect a flag. His royal highness, the lord high Admiral, he was convinced, had every inclination to consult the benefit of the service. He looked towards the exertions of his royal highness with the utmost confidence; and, in his opinion, the placing of that illustrious person at the head of the navy was one of the greatest boons that was ever conferred on that service. He hoped that in future the vacillating system of which he complained,—the system of issuing orders in council on one day and retracting them the next—would be effectually corrected.
Lord Althorp
said, that his hon. friend who moved the present amendment had been unfairly alluded to, on account of his having referred to the evidence given before the finance committee. Now, he
758
759
Mr. Croker
said, the first objection made by the noble lord was, that the coast blockade and the preventive service being placed under different authorities, were likely to be mutually jealous of each other. This, however, was not the case. The two services were perfectly distinct, and never came in contact with one another. The coast blockade began on the coast of Kent, and extended down the river Thames, and part of the river Lea, to Chichester. Whether on the extreme point, where the services met, there might not be some collision, he could neither affirm nor deny; but even if there were, that did not constitute a reason for doing away with the coast blockade. Elsewhere, there could not be the least contact between the two services. The noble lord seemed to be of opinion, that the preventive service was more useful than the coast blockade, because they got information from the revenue department: but did he not know that the king's ships were also employed against smugglers, and that the coast blockade were enabled to give information to the officers of those ships? For his own part, he did not think the proposition of the noble lord was of any great moment, one way or other; because either the preventive service or the coast blockade must act on any information given to them. The noble lord had observed, that the coast blockade was not the best school for officers. Perhaps it was not for those who were going to sea; but he could not therefore consent, that, it should be altogether thrown overboard. That force was commanded by officers of the navy. They were lieutenants; and whether the school
760
Mr. Maberly
said, that in deciding on this question, his object was, in the first instance, to consider whether the reduction proposed was a fair and proper one. Now, under ordinary circumstances, he should have been stopped,
in limine
761
l.
Sir E. Knatchbull
thought it would have been much fairer, if the evidence given before the finance committee had not been referred to. He thought the committee, and even the country, was likely to receive injury from the course which had been taken. It was most true that the gallant officer, and other members of the government, had given their evidence
762
Mr. Curteis
thought, that in the present circumstances of the country it would be most unwise to reduce the force of the navy. Perhaps it would be soon found necessary to raise ten thousand additional seamen, instead of disbanding two thousand. That, he thought, was not at all improbable. The preventive service, under the board of Customs, had put an end to smuggling. He did not mean to argue whether the system was or was not good in itself, but certainly the end for which it was established had been answered.
Mr. Bernal
said, a gallant officer who was employed in the coast-blockade-service, had informed him that the transactions in which the individuals connected with that service were employed, were such as greatly deteriorated the character of British seamen. If he voted for the amendment of his hon. friend, he did not think he should be doing any mischief to the naval service. It would be given with a view to the reduction of the coast-blockade-service, and not with any desire to weaken the naval service generally.
Mr. Calcraft
supported the original resolution. Government had told the House, that 30,000 men were necessary, and that, if they did not choose to employ a portion of these men in the preventive service, it would be expedient to fully man the guardships, where the seamen did nothing; but as in the case of Portugal, the country derived benefit from the labours of the men occupied in the preventive service. Surely, then, they would not deprive the navy of such a force, which might next year be wanted in the Mediterranean. It would be most impolitic to deprive the navy of upwards of one,
763
Sir H. Parnell
defended the finance committee from the censure of not having made a report. The House would recollect, that the finance committee of 1817 did make a report, but he would ask any hon. member to point out the good which resulted from that report. Any hon. member who would take the trouble to refer to the report, would see at once that the committee and its report were used merely for the purpose of helping the government to accomplish the measures they had in contemplation at the time, and that no advantage was derived from the labours of the committee, with reference to the financial condition of the country. The present committee had avoided the errors of its predecessors, by taking time to become possessed of all the requisite information before they ventured to make a report. When he addressed the House before, he had pointed out, as an individual member of the House, the objections he felt to the vote of thirty thousand men, and he had availed himself, as he had a right to do, of the information he obtained elsewhere. When, therefore, he was asked to vote money for the naval service, and the prevention of smuggling, he thought he had full right to make use of any information he
764
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
, in explanation, observed, that he did certainly say, in his evidence, that the coast-blockade force was not absolutely necessary for the suppression of smuggling, but he had added, that there were considerable naval advantages to be derived from it in other ways. In his evidence before the committee he had said, that the suppression of smuggling, might be provided for in another way, but not so effectually. He at the same time took occasion to point out to the committee the advantage which the naval service derived from the blockade service in cases of emergency, and the great saving which resulted from their being substituted for Customhouse officers.
Mr. Hume
said, he had never before heard, that a member of a committee was precluded from giving an opinion on any subject before that House. He had not a single page of the evidence by him; but if he had thought that, such a question would have been raised, he would have brought down the whole, and read from it every syllable which bore upon the subject. Why were they, in the present state of the country, to vote thirty thousand men, when, at former periods, a smaller number had been found necessary? At other periods, whenever an increase was proposed, it was considered the duty of the person proposing it to state the reasons of it. Every augmentation of our force had been declared necessary, from the existence of new services; but as those new services ceased, our force had not been diminished; and no reason had been assigned for continuing a force when the cause which created it had ceased to exist. What was the reason that they should now keep up such a force as this, when they had not the
765
766
Sir C. Cole
said, that, with respect to the blockade service, he was ready to admit that the execution of that service was apt to lead men away from what would be called proper and correct service; but there was no service in which a seaman's courage and abilities were more exercised. Why, then, should they take it away? If he were appointed to the command of a ship of the line, nothing would give him greater pleasure than to have one hundred men from this service to serve under him. He did think the proposal of reduction was very extraordinary, when it was notorious that all the other powers, and especially France, were increasing instead of diminishing their naval force.
Sir J. Beresford
said, that since the year 1792, every power had been endeavouring to get the better of the English navy. The proposal for reduction, therefore, seemed to him to be a most extraordinary one. If it were agreed to, and there should arise an American or any other war, in what a condition would this country be placed?
Sir James Graham
said, he had not been prepared, on entering the House, for the proposition of the hon. baronet, and he had listened with great attention to the arguments on both sides—prepared, if he should see reason, to urge upon the government the observance of that economy which the finances of the country required. But, after the able arguments which he had heard from the Secretary to the Admiralty, and from the hon. member for Wareham, he could not vote for the proposed reduction. He was bound to believe on the authority of ministers, that if this force were done away with, it would be necessary to man the guard-ships, and
767
The amendment was negatived, and the original motion agreed to. A conversation then took place on several of the resolutions. After which, the chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 19.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.]
The Duke of Wellington
Earl Bathurst
then stated, that he had gone to the Painted Chamber, and met there Sir F. Burdett and other members of the House of Commons, who, in the name of the whole House, delivered into his hand the paper he now held, which he begged might be read by the clerk at the table.
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that not having understood it to be the intention of any noble lord to propose any day upon which to take into consideration the communication from the Commons, he rose for the purpose of moving that the resolution be taken into consideration on Friday, the 30th inst.
The Duke of Wellington
thought it
768
The Marquis of Cleveland
said, that though some noble lords might wish for an early day, yet he, in common with other noble lords, felt he had a duty to perform in a very high quarter, to which he, and other noble lords probably, thought it their duty to attend. Under these circumstances, he hoped that Monday the 9th of June, might be fixed upon.
The resolution was accordingly ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday, the 9th of June; for which day their lordships were ordered to be summoned.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION
Earl Grey
rose for the purpose of once more offering to their lordships' consideration, a Petition from the great body of the Roman Catholics of England, praying for restoration to a full enjoyment of the rights of the constitution. The petitioners presented their claims to their lordships' consideration, on the strong ground that they had done nothing to merit exclusion. The petitioners humbly offered to their lordships' consideration,—and they appealed to the best periods of history as proofs of their assertion,—that with respect to them no paramount political necessity for such exclusion existed. They appealed to their conduct in many instances, both in ancient and modern times, for proofs of their undeviating loyalty and zealous devotion to the interests of their country, of their steady attachment to the constitution, to the support of which, though deprived of its benefits, they had never thought any sacrifice too great. They had repeatedly contributed their property, and unsparingly risked their lives, in the support of that constitution, whenever the services of the state required them; and no man was more competent than the noble duke opposite, to bear testimony to the bravery displayed in those contests in which they had been the humble instruments and partakers of his fame—to the noble manner in which they had supported the honour of the country and the independence of that constitution, of the benefits of which they were still deprived. The petitioners further appealed, in proof that there was nothing in their religion incompatible with religious or civil liberty, or dangerous to the interests of the state, to the conduct
769
770
771
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 19.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Sir F. Burdett
said, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary for the Home Department to the state of the supply of Water to the Metroplis. It involved matters of great importance, and was closely connected with the health and comfort of the inhabitants. He could have wished that the report which had been made upon the subject had gone a little further than it did, and had pointed out, not only the defects of the present system, but also the remedy that might be applied to them. What he proposed was, to carry the inquiry a step further, and empower the committee to consider of a plan for the improvement of the water supplied to the metropolis. The opinion of engineers should be taken upon the subject, and the most practicable mode of procuring an abundant and wholesome supply of water investigated. What he now wished to
772
Mr. Secretary Peel
said he had read the minutes of the report alluded to, with considerable interest. It was natural enough that companies formed in order to supply the metropolis with that essential of comfort, and indeed of life, should form these associations with a view to the private profit and emolument likely to arise out of the speculation. The next thing probably considered was the obtaining the supply required, and the last the quality of the water itself. Of these companies there were five principal Ones. The New River, the East London, West Middlesex, Chelsea, and Grand Junction Companies, supplying the northern parts of London and the city of Westminster. With reference to the evidence as respected the Grand Junction Water Company against the quality of whose water several insinuations had been thrown out during the examination, he did not think the water could be characterised as bad. It appeared from the statements in evidence—"That the portion of the town upon the north side of the river Thames, including the cities of London and Westminster, is supplied daily with a quantity of water amounting to nearly twenty-six millions of gallons, and that the total number of houses and buildings receiving this supply amounts to about one hundred and forty-four thousand. The water is of course very unequally distributed, the average consumption in each house being apparently greatest in the district supplied by the Grand Junction Company, where it amounts to about three hundred and sixty-three gallons daily per house. Taking the average of the whole supply, the daily consumption of each house is about one hundred and eighty gallons. Of this water, more than one half of which is derived from the Thames, a large portion is delivered at very considerable elevations above the level of the river, constituting what is
773
774
Here the conversation dropped.
STATE OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS—
Sir Robert Wilson
on rising to put the questions of which he had given notice, respecting the State of our Relations with Foreign Powers, observed, that, upon several preceding occasions, he had felt it his duty to address questions to his majesty's government on the subject of our foreign transactions. In doing so he was not influenced by any wish to embarrass the government, to invite them to any premature disclosure, or to express any opinion of disapprobation against the motives or conduct of that government. On the contrary, he might once for all say, that so far from entertaining any views unfriendly to the present administration, he considered them, without reference to the circumstances which attended their appointment, as possessing more power to do good, and less likelihood to be counteracted in the endeavours to do so, than any other govern-
775
776
777
778
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, if he abstained from any comments on the variety of observations with which the hon. gentleman had prefaced his particular questions, he trusted that no inference of any kind would be drawn from his silence. He trusted it would be sufficient for him to allude to the inconvenience which must arise from the partial discussion of such important matters, in the absence of that full information which alone could enable the House to decide upon the conduct of the government. If he did not enter into any detailed answer to the different questions, he trusted they would not interpret his conduct into any unwillingness on his part to defend every step which had been taken by his majesty's government in those transactions, but that they would consider prudence alone as the motive which dictated caution upon all the topics, and absolute silence upon some of them.—With respect to the particular questions now put, all the answer he could give, consistently with his duty was this,—that from the moment the treaty of the 6th of July was signed, there had been on the part of the advisers of the Crown, a sincere desire scrupulously to fulfil its engagements. He thought he might also say, that it was the opinion of the government, considering the length of the struggle between Greece and Turkey, that the interests of humanity, as well as of England and Europe, required that an end should be put to the contest as soon as possible, and a permanent arrangement effected, as to the relations in which Turkey and Greece should hereafter stand towards each other. England was prepared to fulfil all her engagements, and in common with her allies to concert the means of carrying the treaty into execution. It was now notorious to the world, that events had materially changed the relations
779
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
The House, on the motion of Mr. Tennyson, went into a committee on this bill.
Mr. N. Calvert
asked the hon. gentleman whether it was his intention to persevere in this bill?
Mr. Tennyson replied in the affirmative.
Mr. N. Calvert
said, that in that case, he should move an amendment; for he could not consent to the county of Nottingham being deprived of two of its members, as it already had not above its fair share. It was therefore his intention to move, that instead of the right of voting being taken away from the borough, it should be put into the hands of such
780
l.
l.
Dr. Phillimore
thought that the hon. gentleman ought to move for the postponement of the preamble.
The Chairman
(Mr. John Wood) said, he understood that could not be done.
The preamble was then read, and Mr. N. Calvert moved an amendment to the above effect.
Mr. Peel
doubted whether the hon. gentleman had adopted the most convenient course, as he did not think that the preamble was applicable to the nature of this amendment.
Mr. Tennyson
rose and spoke as follows:—Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the disposition manifested by the House on a former night, in favour of the proposal of my hon. friend, I must confess I did entertain a hope that he would have decided to abandon it after what has since occured in the other House of parliament, with regard to the bill for disfranchising the borough of Penryn. The main grounds upon which he received the support of the House no longer exist; but as he thinks it expedient to persevere, I wish to remind the committee that, by the vote of the 21st of March, to which I have referred, we are not in any manner bound to adopt this proposition. That vote merely enabled this committee to take it into consideration, and to examine the claims of the hundred of Bassetlaw in competition with those of the important town, to which this bill yet destines the elective franchise.
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
pro re natâ
790
per se
791
l.
l.
l.
792
l.;
l.
l.
793
vis medicatrix
794
795
796
797
798
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
799
Mr. N. Calvert
said, that the agricultural interests were dwindling away daily, and
800
Mr. Lumley
said, that although the hon. member for Blechingly had spoken of the hand-bill of Mr. Gally Knight, he well knew that the freeholders had more power in returning the members than the noblemen. As it was not known to the House from any authority, that the franchise of Penryn was to be transferred, the fact ought not to influence the debate. He denied that any expectations had been created in Birmingham; as the proposition, when put, was negatived without a division.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that the present was a great contitutional question, involving the most important interests of the country. He could not, therefore, consider it merely as a question between the agricultural and trading interests of the community. He could not help expressing his surprise at the ground taken by the hon. member for Hertfordshire, and at the arguments by which he had supported his position. That hon. member had treated the subject as one purely between the two contending interests. Now, he could make no such distinction, but should consider it as a great constitutional question. The right hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) had condescended to give them his opinion upon it. For half an hour he had listened to the right hon. gentleman without being able to guess which way the balance would turn. At last it came out, that one franchise was to be given to the landed, and the other to the manufacturing interest; but the right hon. gentleman had used no argument at all. He had, indeed, talked a good deal about expediency, but he was at a loss to know what the right hon. gentleman meant by expediency in this case. As to what had been quoted from judge Blackstone, that judge had taken nearly the very words of Bolingbroke, and the Tory writer Hume had used the same language. They were here asked to transfer the franchise of East Retford to the hundred, instead of to Birmingham, which was one-fourth larger, whose population was one-third more, and which was infinitely superior to the hundred, whether they considered the taxation which it paid, or the property it included. The present arrangement proposed to give the right of franchise abso-
801
Lord Ranclife
said, that though he took a great interest in the county of Nottingham, yet, if this question came to a vote, he should prefer giving the franchise to an opulent town rather than to his own county.
Sir G. Philips
contended, that the identity of the landed interest was such, that the member for one county might easily represent any other, but that the interests of different species of manufacturers, and of different merchants, were so different, that they required different representatives. The proper representative for Leeds, for instance, would not do for Birmingham, and the gentlemen who might be well acquainted with the interests of the cotton, might know nothing of the interests of the woollen, manufacturers. Virtual representation might be very good in theory, but, in the present state of the country, it was necessary that the different commercial interests should have special representatives.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had already stated his view of the course fit to be pursued on the present question, and hardly felt that he should be justified in detaining the House by repeating it. He had proved by his vote in the case of Penryn, that he had no aversion, under some circumstances, to the transfer of a borough franchise to a town of great manufacturing interest. But he confessed, that, in doing this, he meant to recognize no general principle, and was a good deal governed by the circumstances of the case. He thought there was a difference between the position of Penryn, which had twice been warned by bills in that House, of the effect of the course which it was pursuing, and the case of East Retford, the disposal of
802
Mr. Littleton
said, that the proposition was, whether, in transferring the franchise from a borough which had been proved to be corrupt, they should allow the principle of representation to keep pace with the population of the country, or whether the representation of the Commons should remain stationary while the Lords received constant accessions of wealth and influ-
803
l.
804
Mr. Stanley
said, he regretted to hear, in a question of such constitutional importance as the present, any allusion to private or personal motives in those who supported it. In the vote which he was now about to give, he would support that one of the three propositions before the committee, in which alone he could be said to have no personal interest. He considered that there were three propositions before the House;—one for giving the franchise to Birmingham, another for transferring it to Manchester, and a third for extending it to the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw. He would not have mentioned Manchester if it had not been alluded to by the right hon. Secretary. Now, it so happened, that those who were likely to become candidates for Bassetlaw, should the House decide on bestowing the franchise on that hundred, were, with the exception of a right hon. gentleman who had been named, his personal friends. In Manchester it was well known he had a considerable connexion, but in Birmingham he had none whatever; yet, for that place he would give his vote, and he hoped that no competition between that place and Manchester would be made, as it would tend to weaken the greater question of taking the franchise from the corrupt borough of East Retford. To the country generally it was of no importance which of the two was represented. He wished that both could be so; but as that was not to be hoped for at present, he trusted that no difference would arise between the friends of either place. The real question was, whether the corrupt borough should be disfranchised, and he did hope, that no jealousies would prevent its being extended to that town, whose name had been connected with its disfranchisement, as Manchester had been with that of Penryn. He would now say a word or two as to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, with reference to the measure before the House of Lords. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that he could not know what had occurred in another place. It was true, he could not, at the present moment, know it officially; but was it possible he could not know it practically? Was there, he would ask, any man who could remain for forty-eight hours practically ignorant of what was going on in that House? The right hon.
805
806
"Utor permisso caudæqup pilos ut equinæ
Paulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum,
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi."
807
Mr. L. Foster
said, that the question they were called upon to decide was not between Birmingham and Bassetlaw, but whether they were then to set a precedent of an entirely popular representation. They had already given a pledge to that effect in the case of Penryn; and if they did so in a second instance, they would be bound
by that precedent [cheers]. He knew the meaning of those cheers; but he desired the House to look to the inferences which would be drawn, next year, by those gentlemen who had thus cheered, and see whether they would not deduce a strong argument from this precedent. The hon. member who spoke last had talked of checks by the three estates upon each other; and he believed it was essential that checks should exist, in a constitutional government, in every branch of those estates. They were told not to look to theories or to forms; and if they did look merely to facts, he asked, were there not sufficient checks, and was not each interest, whether East India or West India, Protestant or Catholic, represented in that House? He was anxious that each should have its fair turn; and, looking to the hundred in which East Retford was situated, if numbers were a guarantee for purity of election, it might be found, where the voters were from one to two thousand, and he was sure that when the motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire was looked to, it would at once be seen how unfounded were the rumours that the change proposed was only intended to increase the power of the aristocracy.
Mr. S. Bourne
said, that, as he had felt it his duty in the last session to oppose this bill, so should he now express his regret at the course about to be taken with respect to it by his right hon. friend. His right hon. friend thought that the cases of Penryn and East Retford should be dealt with on grounds of expediency. Now, that was not the course he would pursue, as he would deal with it according to the dictates of justice. He said now, as he had said last session, that he did not think the House justified in taking away the franchise of Penryn; for, after inquiry, there were found one hundred and fifty electors uncontaminated, and that was the reason
808
Lord Sandon
said, he rose to express his concurrence with what had fallen from his right hon. friend who had just sat down. If any thing could have induced the House to come to a compromise upon this subject, it was from the idea that the House of Lords would have given their consent to the bill which had been sent up to them. That, however, had not been done, and no one could say that the compromise had been fairly kept. He recollected that the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Huskisson) had said, that if there were only one case before the House, he would have no hesitation in transferring the franchise, in this instance, to Birmingham. He therefore claimed the vote of the Secretary for the Colonies; and he claimed it on the very grounds on which his right hon. colleague had rested the defence of his own consistency. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had deprecated the idea of establishing any uniform precedent one way or the other: yet if the mode now proposed were followed, that would establish the general precedent for transfer to the hundred; for all that had been transferred were disposed of in that way. Every one of those cases were wrong in principle;
809
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that his noble friend was not incorrect, as to what had fallen from him on a former occasion; but when he said that if they adopted the proposition of the hon. member for Hertfordshire they would create a precedent for future occasions, he could not admit the principle, that the franchise should always in future be transferred to a great town whenever any borough might be disfranchised. The House might make a bad selection, and as what his right hon. friend near him said, related only to a choice between two towns, so his opinion had been that it would be better to extend the franchise to the neighbourhood of the town which had formerly enjoyed it, rather than to a distant part of the kingdom. Now, as to the present, which his noble friend considered a strange course, it should be recollected, that when the House first took upon itself to punish for corruption, it did not disfranchise any borough, but considered that a corrective was applied by throwing the liberty open to the vicinage; and that had been done in the cases of Shoreham, Aylesbury, and other places, and the argument in favour of that course was strengthened when there were numbers in any place who had not vitiated their franchise by using it for corrupt purposes. In such cases parliament had no right to take away the franchise, and thus punish innocent persons for guilt incurred by others. The proposition, however, of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, was not to infuse fresh blood into the borough by letting in the freeholders of the vicinage, but to deal with East Retford as they had with Grampound; and then, by giving the franchise to the neighbourhood, to create a new representation.
Mr. N. Calvert
said, that his object was, to give the franchise to the freeholders of the hundred in which East Retford stood, and who were about two thousand in number; and also to continue it to such of the freemen of East Retford as were rated at 20
l.
810
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that did go, in fact, to annihilate the borough, as in the case of Grampound, inasmuch as it transferred the right of the voters to the hundred of East Retford, and created a new right in the borough. He did therefore wish that further time should be given; because he thought the hon. member for Hertfordshire's motion was entirely different from the instruction to the committee, which was:—"in order to prevent all unlawful proceedings, and that the borough be duly represented." He maintained, however, that it would no longer be represented if this motion were agreed to, and that the motion called on the House to transfer the franchise to the neighbouring hundred. Under these circumstances, he felt a great difficulty, and wished that the decision on this question should be postponed. As to the insertion of Manchester in this bill, it would be irregular, because another bill had been sent up to the Lords, which might pass, and in which Manchester was also inserted. The better way, therefore, was to postpone the decision until the fate of the other bill should be known.
Lord W. Powlett
said, that the hon. member for Hertfordshire wished still to preserve the franchise to those freemen who were rated at 20
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he wished to make a few observations in reply to the remarks of an hon. member opposite, in reference to what had fallen from him (Mr. Peel) as to a compromise, and affecting his own personal character, which he felt more deeply concerned for than for any constitutional question. He denied that he held out any particular compromise. It might be true, that he had said he would give no opinion as to Penryn, until he knew what was done with East Retford, because he knew that the policy of the whole measure depended on whether there was one or two places to deal with. He denied, however, that he had entered into any compromise, which bound him to a particular case. It there was one borough only, he claimed a right to say whether he would dispose of it to the hundred, or to a great town. He left the hon. gentleman to the care and conduct of his own bill; and he had, in an early part
811
l.
812
Mr. Stanley
said, he gave the right hon. gentleman full credit for acting from the most conscientious motives: but, he must repeat, that comparing the right hon. gentleman's course that night with what he had held out on a former occasion, his parliamentary conduct was not consistent, The right hon. gentleman had said, that he was not bound by any declaration made at a former period. If not, what avail was it, before dealing with the present case, to see how the oilier was disposed of by the Lords? The right hon. gentleman gave it to be clearly understood, that he was disposed to give one borough to the one interest, and the other borough to the other interest. In the same breath in which the right hon. gentleman denied that he had made any compromise, he recommended waiting, until it should be ascertained what the other House had done with the other bill. What was that but a compromise? He was opposed to waiting. To go on without such a reference was the constitutional doctrine. As to Mr. Canning's vote on the Penryn question, that was no compromise. He might, perhaps, have expressed himself too strongly when he used the words "miserable compromise;" if so, he was sorry for it; but he must still maintain, that the right hon. gentleman's conduct was a compromise of constitutional principle. Mr. Canning had been guilty of no compromise; he had voted as he had done, because he-thought there was not sufficient evidence to justify him in voting otherwise.
Mr. Peel
said, he must again positively deny, that he made use of any words which pledged him as to the course he should pursue, if the two places were to be disposed of. He might have contended
813
Mr. Wynn
said, he was bound to declare that, although he might have argued erroneously, he had understood his right hon. friend distinctly to state, that if there were but one borough to deal with, he would vote for the transfer of the elective franchise to a great town. In his opinion, the House ought, without any reference to the course that might be pursued by the other House, to send up to that House bills, alternately transferring the elective franchise to a borough and to a great town. It was now pretty well understood, that the Penryn bill was not expected to be returned to that House; and if, on the disfranchisement of East Retford, the franchise was not transferred to a populous place, the country would conclude that the House had given to the popular interest the weaker case, Penryn, and reserved the stronger, East Retford, for the purpose of serving another interest. On these grounds he should vote for the original question.
The House divided—For the Amendment 146:—Against it 128:—Majority for the Amendment 18.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Navy Estimates. On the vote of 438,250
l.
Mr. Hume
remarked, that, if the House was at all disposed to deal with the estimates as they ought, this vote would attract its attention. When he stated that the year before the last French war, the whole charge of every sort for naval half-pay was 172,900
l.
l.
814
Mr. Maberly
said, the question was, whether there was to be any reduction at all in the public expenditure? If there was, the House should attend, in the first
815
Admiral Evans
said, that, if the hon. gentleman thought that, with a reduced navy, they could maintain the country against the other powers of Europe, they might, discarding all gratitude for past services cut down the estimates to their notions of economy. As to the promotions, did they suppose that age would not affect naval^ men, as it did all others? Young men must be brought forward; otherwise, if a war took place to-morrow, the navy would be found filled with old men, unfit for the toils and perils of the service. It was easy for gentlemen, who had lived during the war in comfort and composure, while the navy were defending them from invasion, to talk slightingly of the debt of gratitude they owed to that service; but let them not, by mistaken reductions, impair its efficiency, when it would again become necessary to them.
Colonel Davies
agreed with the gallant admiral, that it was hard that an officer who had served his country bravely in war, should pine in want and obscurity during peace. But the amount of the deadweight was a matter of serious importance. In the army it was nearly three millions, and in the navy upwards of one.
Sir G. Cockburn
contended, that a fair proportion of old officers had been brought forward in the recent promotions; but it was a principle he had always maintained, and in which he had been supported by that House, that a certain portion of young officers should be included with them. Among the lieutenants recently made, there was a large proportion of midshipmen, who had passed their examination in 1815. It was absolutely impossible to refuse promotion to those who were in constant service, or to such claims as arose from events like the battle of Navarin, or from exposure to climates, like the coast of Africa or the West Indies. It would require a hard heart indeed to tell men, on their return home, after years spent abroad in such places as these, that they should not be promoted. He would not argue the question by reference to the feelings of the House, because he knew by experience that he could carry them with him; but he acknowledged, as one of pure policy, it was attended with great difficulties. When he was told by the
816
The several resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 20,1828.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
Counsel being called in, Mr. Harrison stated, that he did not intend to offer any evidence to their lordships against the bill, as he conceived no case had been made out for disfranchising the borough of Penryn. He should therefore leave the case to their lordships' justice. The Earl of Carnarvon said, he should, after the holidays, move the second reading of the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 20, 1828.
USURY Laws.]
Mr. Poulett Thompson,
in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Usury Laws, said that, in laying his proposition before the House, he did not intend to go fully into the general question; but, as there were many hon. gentlemen now in the House who were not members when the subject was last discussed, he felt it his duty to make a few general observations. He much regretted that the task of bringing the question before the House had not fallen to the lot of an individual more competent than himself; but when he considered the crimes and evils which those laws produced, he was anxious that some course should be adopted to mitigate their severity. Honourable members were aware that, in the year 1818, when Mr. Serjeant Onslow brought forward a similar bill, a committee was appointed for the purpose of examining into these laws; and to the evidence taken before that committee he should have occasion to refer. He much wished that his majesty's ministers had redeemed their pledge of bringing forward some measure for amending the state of
817
818
l.
l.
l.
l.
819
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
820
l.
l.
l.
821
822
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that having intimated to the hon. gentleman, that it was not his intention to oppose the introduction of the bill, he should not have said a word on the present occasion, had he not been informed that it was the determination of some gentlemen, who were opposed to any change in the Usury-laws, to enter that evening into a discussion of their general policy. Now, with all respect to those gentlemen, he would advise them to postpone the discussion until they had the measure in a distinct and substantive shape before them. He thought that it was impossible for any man who had attended to the speech of the hon. member, to shut his eyes against the great inconveniences which resulted from the Usury-laws. It was impossible to hear of commercial men being innocently subjected to the payment of enormous penalties, without feeling that the hon. member had made out a case, which rendered it imperative on the House to consider whether it could not devise some amendment for so defective a state of law. For these reasons, he should offer no opposition to the motion. In making that declaration, he reserved to himself the
823
Sir R. Heron
said, he was ready to agree to the mitigation of the Usury-laws, provided that mitigation did not amount to an actual repeal of the laws themselves. It appeared to him to be quite impossible to pass a bill like the present, without affecting the landed interest most materially. Mortgages must be affected by the change which would take place in the value of money on the repeal of those laws. The impression made on his mind by a perusal of the evidence taken before the committee in 1818, was unfavourable to the repeal of the Usury-laws, and was principally created by the evidence of Mr. Preston; no mean authority on such a subject. If there had been no Usury-laws, he believed that, during the panic of 1825, some individuals might have escaped from the ruin in which it involved them; but he likewise believed that more persons would have been ingulfed in it, who, owing to the existence of the Usury-laws, were saved from it by the benevolence of their friends. Those kind-hearted persons knew
824
Mr. Martin
condemned the Usury-laws. They took money out of the pocket of the borrower, without putting it into that of the lender; the only person who was benefitted by them was the inferior description of attornies and agents. He wished the government would deal fairly between the landed and commercial interests on this question. The landowner was unrestricted as to price in every article which he produced. If the poor were starving, and corn selling at a guinea a bushel, the government would not pass a law to prevent the agriculturist from selling corn at that price. He did not see how they could continue the present Usury-laws, if they acted consistently, without imposing a
maximum
Mr. Cripps
said, he had regularly opposed the bill of a learned serjeant on this subject, because it went to the total repeal of these laws, which he conceived would create a perfect revolution in pecuniary matters. But he was inclined to support the present bill; because, without going so far as the learned Serjeant's, it was calculated to correct most of the evils of the present system.
Sir J. Sebright
was convinced, that of all classes of the community the landed interest was that which suffered most from the present Usury-laws. A landholder, if he wanted money, could not procure it when the funds paid an interest above five per cent. He was, therefore, obliged to borrow it at a higher rate than the legal
825
The Attorney-general
said, that all the former bills which had been introduced upon this subject went to the total repeal of all restrictions upon the interest of money. They were founded on the theoretical principle, that, as all other articles of trade found their own level, so too would money; and thence it was inferred, that it was unwise and impolitic to fix any certain standard of interest. He had studied this subject with great attention, and was deeply impressed with the conviction, that great oppression and injustice would arise from the repeal of the Usury-laws, and that a right to take interest upon money
ad libitum
826
Mr. W. Smith
thought that, if the bill only went as far as the Attorney-general was disposed to give it his sanction, it might as well not go on at all. An hon. baronet had alluded to a case in which, at a period when the difficulty of raising money was extreme, the friends of the individuals in distress had come forward to their relief, to prevent them from being compelled to accede to the terms of the usurer. But he would ask the hon. baronet, did he not consider that there was still in this case a loss and risk? There was a loss and risk to the friends of the parties.
Sir R. Heron
begged to state that he never did say any such thing. What he did say was simply, that at a particular period of great commercial distress, the friends of the sufferers had come forward to save them from the misfortunes consequent upon that period of distress, but that if the Usury-laws had been repealed, those persons would have been left to their own resources.
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that, even with his explanation, the hon. baronet had only shifted the burthen; for it was perfectly evident that there was both loss and risk in the transaction. He could not see that the slightest degree of injury would result from the modification or repeal of these laws. It was beyond dispute, that the man in extreme distress must get money at whatever rate he could.
Mr. Robinson
said, he was anxious for the repeal or modification of the Usury-laws. The former he should prefer, and he hoped his hon. friend would not get into greater difficulties than those he wished to avoid, by consenting to take a qualified course. From a twenty years knowledge of extensive commercial transactions, he could speak to the injurious tendency of these laws. They operated most injuriously both upon the commercial and landed interests. Why not leave money, which was the very essence of trade, like any other commodity, to be regulated by the necessities of the borrower and lender respectively? Each, could bargain accord-
827
Mr. Calcraft
said, that if he had not, on a recent occasion, declared his intention to oppose the repeal of the Usury-laws, he would not—finding that the proposal of the hon. gentleman was so different from what he had expected—have thought it necessary to say anything. He would give the hon. gentleman's proposal a fair and deliberate consideration, and as it did not touch upon that part of the subject which he had feared it would, he should support it if he could. At the same time, he considered himself perfectly free. The subject was surrounded with difficulties. He was decidedly opposed to the repeal of that part of the laws which applied to loans of money upon mortgages. The cases stated by the hon. member were extreme, and should be regarded as exceptions, rather than examples; but still, if that part of the laws to which he had alluded was preserved, he saw no objection to the proposal of the hon. mover.
Mr. Baring
said, he had always voted for a repeal of these laws, and would support this measure, though it did not go to the full extent of former motions for a similar purpose. He hoped the middle course taken would conciliate the opponents of this measure, and therefore effect some practicable good. Indeed, he thought the proposed alteration preferable to the previous application for a repeal. If he understood his hon. friend right, he meant to retain the legal standard of five per cent interest, but to repeal the obnoxious and severe penalties, of leaving
828
Mr. Sugden
considered the proposition of the hon. mover worse than an open avowal that his design was a repeal of the Usury-laws. What was that proposition? To leave five per cent still the legal standard of interest, but to abolish all the securities and penalties against those who violated the law. His opinion was, simply, that the law should either be repealed or enforced; but the hon. mover would not compel a dishonest man, who agreed to pay twelve per cent for the use of money, to perform his contract; he would allow this fraudulent party to go into a court of law, and cut down the creditor's demand to the legal standard. This was worse than the total repeal of all regulations on the subject. He wished the hon. gentleman would leave this question in the hands of government, who would digest a plan which might be produced next session, and would probably call forth the approbation of all parties. He would not consent to the repeal of the Usury-laws; as he was afraid it would be productive of great mischief both to the commercial and to the landed interest.
Mr. Bright
could not see how the real difficulties would be met by the proposed arrangement of the hon. member; he was friendly to the motion, but would reserve his opinion until the bill was introduced.
Mr. Maxwell
hoped, that the people of Scotland, which was more a debtor country than England, would have ample opportunity of knowing the nature of the intended change.
Lord Althorp
said, he should have preferred an entire repeal of the Usury-laws to the measure now proposed; he nevertheless thought it would be a great improvement upon the old law. He could not agree with the learned gentleman, that it would favour dishonest at the expense of honest men, but the reverse.
829
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PENSIONS ON THE CIVIL LIST.]
Mr. Hume
rose to call the attention of the House to the subject "of Pensions Payable out of the Civil List." He knew it was considered by common consent in that House, that the civil list when once settled, was not to be meddled with, until they were called upon, at the conclusion of one reign, to consider a new arrangement for another. But he had never concurred in that principle; because he found, that there never was any hesitation on the part of ministers to ask for the payment of the debts of the civil list, when they had accrued to a great amount. The House, he thought, had an equal right to ask, what was passing in the civil list. But though the House had, he thought, a right to interfere, he intended only to ask for an account of the pensions payable out of the civil list, in order that they might see whether the acts of parliament for the regulation of that list had been complied with, and whether there were not the means of providing for cases such as that which had lately occurred; as he thought that this was the source from which any allowance of this kind should proceed, instead of calling on the House for additional grants, in the present over-burthened state of the finances. In the act of 1782, called Mr. Burke's act, there was an express provision, in the 17th clause, that the pension list, which was then very large, should be put under the regulation that only. 1,200
l.
l.
830
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
831
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it would not be necessary for him to enter into an explanation of that part of the hon. gentleman's speech in which he had stated that the pension list amounted to upwards of 6,000,000
l.
832
833
l.
l.
l.
834
maximum
Lord Althorp
said, he had listened in vain for any thing like a reason against the motion of his hon. friend. All that his hon. friend desired was, to know to whom pensions had been granted. The right hon. gentleman said, it was not desirable to bring the Crown into unnecessary con-
835
Mr. Secretary Huskisson
said, that if he could accede to the proposition, that parliament had it in its power to control the expenditure of the pension list in the way it thought fit, he might be disposed to agree to the motion. Parliament had, however, taken the matter out of its own hands; and, by declaring that 95,000
l.
maximum
836
837
maximum
838
Dr. Lushington
said, the argument of the right hon. gentleman, if good for any thing, went to this—that the moment the civil list was settled, so it should remain, unless the monarch was obliged to come to parliament for relief. It was not, it seemed, to be inquired into, though the situation of the country rendered such an inquiry indispensable. Now, if the civil list had been fixed at 95,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, with respect to the argument of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should not interfere with the civil list, he would reply, that parliament did interfere several times during the last reign. In the first year of George 3rd the civil list was settled at 800,000
l.
l.
l.
839
Mr. Fergusson
regretted that he felt it his duty to vote for the motion. He regretted it, because he had every wish to support the present government, who were placed in a situation of difficulty, both with respect to foreign and to domestic affairs, to which few administrations had ever been exposed. But he could see no reason why the civil list of this country, as well as the civil lists of Ireland and Scotland should not be laid before the House. He was sure it would disclose nothing discreditable to his majesty or his advisers; and therefore there could be no reason for withholding it. The sum was given to his majesty for the purpose of rewarding meritorious servants; and the public should be satisfied that such services had been rewarded.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he should resist the motion. This sum of 95,000
l.
840
Lord Howick
said, he never heard a move extraordinary speech than that which had been made by the last hon. member. He said, that it was unconstitutional to inquire into the civil lists, and yet he had admitted, that the king might come down to that House, and ask for an increase of those lists. He would contend, that it was highly constitutional for them to see that this sum was properly disposed of. Responsibility was a complete joke if this information were refused. The hon. member told them, that they might apply for this information if they could show a case of abuse. What! show a case of abuse without the information, by means of which alone they could ascertain whether abuse existed? He had been told, on a former occasion, that he had displayed constitutional ignorance in saying that they ought to ascertain the amount of their income before they settled what their expenditure should be: but he still held the same doctrine; and the expenditure of five only of these 95,000
l.
The House divided: For the motion 52; Against it 131; Majority 79.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord
Marshall, John
Baring, A.
Monck, John B.
Baring, B.
Nugent, lord
Baring, sir T.
O'Brien, Lucius
Bentinck, lord G.
Osborne, lord F.
Bernal, R.
Palmer Fyshe,
Bright, H.
Portman, E. B.
Buck, L. W.
Protheroe, E.
Colborne, N. R.
Ramsden, J. C.
Davies, colonel
Rick ford, W.
Dawson, A.
Robarts, A. W.
Duncombe, T.
Russell, John
Fazakerley, J. N.
Smith, Wm.
Fyler, T. B.
Sykes, Daniel
Gordon, Robert
Stanley, hon. E. G.
Guest, J. J.
Thompson, C. P.
Heathcote, R. E.
Townsend, lord C.
Heron, sir R.
Vyvyan sir R. R.
Howick, viscount
Warburton, H.
Keck, G. A. L.
Whitmore, W.
Kennedy, T.
Wilbraham, Geo.
Langston, I. H.
Wood, John
Leycester, R.
TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr.
Hume, Joseph
Maberly, col.
Fergusson, R. C.
Marjoribanks, S.
SHUT OUT.
Morpeth, viscount
Taylor, M. A.
Martin, John
Fergusson, sir R. C.
LAW OF REAL PROPERTY—PROPERTY
Mr. Sugden
rose amidst
841
l.
l.
842
Mr. H. Twiss
supported the motion, but trusted that the amendments projected by his learned friend went further than the mere measure before the House.
Mr. Sugden
by no means intended that what he was doing at present should preclude him from going further: but he was anxious not to embark in too wide a field at once: for he was sure that whatever was done in haste would be done imperfectly.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
was grateful even for the little good promised by this bill; but it would be necessary to go a great deal further. Upon the subject of the contempts of court, no complaint could fairly
843
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.]
The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill. The clause fixing the scale of duties on wheat being read,
Mr. Whitmore
s.
s.
l.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
Mr. F. Lewis
said that every argument that had been urged in favour of the bill was applicable in opposition to the hon. gentleman's amendment. The proposition would, if adopted, expose the public to a danger which it was not desirable they should incur. Although friendly to the principles of free trade, he felt that government would have shown an incorrect sense of their duty, if they had ventured, under the present circumstances, to propose so low a reduction of the duties. The question was not, whether the proposed system was the best possible system of Corn-laws for the country, under any circumstances in which it might be placed; but the hon.
844
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Portman
proceeded to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. He was anxious to impress on the minds of the committee the necessity of making a change in the list of places, where the average prices of British corn were to be taken. He strongly objected to the introduction of London into the list, because he was satisfied that it was not a place where the average prices of British corn could be fairly taken. The regulations respecting corn were formerly for the benefit of the consumer; they were now for the protection of the grower. But London was the worst place for the purpose of taking a fair average, because the large quantities of foreign corn which were sold here, and other circumstances, all had a tendency to produce an artificial state of things, as well as a great and unnatural fluctuation of prices. The influence of this was also felt, directly, or indirectly, in all the neighbouring counties. In his opinion, a change ought to be made in the mode of taking the averages. He moved, therefore, "That the word 'London' be struck out of the list of places where the average prices of British corn were to be taken."
Mr. F. Lewis
said, it would be impossible to make so important an alteration, without changing the character of the measure. The hon. gentleman had, however, introduced some novelty into his argument; for they were now, it seemed,
845
s.
d.
Mr. Curteis
maintained that the averages did not give the true price of grain in
bona fide
Colonel Sibthorpe
supported the amendment, and contended that the farmer never got the prices mentioned in the Gazette. He knew instances where corn was bought at 40
s.
s.
Mr. Benett
contended, that it was necessary to omit London in the averages, in consequence of the tricks constantly practised there, by which it appeared that the farmer got a much larger price than he really ever obtained. If the protecting duty was considered too high, it would be much better to reduce it than to retain this fallacious mode of settling the averages.
Mr. F. Lewis
said, that neither corn
846
The committee divided: For the Original Clause 132; For the Amendment 36; Majority 96.
PENSIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL—
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he felt himself placed in a most difficult and disagreeable situation, by something that had occurred since the last time of his discharging his duty in the House. He referred to "an Account of certain Proceedings stated to have taken place on the bringing-up of the Report of the Committee on the Bill now under consideration." That account had taken a more authentic form than usual, and imputed to those who voted in the minority, on the grant to the family of the late Mr. Canning motives of a very improper nature. It was remarkable that the Report did not appear on the day after the proceedings, but on a subsequent one. In the account alluded to, the hon. member for Limerick was represented to have imputed to the opponents of the grants motives of a very singular nature, and to allege, that they must be influenced either by a foolish idea of saving money, or by the personal feelings of the worst kind towards the memory of Mr. Canning. He knew not to which of these two classes he might be thought to belong by the hon. member, but contented himself with saying, that as an humble individual he had given his vote on that occasion with a clear conscience, and from upright motives—motives which he considered as honourable and defensible, as any that had ever influenced a vote in that House. God forbid he should follow the example that had been set, or attribute improper motives to any man for the observations alluded to; but if he could stoop to retaliation, perhaps those motives might be questioned. He trusted he might say deliberately then, that in reference to the character of that great and distinguished man (Mr. Canning), he should be the last person who would speak with any slight or disrespect whatever. When an attack had been made, and imputations thrown out relative to the motives by which he had been influenced in giving the vote which he did upon the subject in question—when he, in common with others, was taunted for the
847
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he had hesitated offering himself to the House for a few moments, because he understood that there was another charge to be brought against him, which he should show arose from misapprehension, and which he regretted. He therefore wished to reserve himself until he had heard what that other charge was.
Mr. Legh Keck
said, he was, he believed, the member to whom the hon. gentleman alluded. In the few observations he should make to the House, it was unnecessary for him to state that he discharged every personal feeling, and meant no disrespect to the hon. member for Limerick. His complaint was, that in the character of a member of parliament lie had been subjected to imputations which he denied. In the independent discharge of his duty in that House, he had never assigned, undue motives to others, nor acted from improper motives himself. If there was any imputed impropriety in his vote of Wednesday, he was ready to vindicate it; but he preferred that it should pass in silence. He had never given a vote which he was afraid to vindicate; and if necessary, no motives of delicacy towards any man should prevent him from
848
849
850
Mr. Spring Rice
thanked the hon. member for the manner in which he had made his statement, and should, he hoped, satisfactorily reply to his observations. And first, he must express his regret, that any thing he might have said should have been mixed up with a question of this delicacy and personal interest. He wished that any hon. gentleman, having any objection to make to him, had made it to himself alone, without mixing it up with the discussion of such a question as this. If there had been any blame in the affair, it should rest exclusively and entirely on him, and not attach to the question before the House. There might be some irregularity in the proceedings which had taken place on this subject; but he rejoiced, that the hon. gentleman had read the passage of which he complained, because he therein knew the full amount of the charge against him. He thought he should be borne out by the testimony of members on both sides of the House, when he said, that he had endeavoured, upon all occasions, even though engaged in questions which called forth asperity, to avoid any step which could hurt any individual, much more any class of individuals in that House. The House would allow him to recall to it the circumstances of this case. It so happened, that on that night a noble lord had stated, that his objection to the vote did not arise in any degree from economical principles, but specifically from his dislike to the principles of Mr. Canning. He (Mr. S. Rice) then separated the opposition into two classes, and stated, that an objection might be made to the vote on the ground of economy; or it might be objected to upon constitutional grounds. Many might object to the precedent, without objecting to the end of the grant or to the policy of Mr. Canning. These reasons he considered to form a specific ground of objection, distinct from others. This was not imputing motives, but distinguishing the classes of opposition; that of the noble lord being connected with the personal character of Mr. Canning. There had not been a single word read by the hon.
851
852
853
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he merely stated, as a general proposition, that when personal motives were attributed to an opponent, it would provoke retaliation.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, that the observations of the hon. member for Limerick might excuse, if they did not call for, a few observations from him. He had given one vote on the question of the proposed grant. That vote was one of the most painful he had ever given in that House. For his part, he not only fully recognized the proposition that the dead ought to be treated with respect and reverence, but he would extend it even to the absent. He must, however, say, that the hon. member for Limerick had lost sight of that generous principle when he indulged in remarks on two absent members, which could not fail to be most painful to them if reported to their ears. With respect to the noble marquis (Chandos) who had been alluded to, he could state, that he was engaged on public business in the county to which he belonged. Had that circumstance been known to the hon. member for Limerick, he probably would have postponed some of the observations he had made. After all the explanations which the hon. member had offered, he
854
Mr. Secretary Peel
expressed a hope that as the party interested in the discussion on a former evening had now been heard, the irregular conversation would be permitted to drop. Further discussion would only engender feelings ill suited to the consideration of a question of that nature. For his own part, he would repeat, that he cordially concurred in the vote.
Lord Nugent
lamented, that any personal feelings should be mingled with this question. It had been his fate to have opposed Mr. Canning on a variety of questions, and particularly on that of parliamentary reform, but nevertheless he thought this small tribute was due to the memory of that lamented statesman; nor did he
855
Lord Ashley
thought that this vote did not pledge the House to approve of any part of Mr. Canning's political life. It was merely intended as a remuneration to his family for the injury done to his and to their private fortune during a long course of public service. He had opposed Mr. Canning during the last years of his life, and he should probably be in opposition to him were he now alive; but he had never allowed private feelings to enter into his opposition [hear, hear]. He opposed Mr. Canning as a politician, and not as a father or a husband, and he would as soon refuse to give him credit for his private virtues, as he would oppose this vote on account of any errors committed by him in his political life.
Mr. W. Smith
said, he had been opposed to Mr. Canning on many occasions, but he considered that his public conduct during the two last years of his life was a legitimate ground for supporting the vote, even on the part of those who had previously opposed his measures. It was degrading to the character of the House to suffer personal feelings to interfere with an act of public justice. He agreed with his noble friend that it would tend greatly to raise the character of public men, and induce them to apply their energies to the service of their country, if they knew that their families would be provided for by the public generosity.
Mr. Lennard
expressed his cordial assent to the measure.
Mr. Hume
rose amidst cries of "Oh !" and declared that he would take the sense of the House on the next stage of the bill.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 21, 1828.
ALEHOUSES' LICENSING BILL.]
Mr. Estcourt
Mr. Heathcote
said, he highly disapproved of the clause which gave county magistrates a concurrent jurisdiction with the magistrates in cities and boroughs,
856
Mr. Bernal
said, that the clauses alluded to, involved the whole principle of the bill. The hon. member for Oxford, by attempting too much, would be likely to fail altogether. Abuses might have crept into the licensing system; but that was no reason why the magistracy, as a body, should be aspersed. With respect to the clause which required the concurrent jurisdiction of county magistrates, no compulsory attendance was to be enforced by the bill. Nor did his hon. friend appear to consider the jealousies and rivalries that an occasional co-operation like this would most probably produce. To infer that all connected with public-houses were necessarily corrupt, was a harsh and unwarrantable conclusion; yet the bill conveyed this imputation. It would place county magistrates in a most embarrassing situation; as they would naturally feel a delicacy at coming into a corporate town, where they had not exercised any previous jurisdiction.
Sir R. Heron
was of opinion, that no benefit could arise from an increase of public houses. They tended to promote vice of every description, and encouraged a wasteful expenditure of money amongst the poor. He had had in his employment a hundred labourers for several years, and he seldom knew of any drunkenness among-them, in consequence of the neighbourhood being almost free from public houses.
Mr. Jones
considered the bill an infringement on chartered rights, and introduced magistrates where they hitherto had had no jurisdiction.
Mr. Slaney
wished to state the evils resulting from the present system. He would not put into the hands of any individuals a power affecting the price of
857
l.
858
Mr. G. Bankes
considered the clause in the bill respecting the concurrent jurisdiction of county magistrates with corporate magistrates so objectionable, that he would rather the measure should be lost, than that this clause should form a part of it.
Lord Sandon
also opposed the clause.
Mr. Hume
thought the clause the best part of the bill. He was for opening the jurisdiction in such cases, as well as for taking oft" all restrictions on the trade in beer. In other countries, no injury resulted from allowing the sale of wine to be unrestricted.
Mr. C. Wood
, as he was aware of the evils of the present licensing system, would support the bill.
Mr. Calcraft
wished the bill success generally, although this clause certainly went to deprive corporators of their chartered rights. If this were not withdrawn, he should certainly oppose the bill.
Sir J. Sebright
considered the clause of such value to the public, that if passed as a separate act, it would be a greater boon than all the rest of the bill.
Mr. Secretary Peel
considered the public owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Oxford. Although the general principal of throwing open trade was good, it should however be controlled by forethought and caution, as to the practically injurious effects likely to follow. If, as a matter of police, it was necessary to exert this control, it was the first duty of the legislature to see that it should not be liable to abuse. The power of the magistrates in regard to licensing was not a corporate right, or derived from charter, but from acts of parliament. He hoped the House would not throw out the bill, as the period had not arrived for considering the clauses separately.
Sir. J. Graham
concurred in the sentiments of the hon. member for Oxford, and j supported the bill.
Mr. Curteis
said, that as the bill was
859
Mr. Estcourt
said, it was his original intention to have proposed the doing away with the licensing system altogether; but he had received such accounts from those best acquainted with the mischiefs to which it would probably lead, that he was induced to alter his course. As to the particular clause, he had no objection to postpone it to the committee.
Lord Belgrave
thought the clause calculated to lower the magistrates in the eyes of the people.
Mr. Baring
thought it would be better to do away altogether with the jurisdiction of the corporate magistrates, than to take from them the respect which they ought to possess.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 22, 1828.
THE CURRENCY — SMALL NOTES —
Mr. Attwood
, in rising to present a petition from the miners of Holy well Hold, and other districts in Flintshire, said — the petitioners complain, and with reason, of the reduction in the duty on foreign Lead Ore, and of the abolition of One Pound Notes. I understood that some proposition, for again advancing the duty on foreign lead ore, was intended to be brought forward; but, with respect to the abolition of the small-note circulation, I shall take the opportunity of expressing my surprise that government has not thought it expedient or necessary to explain to the House the ground of their proceedings on that subject. They have, indeed, stated what their intention is, but have given no explanation of the reasons why they propose to persevere; the measure in question is not one which, originating for the first time in 1816, is now to be expected to be carried into effect as a matter of course: their whole course of proceedings has led to a contrary conclusion. They, in 1819, adopted a measure, the effect of which was to extinguish the circulation of one-pound notes; but, in 1822, another was passed to continue their existence. In 1826, government again resolved on their abolition; but, of this
860
861
862
863
864
Mr. Secretary Peel
protested against the proceeding adopted by the hon. member. He must say, that on a petition, the principal prayer of which was, that the House would take into consideration the state of the trade in Lead Ore, the introduction of the topics on which the hon. gentleman had addressed the House was a little out of order. He knew that the state of the currency, the increase of crime, and other important topics, might be incidentally introduced into such a discussion; but when he had received no notice of the discussion, and when others who might wish to take part in it were absent, he put it to the candour of the hon. member, whether it ought not to be discontinued. To shew the unfairness of the views taken by the hon. member, he would just refer to one statement, in which he had asserted that England and Scotland were in precisely the same situation with respect to the circulation of small notes. In making that statement, did the hon. member think it fair to hide from the House the important fact, that, for the last century Scotland had possessed a circulation of notes under 5
l.
l.
Mr. Liddell
, sir J. Graham, and Mr. Western concurred in stating, that the subject was one of great importance, but that this was not the time for its discussion,
865
Mr. Baring
said, the object of the bill which the chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to introduce, was simply to prevent the Scotch paper money from coming into England after such a circulation had been declared disadvantageous for this country. He acknowledged the ability and extensive information of his hon. friend and colleague, but on this occasion he believed he was entirely wrong when he appeared to wish them to return to a depreciated currency, which, instead of relieving the difficulties of the country, would materially increase them. To what was much of the present distress of the country to be attributed, but to the tampering with the currency? And if any thing that had been done was good, as an argument on this subject, it was, that they should avoid that error in future. He trusted that we should persevere in the system which was now laid down; the strict adherence to which would best provide for our security.
Mr. Hume
was glad that the act regulating the currency of England had stopped short of Scotland, and he believed that this country must, ere long, return to what he would call a sound currency of paper and gold—a paper currency that was convertible into gold on demand. By banishing such a currency from this country we had crippled ourselves, and the difference in the currencies of the three kingdoms was productive of the greatest inconvenience: there was one currency for England; another, totally different, for Scotland; and a third, of a mixed kind, for Ireland; and the whole was now to have the additional patchwork of a bill, to prevent Cumberland, and the northern parts of this country, from enjoying the same advantages as Scotland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had postponed the discussion of his bill at the request of many gentlemen who could not attend that day, and from no fear that he should not be able to justify its necessity to the House.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
thought, that under such circumstances, the present discussion was misplaced.
Mr. Dundas
said, that the government had not given up the measure with respect to Scotland from caprice, but because they had been satisfied by evidence, that the present currency of Scotland was the most advantageous for that country, and they had therefore allowed her to follow her own course of prosperity in her own way.
866
Mr. Monck
said, he could not suffer the observation of the hon. member for Aberdeen to go abroad without contradiction. That hon. member had spoken of the necessity of a paper currency convertible into gold, and seemed to suppose that such a currency would add to the security of the country. Why, it was just that sort of currency which destroyed the security, whenever a panic occurred from any cause whatever. What was it that occasioned, in 1825, the failure of twenty-five out of every hundred bankers, but the power of demanding that their notes should be immediately converted into gold? That convertibility, therefore, constituted the danger which parliament had wished to avoid; and he trusted that they would not depart from a course which experience had proved so necessary.
Mr. Attwood
observed, in explanation, that if the right hon. Secretary had attended to the former part of what he had said, he would have seen that the character of the petition was accurately described; the complaint was of injury from two causes, the introduction of foreign lead ore, and the abolition of small notes. He had used no argument which did not strictly bear on the petition. With respect to the practice of debates on petitions, he observed that it was generally deprecated by one party, and approved by another; but it was surely advantageous to discuss frequently, and on various occasions, questions of difficulty and importance. The right hon. Secretary had been mistaken, in imputing to him the allegation that Scotland and England stood on the same footing with respect to the circulation of small notes. His statement was, that the right hon. gentleman's colleagues, when they brought in the bill of 1826 for abolishing small notes in England, supported that measure by reasons applicable in the main to Scotland and Ireland, as well as to England; and he had pointed out the inconsistency, therefore, with which they were now chargeable in proposing, without explanation, to carry their measure into effect in the latter part of the empire, and not in the former. His hon. friend and colleague, Mr. Baring, had charged him with exaggeration, in his estimate of the mischiefs arising from these measures relative to the currency. Now the degree of mischief thus occasioned must be estimated from the extent of difference effected in the value of money. He (Mr. Attwood) had taken
867
On the question, that the petition be printed,
Mr. Attwood
added, that his hon. colleague had observed, that his estimate was overcharged, not in the extent he ascribed to the alterations in the value of money, but in the evils he ascribed to the abolishing one-pound notes. But all he had said on this head was, that this abolition would occasion some degree of general pressure and difficulty extending to all the productive classes; but what degree, he neither himself pretended, nor could any man pretend, to estimate. It was doubtful how far it would go. His hon. friend admitted that the value of money had been altered from twenty-five to perhaps fifty per cent. That alteration had been effected in the legal money of the country, by the act of the government secretly, without its being known that such an operation was in progress; and if any man would consider what the effect of such a measure must, be, in a country like this, operating on all its public and private pecuniary engagements, altering to that extent, all monied contracts, he would be convinced, that it would be difficult to make any statements of the effects of such measure which could be considered as exaggerated. It was from the disorder thus occasioned,
868
Ordered to be printed.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN CITIES
Lord Nugent
said, that the principal objects for which he introduced his present bill were comprised in a very few words. One of the merits of the measure which he was now asking leave to introduce to the House, and if it had not that merit he had misapplied the pains and trouble which he had bestowed upon it, was, that the bill which he was desirous to bring in was not a long one, that the provisions of it were simple and intelligible, that it was calculated to work out its own object, and that all it aimed at might be easily effected. The chief object of it was to give to all cities, boroughs, and cinque ports, in England—Ireland and Scotland he specifically excepted out of its operation,—a register containing the names and descriptions of all persons who had a legal right to tender their votes for the election of members to serve in parliament for those places. He was fully aware that nothing was more distasteful to the House than to enter into a discussion of the abstract principles of representation; he should therefore abstain from saying even a word upon that subject: but he could not help remarking, that whatever might be the views of gentlemen on the abstract theory of representation—or he should rather say the machinery of representation—there could be no good gained in practice by the concealment of the numbers or qualifications of those who had a right to vote at elections for cities and boroughs. There was no tenable ground on which it was desirable that either the candidates, or the returning officers, or the voters themselves, should be left in ignorance of the number and qualifications of the different voters. Whether gentlemen were inclined to favour the influence of property or the influence of population, in regard to elections, in neither case were they left uncrippled by being totally ignorant of the numbers and qualifications of those who exercised the elective franchise. Indeed, he apprehended there were only one or two objects that could be answered by refusing his motion; and he did not expect that gentlemen would rise up in that House to advocate either of them. One of them would be,
869
ad libitum
870
871
872
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
CHURCH BRIEFS.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had given notice of his intention to introduce two bills, bearing upon the practical domestic economy of the country. The first measure went to abolish what were called Church Briefs, for raising money in cases of calamities by fire, and for the raising of money for the building or repairing of churches or chapels. In the first place, he conceived that the existence of insurance offices dispensed with the necessity of making collections in this way, in cases of loss by fire; and, besides, to any one who attended the celebration of divine service, it must appear, to say the least of it, very indecorous to introduce into the middle of it a subject so totally unconnected with it. A return had been called for last session, to show the enormous expense attendant upon this mode of collection, and the disproportion between the loss sustained, and the amount of money collected. All that appeared on those returns combined to show the policy of abolishing- this system. He would therefore propose the total abolition of the system of raising money in cases of loss by fire by means of church briefs. He held in his hand an account of all the church briefs which had been issued since the 15th of May, 1819. He would select one or two instances to show the smallness of the sum paid to the party by whom the loss had been sustained, in consequence of the immense expense incurred, for the patent, for printing notices, and for the salaries paid to officers for distributing them, and collecting the subscriptions. Under the first brief which he should select, the loss sustained by the party amounted to 362
l.
l.
873
1.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
874
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir J. Newport
wished to know whether the measure was to extend to Ireland. The principle of voluntary contribution for the building and repairing of churches would be extremely acceptable there, where a large majority of the inhabitants who dissented from the Established Church were taxed to an enormous amount for the support of that establishment. The right hon. baronet alluded to the returns which had been laid before the House of the appointments made under the Vestry act, in
875
l.
l.
Dr. Lushington
highly approved of the motion. The mode of raising- money by church briefs was inadequate, as the expense often exceeded the nett amount received. The country was much indebted to the right hon. gentleman for his proposition to incorporate a society, most excellent in its principle, and most beneficial in its effects.
Mr. Moore
defended the magistrates of Dublin from the sweeping charge that had been made against them by the right hon. baronet. So far as his experience, went, they were wholly unobnoxious to such a charge.
Alderman Wood
said, that briefs for the last fifty years had been farmed by contractors, and that was the reason why they produced only 300
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
, in reply, said, that it was his intention to repeal the act of Anne altogether. He thought the worthy alderman must be misinformed as to the farming of the briefs; for any one guilty of that offence was liable to a penalty of 500
l.
876
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
RECOVERY OF SMALL DEBTS.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill, the object of which was the more speedy Recovery of Small Debts. Speaking of the system which prevailed in the country generally, he believed it would fee found better, in most instances, to abandon any claim which an individual might have for a certain sum, than to attempt to recover; it, as the law now stood. The expense of proceeding in the county courts was so I enormous, and their jurisdiction so confined, that in many cases, the party seeking redress there was actuated by feelings of pique and resentment, rather than by any; hope of recovering his debt. The attention of the House had been repeatedly called to this subject, and great difficulty had been experienced in attempting to devise a remedy for the present defective state of the law. A noble lord (Althorp) had: given much consideration to the subject, and several bills had been introduced by him. Those measures had not met with the approbation of the House, and it was at the desire of that noble lord, in the course of last session, that he (Mr. Peel) had undertaken to introduce a bill. The first bill brought in, proposed to enable the lord lieutenants of counties to appoint assessors, who were to receive considerable salaries, and a separate court was to be established in those towns where the ordinary courts were on a small scale.; Several objections were urged against this plan, and the impropriety of placing the appointment of assessor in the hands of the lord lieutenant was very justly pointed out. By the subsequent bill, the appointment was left with the Crown. It was there provided, that assessors should preside in the county courts, and they were; to look to the Crown for their salary. Again, it was proposed, that the commissioners appointed to discharge the duties connected with the Insolvent Debtors Court should adjudicate in cases of small debts, and should, for that purpose, make circuits through the country. To these measures objections were also taken, and they were abandoned. He should propose to adopt in each county the ancient institution of the county court, and to extend its jurisdiction from debts of 40
s.,
877
l.
878
Mr. Hume
was happy to hear that the right hon. gentleman intended to abolish the taking of the person, in all cases of debt decided against the defendant in the county court; because he held the principle of arresting the person to be contrary sound sense, good policy, and humanity. If the right hon. gentleman admitted the principle in the case of persons against whom debts of 10
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
mesne process,
Mr. D. W. Harvey
approved of the bill, and trusted that the valuable principle recognized in it would not be restricted to 10
l.
l.
Mr. C. Wood
observed, that as the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts would greatly increase the number of causes in those courts, and as the consequence must be, that a large income would be derived from the increase of fees, it would be proper to introduce a clause in the bill to enable the House to regulate those fees hereafter.
Alderman Wood
expressed his cordial concurrence in the policy of the bill. The
879
l.
s.
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that his object was, to enable the creditor to allege his debt by the simplest and most unexpensive process. For instance, instead of a cumbrous declaration, the form proposed in the bill was—"A B complains of C D. that he owes him 10
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. G. Lamb
expressed his gratitude to the right hon. gentleman for this measure, and thought it might be advantageously extended to debts of a larger amount. He hoped to see the time when there would be no imprisonment for debt in this country. He thought it better, however, to proceed by steps than to attempt too much at one stride; and he would suggest to his hon. friends the adoption of an old proverb.—"Do not work a willing horse to death." The right hon. gentleman had proceeded cautiously, and had never found it necessary to retrace his steps; which he
880
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
POOR LAWS.]
Mr. Slaney
said, that, as, on a former occasion, he had treated this subject at considerable length, he would not detain the House many minutes now. He had shown the consequence of the abuses of that branch of the Poor-laws which related to the employment and relief of able-bodied persons: and he thought it would be conceded to him, that those abuses ought to be removed. He would now merely state, that these abuses were different in different parts of the country, though the laws were, of course, the same. In the southern counties these abuses prevailed, and the peasantry were poor and degraded: in the northern counties there were no such abuses, and they were well paid and happy. They must also recollect the burthens which agriculture was subject to, in consequence of these abuses. In the county of Cumberland, where these abuses did not prevail, the poor-rates were only 1
s.
d.
s.
l.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
881
PROVISION FOR MR. CANNING'S FAMILY—PENSIONS ACT AMENDMENT
On the motion, that the report of this bill be now received,
Mr. Hume
said, that, on a former occasion, he had stated the grounds upon which he objected to this grant. Since that occasion he had met with additional grounds for opposing the grant. By a discussion that had taken place on a former evening, it appeared that no less a sum than 200,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Monck
declared, that he also must oppose the proposed grant. In the case of the earl of Chatham, that House was almost unanimous in granting a pension to his family, but in the House of Lords the proposal met with considerable
882
Sir J. Newport
said, he had sat in that House for five and twenty years, and when he assured them that for a large portion of that time, it had been his fortune to be in political hostility to Mr. Canning, he was sure they would acquit him of being actuated by any improper motive in voting as he should vote on this occasion. He did consider that the latter years of Mr. Canning's life had created so large a debt of gratitude, both from this country and from the whole of civilized Europe, that he should be wanting to himself if he did not come forward and support his vote by stating the reasons on which he gave it. He thought the country was indebted to Mr. Canning for liberating it from that system which, under the Holy Alliance, would have crushed all liberal institutions throughout Europe. He thought that the cause of liberty throughout the world was largely indebted to Mr. Canning, for the speedy recognition of the South American States. The question was, whether the
883
Colonel Sibthorp
supported the amendment. He was the last man, he hoped, to look upon public services with indifference; but he could not assent to such a grant, in the present state of the finances of the State. For himself, he should always be inclimed to say,
"de mortuis et de absentibus nil nisi bonum"
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, that the grounds upon which the vote ought to be supported, were grounds upon which he had hoped a difference of opinion scarcely could arise; and most sincerely had he been gratified by the declaration of the right hon. baronet who had recently spoken, that he would give his support to the grant, however to the man he might have been opposed. For himself, he had entertained no difference of opinion, either as to the foreign or the internal policy of the country, from Mr. Canning; and if he forbore from resting the present motion upon the merits of that policy, it was because he wished to found it upon a principle which the House could hardly fail to be unanimous in admitting. He wished to claim the vote as a meed of honour due, apart from the question of persons, to the services of an illustrious public man, whose disinterested regardlessness of all pecuniary considerations Had left his family unprovided with
884
Sir James Mackintosh
spoke to the following effect:—Sir, I feel that I should be guilty of a great neglect of duty, if, not having addressed the House upon this subject on any former occasion, I were not to avail myself of this, my last opportunity, to justify the vote which I intend to give; and, in so doing, to express my dissent from some of the maxims which we have heard—maxims subversive of the whole of that system of national rewards, which forms one of the best parts of the policy of a powerful, a civilized, and above all, a free state. In so doing, Sir, I should have been exceedingly desirous to recommend a calm tone of discussion;
885
886
887
888
889
890
"Carteret's calm mind, and Stanhope's noble fame Admir'd; and saw their generous end the same."
" Drop upon Fox's tomb a tear,
'Twill trickle to his rival's bier."
Mr. Courtenay
said, that his sentiments on this question had been so completely anticipated by what had fallen from the right hon. and learned gentleman, that little was left to him to say; vet, when the House considered the situation in which he stood, with respect to the late Mr. Canning, he hoped they would allow him briefly to state
891
l.
892
l.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he would cheerfully concur in the speech of the right hon. and learned member behind him, if he could bring his mind to believe that splendid talents, highly cultivated, were the sole guide to public reward; and the more readily should he do so, as he saw no living evidence that the precedent was likely to become extensively burthen some to the country. But, greatly as he admired the transcendent powers of Mr. Canning, and that brilliant combination of mind and beauty which marked his parliamentary efforts, yet that pleasure was, with few exceptions, greatly subdued, because he thought those talents had been directed to purposes at variance with the ends of all good governments—the freedom
893
l.
894
Dr. Phillimore
said, he had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but after what had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last, he could not give a silent vote. He was surprised at first, why the hon. member had so construed the speech of his right hon. and learned friend as to dismiss from his consideration all the historical recollections of the life of Mr. Canning; but, as the hon. member proceeded, he saw on what ground he had dismissed them; they would not have answered his purpose, and therefore he touched only on those points which were calculated to excite angry feelings. His right hon. and learned friend's object had been to allay any such feelings, but the hon. member who last addressed the House, had, with perverse diligence, raked up every thing calculated to give a different tone and temper to the discussion. Now, he thought that the circumstance under which they were called to vote this grant was an addition to the praise of the lamented individual to whose services it referred; namely, the comparative poverty in which he had died. It was the duty of that House to take care that the families of those who had devoted themselves wholly to the public service should not suffer by
895
" Fame is the spur, which the pure soul doth raise
To spurn delights and live laborious days."
Sir G. Murray
regretted to hear the grounds of objection which had been taken to this vote. These were various and inconsistent: some were on the score of economy, that it was too much; others that it was not enough; and others, again, that it should not be granted because of former votes in other cases: but he thought those objections had been set at rest by the eloquent speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman. It was painful to think, after the long and meritorious services of Mr. Canning, there should be such opposition to a grant which was deserved on so many grounds. What must have been the feelings of the right hon. gentleman in his last moments, and what his anxiety at the destitute condition of his wife and children? But how much more painfully acute would they have been, if he could, at that moment, have anticipated such a course as had that night been taken, in opposition to the very moderate provision which had been proposed for them? Did such an opposition become the representatives of a generous nation? Did it become them to refuse this scanty pittance to the family of one who had wasted his best energies and spent his whole life in the service of the public If there was any ground for this grant, extrinsic of the great services of the late lamented statesman, it would be found in the principle, that it was wise, by a proper
896
Mr. Liddell
said, he could not remain silent, after the manner in which the hon. member for Colchester had mentioned the name of the late Mr. Canning. The hon. member had said, that he had spoken of the Manchester massacre with savage brutality. Now, if any man would look back to the history of that time, he would find that there was no just ground for such a charge. He would admit that the right hon. gentleman had, on the occasion alluded to, made use of one indiscreet expression; and dearly had he afterwards paid for it, by the gross misrepresentations to which he had been subjected in consequence; but it would be found that the expression had not been used in the offensive sense in which it had afterwards been described, and that it was almost deserved by the individual to whom it had been applied. As to the talents of Mr. Canning, there could not be a difference of opinion; but it was not for the possession of those talents that the pension was now granted to his family, but for their entire devotion to the service of his country. Mr. Canning had filled several public offices, and he had filled them, particularly that of Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to the satisfaction of all and in a manner highly beneficial to the country. It was on these grounds that the provision was now proposed to his family. But it was said that the opinion of the people was against this grant. He should, however, be at no loss, not only to justify this vote to his constituents, but to glory in having paid the tribute of his homage to long-tried public services, private worth, and exalted genius.
Mr. Batley
said, he should, on constitutional grounds, give his cordial vote in favour of the grant.
Mr. F. P. Cust
said, he would state in a few words, the grounds on which he should give his vote. He could not but
897
Mr. J. Maxwell
supported the vote, on the ground of the public services of Mr. Canning, and thought that ministers were entitled to thanks for having introduced it.
Mr. Stewart
said, he entertained, for the memory of the illustrious statesman, the highest possible respect, and felt bound to give to the motion his cordial support.
Sir R. Fergusson
hoped the House would not imagine that, in the vote which he should feel himself conscientiously bound to give on the present question, he was influenced by personal motives. He must oppose the motion, but that opposition was founded solely on constitutional grounds. He for many reasons, however, wished his hon. friend to withdraw his opposition for the present.
Mr. P. Thompson
felt himself called on to state on what grounds, if his hon. friend should divide the House, he should vote with him. Having already had an opportunity of stating the constitutional grounds of his opposition, he was inclined not to oppose the present motion, lest the opposition might appear to be of a personal character: but, after the speech of the gallant officer opposite, which was not in accordance with his usual good taste, and which threatened those who opposed the grant with the obloquy, not only of the present generation, but of posterity, he felt himself obliged to support the amendment. He thought it was incumbent on all those who opposed the grant on con-
898
Sir James Scarlett
said, he had not understood the gallant officer to impute any thing improper to those gentlemen who had voted against the measure on constitutional grounds. His urbanity recommended him as much to his friends, as his gallantry made him distinguished in the country. He had alluded, he thought, to those who, in the debate, had raked up all the topics which they could possibly collect against Mr. Canning, and which were now every where forgotten, except as they were still made the vehicles for vulgar abuse. Giving the hon. member for Colchester all possible credit for his integrity, he thought his speech was in much worse taste than that of the gallant officer. He did not mean to follow the hon. member for Colchester through all his remarks, but he would say that, the more Mr. Canning's character, public and private, was investigated, the brighter and the purer would it appear. The question had been argued on constitutional grounds, and the grant opposed as unconstitutional. Now, he thought there was nothing unconstitutional in it. The Crown had been accustomed to reward great public services in a liberal manner; but parliament had taken away the means, promising, when it did take them away, to be always ready to meet the wishes of the Crown on such a subject. Was it, therefore, unconstitutional for parliament to bestow great rewards for splendid public services? It was not: there were many instances to the contrary. The rewards bestowed on the duke of Marlborough were the subject of an act of parliament. The more modem examples of similar proceedings, had already been referred to, and he did not know on what ground the grant was unconstitutional. He understood the argument of those who said that where there
899
The House divided: For the Original Motion 73; For the Amendment 14; Majority 59.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 23, 1828.
GREEK PRISONERS OF WAR.]
The Earl of Darnley
wished to call the attention of the House to a subject, in which the best interest of his Majesty and the honour of the country were concerned, He alluded to what was understood to have taken place since the battle of Navarino, with respect to the inhabitants of the Morea. If he were not misinformed, not fewer than four thousand inhabitants of that country, the flower of the population, had been transported to Egypt, for purposes too detestable to detail. The conviction on his mind was, that if the glorious battle of Navarino, from which the most useful results might have been expected, had been received in this country as it ought to have been, such an event would not have taken place. He feared that the fact of that atrocity
900
The Duke of Wellington
was sorry to say, that certainly a great number—how many he could not say—of the inhabitants of the Morea had been carried to Egypt. That was certainly the fact—a fact, the existence of which was very much lamented by his majesty's government; who had done every thing in their power, by orders which had been sent out, to prevent the recurrence of such a misfortune; and he could now say that measures had been taken which would have that effect. He could also assure the noble lord, that directions had been given to the Egyptian troops, and endeavours had been made, as far as possible, to obtain their liberation.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 23, 1828.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Western
said, he had abstained from fatiguing the House with his opinions on the subject of the Corn-laws during the late discussions, because he found the unequivocal sense of the majority was against him. Having, however, directed his attention to this subject for a great many years, and often taken an active part in the discussions upon it, he was desirous, on the present occasion, to record the opinions which he had long formed and acted upon, in the shape of a string of resolutions upon the Journals of the House. As to the general state of agriculture, although the farmers had, in I most instances, recovered from the extreme depression into which they had been cast in the year 1822, he cautioned the House how they proceeded upon the notion, that the farming interests could bear tampering with. The subject was one of peril and difficulty, and he hoped they would pause before they pressed heavier on those who were the least able to bear that pressure. The hon. member concluded by moving the following Resolution, by way of amendment, viz.—
"That every legislative enactment affecting the agriculture of the country, or the commerce in grain, should have for its
901
"That, in order to accomplish this object, means very different have at different times been suggested; on the one hand it has been maintained, that a free commercial intercourse with foreign countries should, for this purpose, be allowed; on the other, the exclusive encouragement of British agriculture has been deemed the more effective and the safer policy:
"That our laws have for near two hundred years been framed upon the principle of the latter system above-described:
"That the most abundant supply, with the least fluctuation of price, And with a surplus for exportation, has occurred in those years in which the most effective protection has been given to British agriculture:
"That the act of 1815, prohibiting the import of foreign corn till the price of wheat rises to 80
s
s
s
"That, though this price, so much lower than the import prohibitory price, and the average price of the preceding twenty years is chiefly attributable to the increased value of the currency by the act of 1819, it affords ample proof that the producers of grain can no more uphold the price by means of the prohibition of foreign import, than the producers of any other article could save themselves from the depression which that act has occasioned in all the other products of industry:
"That the competition of the British growers of corn with each other has, in general, kept their profits below the profits of capital and industry devoted to other pursuits, and capital invested in land, in general returns a lower interest than when otherwise employed:
"That the cultivators of the United empire have, from its soil and climate, from their skill and industry, and the facility of conveyance, the means of rendering in our markets an abundant supply of grain with less labour, or, in other words, at a lower labour price, than most of the countries from whence a foreign supply would be drawn:
902
"That for many years the money price of corn was at or below the continental price:
"That the present excess of price over the continental price is owing to artificial causes:
"That taxation adds to the cost of production, and the additional charge so created must be paid, or the production will be discontinued:
"That the burthen of taxation has been further increased in the ratio of the increase of the value of money, under the operation of the act of 1819:
"That, though the price of grain is thus forced beyond its natural level, and the level of the continent, the growth of the United Empire is adequate to the demand in ordinary years, and might be increased to an incalculable extent; and that, under these circumstances the introduction of foreign grain must eventually displace an equal quantity of home growth, adding therefore nothing to the aggregate supply, rendering a portion of it very precarious, annihilating the capital employed in the production of the corn so displaced, and depriving- of occupation such a number of husbandmen as the cultivation required:
"That the bill now upon the table, admitting foreign corn at all times upon payment of the duties therein provided, and into warehouse free of any duty till taken out for home consumption, must, in all probability, produce that effect:
"That the most fatal consequences would ensue from the operation of such a system; that the countries which shall hereafter supply us with grain in lieu of so much British displaced, would in our necessities raise a revenue by duties upon the export, which must be paid by us; they would increase their marine, by confining the corn trade to their own ships; and, finally, when our dependence upon men becomes further increased, they might in time of war force us to submit to any terms by closing their markets to our manufactures, and withdrawing from our unoccupied and famishing artizans that food which from them alone could then be supplied."
Mr. F. Lewis
said, he was not surprised that the hon. member for Essex had taken the opportunity of recording his opinions, and showing to the public and his constituents that he had discharged his, duty; but in the present stage of the bill it was surely unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the measure.
903
The Amendment was negatived, and after a short conversation, the bill was read a third time.
CITIES AND BOROUGHS POLLS BILL.]
Colonel Davies moved the further consideration of the report of this bill.
Colonel Sibthorpe
was no friend to unnecessary expense, but thought that the bill curtailed constitutional enjoyment, on occasions which were not of frequent occurrence.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, that, if the hon. member meant by constitutional enjoyment, eating and drinking for fifteen days, he thought that a detestable nuisance, and a disgrace to the country. At the same time he did not agree as to the time laid down in this bill. He thought there ought to be a graduated scale of time, adapted to the number of voters, and the facilities or difficulties of bringing them to the poll. It was his intention to amend this bill as far as he was able; and if he could not effect the amendments he wished to introduce, then he would do his utmost to throw it out, in order that he might introduce another bill, more congenial to the feelings of the country.
Colonel Davies
said, that if the hon. member had been with him in the committees upon this bill, he would have seen that so far from being able to effect a graduated scale, he had found the greatest difficulty in getting any scale of time at al agreed to.
Mr. Sugden
opposed the bill, as calculated to cramp the free exercise of the elective franchise. He thought the time allowed for the poll not sufficient.
Mr. Batley
thought the time allowed quite sufficient.
Mr. Monck
believed that the learned member had greatly overrated the difficulties of the bill.
Mr. O'Neil
opposed the bill, as calculated to restrict the time allowed for polling in an inconvenient degree.
Mr. Robinson
thought the time ought to be extended to ten days.
Mr. Fyler
supported the bill, and thought six days sufficient.
Mr. Trant
opposed the bill, and moved that the report be taken into consideration that day three months.
The amendment was negatived.
LABOURERS' WAGES BILL.]
On the second reading of this bill being moved,
904
Mr. Benett
said, he hoped no steps would be taken upon the bill, without full consideration. Whatever faults there might be in the administration of the Poor-laws, he was convinced that, in principle, they could not be dispensed with.
Mr. Slaney
said, that he was only anxious to have the bill referred to the select committee, on the Poor-laws. On the report of that committee, perhaps some measure, in the next session, might be found practicable. The abuses of the Poor-laws were all that he complained of.
Sir T. Fremantle
bore testimony to the abuses of the Poor-laws in his vicinity. In many parts of Buckinghamshire the system was, to pay the labourers only four or five shillings a week, and the parish rates made up the deficiency.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, that the state of things was just as bad in Berkshire.
The bill was then read a second time, and the House adjourned to the 30th.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 30, 1828.
MINISTERIAL CHANGES — NEW WRITS.]
Mr. Planta
having moved a new Writ for Perthshire, in the room of Sir George Murray, who had accepted the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the room of Mr. Huskisson,
Mr. Hume said,—
I am aware, Sir, that, strictly speaking, this House has no right to interfere with the king in the appointment of the officers to whom he wishes, to intrust the direction of his government. But I think that, in the present state of the country, as well as of our colonies, this House, and the country at large, have a right to expect some guarantee, that an efficient officer will be appointed to the very important situation of Colonial Secretary. The right hon. gentleman who lately filled that office, was commencing a system of kindness and conciliation, which was calculated to produce union and peace in our colonies; and, if a different system be now adopted, both will be banished, and discord and disunion will prevail in their stead. For my own part, I anticipate a change of our colonial policy; and I dread it the more at the period like the present, when our internal state requires that every practicable reduction should be made both at home and abroad. No man can look at the present state of the
905
Colonel Lindsay
.—Sir, I find it impossible to listen to the observations made by the hon. member, without feeling desirous to say a few words in answer to the observations he has made upon the appointment of my gallant friend. And first, I will ask, whether it follows, that, because a man has borne arms, he is therefore unfit to hold a civil appointment? Is a man, because he has been brought up in the school of honour, the less fit to devote himself to the service of his country in a civil capacity. Under all the circumstances, I consider the observations of the hon. member, to say the least of them, a little premature and uncalled-for. As to the gallant officer; I know no man more competent to fill the situation. He had been long stationed as a military officer abroad; and had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with our colonies; and
906
Sir George Warrender
.—Sir, I can bear testimony to the high character and military talents of my gallant friend. He has, upon every occasion, discharged his military duties in a manner alike honourable to himself and advantageous to the country. But I cannot help expressing my dismay, at witnessing the frequency with which, administrations have, in succession, been broken up, by private dissentions and internal quarrels. I should look upon these changes with distrust at any period, but they are peculiarly to be dreaded when coupled with the state of the country, our foreign relations, and our colonial possessions. There are great public questions shortly to be agitated, as well in this as in the other House of Parliament, which must depend mainly upon the character and principles of the cabinet; and I hold it to be a heavy responsibility on the part of those who create disunion and distrust, where union and co-operation ought to prevail. Such a course of proceeding must of necessity create a want of confidence in this House and in the country, and without confidence, it is impossible that public business can proceed. I feel bound to acknowledge the eminent services rendered to this country by the noble duke at the head of his majesty's councils, in his military character; but I entertain apprehensions of the continuance of his civil career. I trust in God, that the military glory which he has achieved may not be eclipsed by the misfortunes of his civil appointment.
Sir A. Hope.—
Sir, I am surprised at the objections urged against the appointment of military men to civil offices. The House has now before it the manner in which civil appointments have been discharged, and from that specimen it can judge of the general fitness of military men for such appointments. Sir, I maintain that, generally speaking, they have been the most competent persons to hold them. If we maintain, that a military education disqualifies a man for a civil appointment, then we have a right to say that it disqualifies him for a seat in this House; nay, for the possession of every right of a free citizen. Not far back, every gentleman thought it dishonourable
907
Mr. Hobhouse
:—Sir, if all I have heard be correct, I think the appointment of the gallant officer in question as good as any that it is in his majesty's power to make. But I do hope and trust, we shall soon have an assurance, that the administration is permanently settled; for I think it would be better that we should act upon a system in some degree defective than that our whole policy should be in a state of continual change. All who have witnessed what has taken place in this country within the last twelve or thirteen months, must see the necessity of coming to some fixed determination with respect to the administration. Within the short period to which I have alluded, we have had no less than four Colonial Secretaries, not to allude to the other equally numerous changes of place. Under these circumstances, how can we hope for any perfect system of colonial legislation.—Sir, when we look around us, we must feel convinced, that if we are not to have one set of individuals, we ought at least to act upon one fixed and determinate system. In some of our colonies it has, for some time, been unknown who was Colonial Secretary. We scarcely sent them out the name of one individual, than they were informed that that individual had been displaced. Under such a system of change, how can any efficient colonial measure be expected? For myself, I am ready to give my humble support to any ministry formed on sound, constitutional principles, without caring from what party, or set of men, they may be chosen.
The motion was agreed to.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the Miscellaneous Estimates were referred,
Mr. G. Dawson
moved, that 140,000
l.
Mr. Hume
complained, that so many items were classed under a single head, and thought it would be much better that they should be separated in the estimates,
908
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the commissioners had not yet made their final report. He remembered that, in a former case, when part of a report was submitted to the House, it was felt that it would be inconvenient to lay the whole upon the table, in consequence of some individual reflections. He hoped he should soon be able to answer the questions put to him.
Mr. Hume
said, that a million of money had been paid in the course of the last twenty years, for commissions of inquiry; in return for which, we had only received extracts and abstracts, and alt sorts of partial and garbled statements.
Mr. Dawson
observed, that the suggestion of the hon. gentleman for separating the estimates, might form a proper subject for the finance committee, but could not be entertained in a committee like the present.
Sir J. Newport
was of opinion, that parliament had a right to the whole of the reports, and ought not to be satisfied with mere extracts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not deny the right of parliament to the whole of the reports: he had mere-
909
Mr. Gordon
maintained the right of parliament to a full and complete report of the commissioners whom they had appointed.
Mr. Peel
said, that his right hon. friend could not mean to deny the right of the House, but to except only such cases of individual difference and hostility as ought not to be revived, unless connected with some question relating to the public service.
Mr. Baring
could not concur in the distinction drawn by the right hon. gentleman, for he seemed to forget, that the whole of those questions between the colonies and their governors were questions of a personal nature. All the petitioners complained of the gross misgovernment of individuals, and it was to be remembered, that every one of our great colonies had now come forward with complaints. Unless the gallant officer now at the head of that department, could devise some better mode of governing the colonies than had hitherto been adopted, it was to be feared that great evils would arise under the present system. If it was to be understood that every thing of a personal nature was to be struck out from these reports, the House never could understand the question between the colonies and their governors. The case was different in matters of a strictly private nature, though even then he should be very jealous of leaving it to the colonial department to decide what was private and what was not.
Mr. Peel
said, he had merely alluded to private differences, which were known to exist at the Cape.
Mr. Hume
was of opinion, that when a public commission was appointed, it ought not to be in the power of ministers to defer the presentation of their report, because it contained matter of a private or a personal nature. They ought to take it for granted, that the commissioners whom they appointed would not introduce into their report any thing that was frivolous or impertinent. As he intended to take another opportunity of saying a word or two on these reports, he would leave them without further remark at present, and would proceed to notice an item of 6 000
l.
910
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it would be in the recollection of the committee, that it was arranged, under the treaty of Ghent, that commissioners should be appointed to settle the boundary line between the territories of his Britannic majesty and of the United States. It was found that such a settlement could not be made without commissioners being present on the spot; and in consequence two sets of commissions had been appointed. He was happy to state, with regard to one of them, that their labours were already terminated, and with regard to the other, that they would terminate in the course of the next year; so that, after that period, the committee would not be called upon to make any further grants upon this head. With respect to the item of 2,400
l.
Mr. Hume
said, there was a charge of 4,000
l.
911
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that negotiations were going on between the two governments, the object of which was to relieve the country from this expense.
Mr. Hume
proceeded to contend, that the country was paying more for its diplomatic services than any other in the world. Besides the charge of 226,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that when the treaty was signed, the Mexican government thought proper to make a present of 1,000
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that a stop should be put to this exchange of presents with foreign ministers, which he looked upon as nothing else but bribery and corruption [a laugh]. After all the pains we had been taking to make electors honest, we ought to take some pains to make the high officers of state honest too. Public functionaries ought to be prevented from receiving presents in this manner, or be compelled to pay the amount into the public treasury.
Captain O'Neill
wished to know whether the hon. member would reduce those who represented the majesty of England to this wretched condition—that they should receive presents from foreign powers, and not be allowed to make them in return?
912
Mr. Hume
thought, that it would be a great saving to every country, if a stop were put to the practice of making and receiving presents.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Dawson
then moved, that 98,413
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he wished to make one observation on the expenditure of the colonial department, which amounted this year to 39,000
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had, in his intercourse with the colonial office, known Mr. Stephen, and he believed him to be a man of honour and of perfect impartiality.
Mr. R. Gordon
gave full credit to the merits of Mr. Stephen; still, such was the prejudice against him, and such was the extraordinary coincidence between his writings relative to colonial affairs, and the public acts of the government at home, alluding more particularly to the late despatch of the colonial minister where whole passages were literally the same, that he verily believed no one circumstance would tend more to conciliate the colonies, than—not the removal, for he meant no reflection upon the individual—but the promotion of that gentleman to some other office. It would, he could not help thinking, be alike grateful to the learned gentleman himself, as it would undoubtedly be to the colonies.
Mr. Bright
had no desire to speak disparagingly of Mr. Stephen, although he felt the weight of prejudice which called for his removal, and knew that it would be the greatest step which the government could
913
On the resolution, that 106,958
l.
Mr. Hume
doubted whether the confinement of convicts on board the hulks, as the system was now carried on, was of any service. Persons who had been thus treated were often brought two or three times before courts of justice, after they had undergone their punishment. It would be much better to send the convicts out of the country at once.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. gentleman was probably not aware of the fact, that there was a limit to the number of convicts who could be received in the colony of New South Wales; and it was, besides, very doubtful, whether those who were sent to that colony proved such good members of society as those who were forced to labour on board the hulks. It was a matter worthy of attention, that transportation had not been introduced, as a punishment, into any other country of Europe. In almost all other countries, convicts were subjected to hard labour on public works. That the result of the employment of a certain portion of the convicts in labour on board the Hulks was not expensive, a slight examination of the accounts would prove. By the return in his hand, it appeared, that there were last year on board the Hulks, four thousand and thirty healthy convicts, and two hundred and thirty-three sick, making in ail four thousand two hundred and sixty-three. The deaths in the year amounted to one hundred and sixty-six, and the total expense of their support was estimated at 75,810
l.
l.
l.
914
l.
s.
s.
Mr. Benett
agreed, that it was better to employ the convicts in labour if possible, but he thought that labour ought to be performed in the colonies. The convicts were kept in this country at a great expense, in order to do that labour which ought to fall to the lot of the guiltless and the industrious part of the community. He recommended the government, if they were determined to promote emigration, to begin with the worthless part of the population. If any of the convicts considered transportation in any other light than a punishment, he would send them to countries less congenial with their feelings, and less favourable in climate.
Sir G. Cockburn
bore testimony to the extent of labour done by the convicts in the Dock-yards. They proved the best workmen, and saved considerable sums to the government.
Mr. Benett
deprecated the system of condemning convicts for seven years to the Hulks, but whose punishment was remitted after two years' condemnation. This commutation of punishment gave employment to undeserving convicts, whilst industrious persons were left without occupation.
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that from the little experience he had had in colonial affairs, he was impressed with the conviction, that there could not be a worse with reference to New South Wales, than to carry into execution sentences of seven years' transportation. This country could not make a worse present to that colony than a young London pickpocket.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. member was mistaken as to the remission of punishment at the end of two years. The rule was, that the superintendent, at the end of three years and a half, had the privilege of recommending eight out of every hundred convicts to the Secretary of
915
Mr. Alderman Waithman
considered the present system preferable to any that he had heard suggested.
Mr. Stuart Worthy
thought it high time, that the colony should be exempted from a practice which impeded its improvement.
The resolution was agreed to; as were also the remaining resolutions, after a desultory conversation.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 2, 1828.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL—MR. HUSKISSON'S STATEMENT— MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.]
Mr. Tennyson
said: —In rising to move the order of the day for the committee upon the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, I cannot refrain from expressing my deep regret, that a measure, winch rests upon grounds altogether distinct from party considerations,—the failure or the success of which could not affect the stability of any administration,—a measure, too, which I had fondly imagined would be productive of unmixed advantage to the country, should have incidentally occasioned a change in his majesty's government, which, I am persuaded, a vast majority of all thinking men in this country will agree with me in considering, both in itself, and its probable consequences, a great public misfortune.
Sir, I call it a great public misfortune, that the sovereign should be thus unexpectedly deprived of the services of those
916
To whom this calamity is imputable, we have yet to learn. I will not believe that the right hon. gentleman who lately held the seals of the Colonial Department, after having once consented, unadvisedly, in my judgment, but deliberately, on his part—to accept office in concert with the duke of Wellington, would seize upon the first pretext for betraying the administration into difficulties, by wilfully abandoning the position he had thus accepted.
On the other hand, I am equally unwilling to suppose that the duke of Wellington, after having courted and won the alliance of the right hon. gentleman, and of the two noble lords who have now retired with him from the cabinet, in order to strengthen the government he was about to form, and to acquire for it, a portion of that confidence and popularity which Mr. Canning's administration had obtained,—I say, I cannot imagine that the noble duke would afterwards avail himself of the earliest pretext for throwing off the right hon. gentleman, as soon as the object for which he sought that alliance seemed to him to be accomplished.
Yet, Sir, there are only two recognized modes by which a minister of the Crown can quit its service. One, by his own absolute resignation, the other, by a dismissal on the part of the sovereign. I know of no intermediate course; I cannot conceive any third mode, at least there is none which, in civil tactics, could be deemed justifiable. At a period, then, of public difficulty, either the right hon. gentleman has improperly abandoned his post, or, at such a period, and for some cause to be explained, the noble duke at the head of the government has advised his dismissal from the councils of the Crown. But seeing the right hon. gentleman in his place, I trust he will now indulge us with the fullest information on this important matter. If that information be afforded, I am persuaded it will appear that this bill, which I have the honour to conduct, was not, and could not be, the fundamental cause of what has unfortunately occurred. But, be that as it may,
917
Mr. Huskisson
rose and said:—
918
919
920
l
l
921
l
922
923
924
(Private and Confidential)
"Downing Street,
"Tuesday Morning, 2 A. M. 20th May.
"My dear Duke.—After the vote which, in regard to my own consistency and personal character, I have found myself, from the course of this evening's debate, compelled to give on the East Retford question, I owe to you as the head of the administration, and to Mr. Peel as the leader of the House of Commons, to lose no time in affording you an opportunity of placing my office in other hands, as the only means in my power of preventing the injury to the king's service, which may ensue from the appearance of disunion in his Majesty's councils, however unfounded in reality, or however unimportant in itself the question which has given rise to that appearance.
"Regretting the necessity of troubling you with this communication, believe me, my dear duke, ever truly yours,
"W. HUSKISSON."
s
925
926
(Private.)
"London, May 20th, 1828.
"My dear Huskisson;—Your letter of two this morning, which I received at ten, has surprised me much, and has given me great concern. I have considered it my duty to lay it before the king. Ever your's most sincerely,
"WELLINGTON,"
"The Rt. Hon. W. Huskisson."
(Private.)
"Downing St. 20tk May, 3/6 p. M. 1828.
"My dear Duke;—Having understood from lord Dudley and lord Palmerston, that you had laid my letter of last night before the king under a different impression from that which it was intended to convey, I feel it due both to you and to myself to say, that my object in writing that letter was, not to express any intentions of my own, but to relieve you from any delicacy which you might feel towards me, if you should think that the interests of his majesty's service would be prejudiced by my remaining in office, after giving a
927
"W. HUSKISSON."
(Private.)
"London, May 20th, 1828.
"My dear Huskisson;—I have received your letter of this evening. I certainly did not understand your letter of two o'clock this morning, as offering me any option; nor do I understand the one of this evening as leaving me any, excepting that of submitting myself and his majesty's government to the necessity of soliciting you to remain in your office, or of incur ring the loss of your valuable assistance to his majesty's service.
"However sensible I may be of this loss, I am convinced that, in these times, any loss is better than that of character, which is the foundation of public confidence.
"In this view of the case I have put out of it altogether every consideration of the discredit resulting from the scene of last night; of the extent of which you could not but have been sensible when you thought proper, as a remedy for it to send me the offer of 'placing your office in other hands.' Ever, my dear Huskisson, yours most sincerely,
"WELLINGTON."
"The Rt. Hon. W. Huskisson."
928
(Private.)
"Colonial Office, 21st May, 1828.
"My dear Duke;—In justice to myself I cannot acquiesce for a moment in the construction which your letter of last night puts upon my conduct.
"You cannot refuse to me the right of knowing the motives of my own actions, and I solemnly declare that, in both my letters, I was actuated by one and the same feeling. It was simply this.—That it was not for me, but for you, as the head of the government, to decide how far my vote made it expedient to remove me from his majesty's service. I felt that I had no alternative, consistently with personal honour (in a difficulty not of my own seeking or creating) but to give that vote;— that the question in itself was one of very minor importance;—that the disunion was more in appearance than in reality; but I also felt that, possibly, you might take a different view of it, and that, in case you should, I ought (as I had once done on a similar occasion with lord Liverpool) to relieve you from any difficulty, arising out of personal consideration towards me, in deciding upon a step to which you
929
"It was under this impression alone that I wrote to you immediately upon my return from the House of Commons.
"If you had not misconceived that impression, as well as the purport of my second letter, I am persuaded that you could not suppose me guilty of the arrogance of expecting "that you and his majesty's government should submit yourselves to the necessity of soliciting me to remain in my office," or do me the injustice of believing that I could be capable of placing you in the alternative of choosing between the continuance of my services, (such as they are) and the loss to your administration of one particle of character, which, I agree with you, is the foundation of public confidence.
"If, understanding my communication as I intended it to be understood, you had, in any way, intimated to me, either that the occurrence, however unfortunate, was not one of sufficient moment to render it necessary for you, on public grounds, to act in the manner in which I had assumed that you possibly might think it necessary —or that you were under that necessity— in either case there would have been an end of the matter. In the first supposition, I should have felt that I had clone what, in honour and fairness towards you, I was bound to do; but it never could have entered my imagination that I had claimed, or received, any sacrifice whatever from you, or any member of his majesty's government.
"On the other hand, nothing can be further from my intention than to express an opinion, that the occasion was not one in which you might fairly consider it your duty to advise his majesty to withdraw from me the seals of office, on the ground of this vote. I do not, therefore, complain; but I cannot allow that my removal shall be placed on any other ground;—I cannot allow that it was my own act;—still less can I admit that, when I had no other intention than to relieve the question, on which you had to decide, from any personal embarrassment, this step on my part should be ascribed to feelings, the very reverse of those by which alone I was actuated, either towards you or his majesty's government. Believe me, to be, my dear duke, your's very sincerely,
"W. HUSKISSON."
930
"London, May 21st, 1828.
"My dear Huskisson;—In consequence of your last letter I feel it to be necessary to recall to your recollection, the circumstances under which I received your letter of Tuesday morning.
"It is addressed to me at two o'clock in the morning, immediately after a debate and division in the House of Commons. It informs me that you lose no time in affording me an opportunity of placing your office in other hands, as the only means in your power of preventing an injury to the king's service which you describe. It concludes by 'regretting the necessity for troubling me with this communication."
"Could I consider this in any other light than as a formal tender of the resignation of your office, or that I had any alternative but either to solicit you to remain in office contrary to your sense of duty, or to submit your letter to the king?
"If you had called on me the next morning after your vote, and had explained to me in conversation what had passed in the House of Commons, the character of the communication would have been quite different; and I might have felt myself at liberty to discuss the whole subject with you; and freely to give an opinion upon any point connected with it. But I must still think that if I had not considered a letter couched in the terms in which that letter is couched, and received under the circumstances under which I received it, as a tender of resignation, and had not laid it before the king, I should have exposed the king's government and myself to very painful misconstructions. My answer to your letter will have informed you that it surprised me much, and that it gave me great concern. I must consider therefore the resignation of your office as your own act, and not as mine, Ever your's, most sincerely.
"WELLINGTON."
931
932
933
934
935
"W. HUSKISSON."
"His Grace the
Duke of Wellington, K. G."
"London, May 25, 1828.
"WELLINGTON."
"The Rt. Hon. W. Huskisson."
936
"Downing St. 9 ½ P. M.
25th May, 1828.
937
"W. HUSKISSON."
"London, 26thMay, 1828.
938
"WELLINGTON."
"Rt. Hon. W. Huskisson."
939
940
941
942
943
944
Mr. Secretary Peel
said:— There is nothing, Sir, that has fallen from my right hon. friend that shall prevent me from prefacing the observations which I have to offer to the House with the expression of my deep and sincere regret at the circumstances which have rendered these explanations necessary. When, in the early part of this year, Sir, I was recalled, without any act or suggestion of my own, into the public service, I own I did all that I could to promote the union of those who had co-operated in the administration at a former period; and my right hon. friend himself can best judge whether, during the period which has elapsed since that re-union was effected, to the very day that his separation from the government took place, I have not acted with a desire to strengthen and confirm that union. I had heartily hoped that the time had at length come, when, being again joined together in the public service, the recollection of the differences of last year might be obliterated among us—I had hoped, that the time had come when public men would not be called on I for personal explanations of their conduct, but when we might be cordially acting together in the public service, and devoting our best energies as ministers to advance the welfare of the state. Sir, I regret that the event has not been such. I deeply regret the necessity of entering into this explanation, and I make the same appeal to the House for indulgence, which my right hon. friend made, whilst I follow his example in explaining fully the circumstances into which he has entered.
945
946
947
948
Mr. Huskisson
here observed, that he did this inadvertently.
Mr. Peel continued
: My right hon. friend says, he made this observation inadvertently, and I thought at the time he had spoken of this matter inadvertently, and in the heat of argument. My right hon. friend said, that if he had only one borough to deal with, he would consent to give it to a great manufacturing or commercial town, and he says that an inference was to be drawn from what I said, which warranted him in thinking that my opinions coincided with his. This is most certainly the very first time I ever heard that any such inference was to be drawn from what I said upon this subject; and I really must say, that in all the discussions which have taken place upon the question, I never heard that any such inference could be drawn from any thing I said, or from any argument I had advanced. Sure I am, at all events, that no authority was given to me by the members of the government to make any admission upon the subject of the single borough. My right hon. friend will recollect, that on the Sunday, when the meeting took place, I told him he was in a different situation from the other members of the government. I said to my right hon. friend, "You have made a declaration upon the subject of the single
949
950
951
952
"Downing St., 2. A. M. May 20th.
953
(Signed) "W. HUSKISSON."
954
955
956
"London, May 21, 1828.
957
"The right hon. W. Huskisson."
958
959
960
961
962
Lord Palmerston said
:—Sir, I feel that I owe it as a duty to myself and to the House to explain such parts of the transactions adverted to in the speeches of my right hon. friends, as far as I was connected with them, and as far as they have relation to the grounds that led to my retirement from office. With respect to the borough of East Retford, my right hon. friend, who spoke last, will confirm me in the statement, that I very early acquainted him with the preference that I entertained for transferring forfeited franchises to large manufacturing towns, rather than to extend them to the hundred. However, as, in the case recently brought before parliament, there were the franchises of two boroughs, Penryn and East Retford, to be disposed of, I considered it a reasonable proposal, that one of them, Penryn, should be transferred to a large manufacturing town, Birmingham, for instance, and that East Retford might be thrown into the hundred. This was in the case of two boroughs being to be disfranchised: but I never concealed from my right hon. friend, that in the event of there being only one borough, I should prefer the transfer of that one to a manufacturing town; otherwise the House of Commons would be acting on a rule which my right hon. friend himself deprecated; namely, that there should be a settled precedent for transferring a forfeited franchise either to a manufacturing or to an agricultural district. This rule, it appeared to me, would be acted upon, if, after having extended the forfeited franchise to the adjacent hundreds in the cases of Shoreham, Cricklade, and Ailesbury, an additional instance should be afforded of disposing of a new disfranchised borough in a similar way. It certainly was the impression on the minds of those who were present in the cabinet on the previous
963
964
965
966
amende
967
968
969
970
Mr. Huskisson.
— I should not have trespassed again on the indulgence of the House, in explanation, had not much of the debate turned upon matters which it is material should not be misunderstood. My right hon. friend, in the first part of his speech, alluded to the proceedings which took place concerning East Retford. He stated, that I meant to have voted as he did. I am bound to say, that his statement is perfectly correct. I came down to this House fully intending to vote with my right hon. friend. Nay, such was my intention nearly up to twelve o'clock on that night. Up to that hour I saw no necessity for not giving that vote. It having been settled in the cabinet that morning, that it should be an open question, my vote was not material one way or the other: but after that hour, an attempt was made to lay down an entirely new proposition, with respect to the elective franchise, I therefore proposed an adjournment of the question, until we could decide upon this new principle. If my right hon. friend will refer to what I said, he will see that I opposed the substitution of Manchester for Birmingham on a technical objection. What I said was, "if we were to send up a second bill, with the word Manchester in it, we should be guilty of a manifest inconsistency." We had a right to presume that the bill in the Lords would not transfer the franchise to Manchester; but still it was urged, that, whilst it was in the Lords, we could not send up another bill with the same name to it. We were not to know that that bill would ever pass; and we were bound to proceed upon the knowledge which we had, that the Penryn bill would not transfer the franchise to another town. I knew my own intentions; I knew that I had it not in contemplation to speak in the debate of the 21st March; nor could I have any motives for outstepping the limits assigned by my colleagues. If I did, it was inadvertently, but whether it was so or not, I was bound by it. This, however, is a point which I do not think it necessary to enter into further. From the imperfect manner in which I expressed myself, my right hon. friend must have greatly misunderstood me in that part of my speech,
971
972
Mr. Brougham
said, that he was not disposed to take a part in discussing the very extraordinary transactions which had given rise to the explanations of the right hon. gentleman, and to the speech of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. That which was of the most importance to the House, and to the country, was, the character and intentions of the government formed after the resignations. That it was, in many essential particulars, both with respect to the individual composing it, and, if he might so speak, with respect to the principles of its construction, different from that which had preceded it, no man could entertain a doubt. On this subject, however, he abstained for the present, from making any observations.—He was willing still to wait and watch the proceedings of the government; but if he had thought that vigilance was necessary at the beginning of
973
Mr. Peel
said, that the separation between himself and his right hon. friend had not arisen from any difference of opinion on the general policy of the government. He had made no compromise in remaining in office. As to the future, he would not give any pledge, but he did not contemplate any change in the foreign or domestic policy of the country.
974
"future"
Mr. Tennyson
asked the right hon. member, to which of the words "future." his amendment applied?
Mr. Huskisson
said, that, the House was bound to counteract the evil which had been proved to exist in this borough. The view which the House had taken of previous cases of this kind was perfectly clear. If, in the case of any delinquent borough, a number of voters were proved to have been free from corruption, the practice was, to exclude the tainted voters, and to retain those that were pure, by extending the franchise to the neighbouring hundred. It was in this mode that the House had proceeded in former cases of boroughs in which some voters were corrupt and some untainted, and where it was thought desirable to preserve the untainted voters in the possession of their former privileges. This was the case with Penryn, where it was not proved that half the voters were tainted. But, in the case of East Retford, it was quite different, for there the great majority were proved to have been corrupt. Therefore the ground for throwing open the franchise to the neighbouring hundred did not exist. His hon. friend (Mr. N. Calvert) said, it was not his intention to destroy the borough, but to throw it open to the hundred of Bassetlaw. This would be, in effect, to create that hundred into a little county in itself; for there were scarcely more than two members of the borough of East Retford who could have a vote in it. Rather than agree to the creation of these little new counties, he would prefer that the franchise should go to one of the Ridings of Yorkshire.
Mr. C. Wood
expressed a hope, that the bill would have the vote of the right hon. Secretary, after what he had admitted —the compromise that had been made. Having stated that compromise, the right hon. gentleman should be bound by it; for it was childish to suppose that the franchise, in the case of the bill sent up to the other House, would now be given to Manchester. If transferred at all, it
975
Mr. Stanley
observed, that as to the merits of the question, it had been said,
976
Mr. G. Bankes
said, the evidence did not bear out the hon. gentleman in the assertion that only eleven voters in East Retford remained uncorrupted. The evidence applied rather to the election of 1812, than to the subsequent elections; and since that period about one hundred and forty-six new freemen had been added. It would be most unjust to deprive those individuals of their rights, without conclusive evidence of their guilt. The hon. gentleman had made allusion to the returning officer; but it should be recollected, that there were two returning officers for the borough, a junior and a senior. Now, the senior officer had never been even suspected of receiving a bribe. Upon the whole he thought the motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire was most consistent with justice, and therefore he would give it his support.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
addressed the House, but continued coughing and other noises rendered him quite inaudible.
The committee divided: For the original motion 258: For the amendment 152: Majority 106.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had thought one of the proposals of the hon. mover of this bill was, to agree in effecting a compromise, by admitting one of the boroughs to retain its franchise, while the other was given to a large town. By that plan his course would be governed. If the House of Lords should throw the franchise of Penryn into the neighbouring hundreds, he, as an individual, should consider himself bound by his pledge, and would certainly redeem it, by throwing the franchise of the borough of East Retford into the hands of the inhabitants of a large town. But if the Lords adopted a different course, then,
977
Mr. Tennyson
objected to that recommendation, that if the bill should now be printed with that amendment, the House would afterwards be considered to have taken an irretrievable step. He would rather lose the bill altogether, than let the franchise be extended to the hundred.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was convinced that there had been notorious and general corruption, such as to justify him in punishing the borough. He would consent to disfranchise every individual member of that borough who had been proved to have been guilty of corruption. He would, in that respect, go beyond the cases of Cricklade and Aylesbury, and adopt the precedent furnished by the borough of Shoreham. In doing so, there might be a question as to whether that punishment could be visited on those who had admitted their corruption at the bar of that House; since those individuals had been promised indemnity. Upon that promise, it might be a question whether the indemnity was an indemnity from penal consequences only, or from consequences of any other kind.
Mr. Hobhouse
thought it quite unnecessary to wait for the decision of the House of Lords, of the nature of which they must all be well aware. He much regretted that the right hon. Secretary had not made the other night the same declaration which he had just made. It would have saved a world of embarrassment elsewhere, and have avoided the necessity for much of what had passed to-night. With respect to himself, he must say, that if the borough was to be disfranchised only to give its elective rights to the hundred, he should prefer letting it return to its old corruption. He could not agree, that the franchise was
978
Mr. Tennyson
said, that the House might divide to all eternity before he would submit to have his object defeated.
Mr. Stanley
stating it as his opinion, that the hon. and right hon. gentlemen were differing only about a question of punctilio.
Mr. Peel
characterised the conduct of the hon. gentleman as that of a vexatious proceeding, to which he would not resort if he were out of office to-morrow; as it only tended to stop public business. He should take the sense of the House on the question itself, and he trusted that would be decisive.
Mr. Rickford
said, that the object proposed on both sides of the House was, to cure the evil of bribery and corruption which had long prevailed in East Retford. He cautioned the House against transferring the bribery from one class of electors to another, and recommended the right of election to be confined to the resident freeholders.
Mr. Tennyson
observed, that if the right hon. Secretary was sincere in his intention of giving this franchise to a considerable manufacturing town, in case Penryn should go to the hundreds, what could he gain by the clauses being brought up? If, after the course he (Mr. T.) had taken in this measure, he allowed "Bassetlaw" to stand in the bill, he should be disgraced in the eyes of the country.
The committee divided on Mr. Tennyson's motion of adjournment: Ayes 24; Noes 221; Majority 197. On our re-entering the gallery,
Mr. Secretary Peel
was on his legs, declaring that he would accept no compromise. If the hon. member would allow
979
Mr. Tennyson
did not think, without a fresh instruction to the committee, that the clauses could then be introduced into the bill.
Sir J. Sebright
recommended his hon. friend not to oppose the introduction of the clauses. He would rather see the bill thrown out than that it should pass as it was now framed. The public would then be assured, to whatever extent corruption might be carried, it would receive no punishment from that House.
Lord Nugent
thought there could be no objection to adopting the recommendation of the right hon. gentleman. He would allow "Bassetlaw" to stand in the bill, in order that it might be printed and re-committed.
Mr. Baring
thought that no injury could arise from delay. The hon. gentleman was not prepared with his clauses.
Lord Nugent
observed, that the House had the pledge of the right hon. gentleman's word, and more, the pledge of his character, that if the Penryn bill took another shape in the House of Lords, he would find the means of placing them in as advantageous a condition as before.
Mr. Calvert
rose to contradict the statement that he was not prepared to bring up the clauses. He was perfectly prepared.
Mr. S. Rice
felt as warmly in favour of his hon. friend's measure, as any member, but as they would not be placed in a worse situation, he recommended his lion, friend to allow the insertion of the clauses.
Mr. Tennyson
persisted in the view he had taken of the subject, and charged the right hon. gentleman with knowing perfectly well that it had been determined in the cabinet, that Penryn should not be disfranchised.
Mr. Peel
replied, that, as far as he was acquainted with the matter, no such determination had been come to by the cabinet. He was not aware that the question had ever been put as to what course the members of the cabinet should pursue. After the late decision by a majority of 97, it seemed reasonable that the hon. member for Herts should have an opportunity of shewing in what shape he would present
980
Mr. N. Calvert
then proposed a further amendment, omitting all the latter part of the bill, and substituting a clause enacting, that the 40
s.
Mr. Tennyson
The Speaker
remarked, that such a course was irregular in this stage.
Mr. Tennyson
was not aware of any forms of the House which took a bill out of the hands of the member who brought it in, and being appealed to as to the day, he had naturally said, on this day six months.
The Speaker
observed, that the Chairman of the committee had no right to appeal to the hon. gentleman for the time.
Mr. Tennyson
admitted, that he had answered in a flippant way when he had proposed this day six months.
The Report was ordered to be taken into consideration on this day sennight.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 3.
SMALL. NOTE CURRENCY—CIRCULATION OF SCOTCH NOTES IN ENGLAND.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill "to restrain the Circulation of Scottish Banknotes in England," said, that when he first gave notice of his intention to submit such a measure to the consideration of the House, he had little reason to expect that it would be necessary for him to enter into any lengthened or detailed observations. He conceived that, after what had passed in parliament, no one would dispute the absolute necessity of withholding from Scotland the privilege of circulating notes in England, when parliament had already withdrawn such privilege from bankers resident in England. That principle appeared to be so manifest, that it seemed
981
982
983
l.
984
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
985
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
986
l.
987
l.
988
989
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
990
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
991
l.
992
Sir James Graham
said, that he always rose in that House with considerable embarrasment, and on this occasion he felt greater embarrassment than usual, when he recollected the magnitude and the difficulty of the subject with which he had to deal. The dry ness of the details, and the necessity of perpetual references to written documents, made him fear that he should not succeed in engaging their attention; but he would endeavour to deserve it by not wearying them unnecessarily either with the one or the other. The difficulties which must, at any time, attach to this subject, had been materially increased by the course which the right hon. gentleman had adopted; a course which, he must say, he thought rather unfair. The notice of the motion of the right hon. gentleman on the paper, was, for leave to
993
994
995
s.
l.
996
"That, coincident with the present system of currency, if not immediately owing to its effects, there has been a great and progressive increase in the manufactures, agriculture, commerce, population, and general wealth, of the country. Your committee are certainly not convinced that it is the suppression of one-pound notes that would affect the cash credits to the extent apprehended; but they are unwilling, without stronger proof of necessity, to run the risk of deranging, from any cause whatever, a system admirably calculated, in their opinion, to economize the use of capital, to excite and cherish a spirit of useful enterprise, and even to promote the moral habits of the people, by the direct inducements which it holds out, to the maintenance of a character for industry, integrity, and prudence."
997
s.
s.
s.
998
l.
s.
999
s.
s.
s.
s.
1000
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
1001
s.
1002
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
"The exigencies and uses of money not lessening with its quantity, and it being in the same proportion to be employed and distributed still, so much as its quantity
1003
1004
"A nation, whose money decreases, is actually weaker and more miserable than another nation which possesses no more money, but is on the increasing hand. The alterations in the quantity of money are not immediately attended with proportionable alterations in the price of commodities: there is always an interval before matters be adjusted to their new situation; and this interval is as pernicious to industry when money is diminishing, as it is advantageous when it is increasing. The workman has not the same employment from the manufacturer, though he pays the same price for every thing in the market. The farmer cannot dispose of his corn and cattle, though he must pay the same rent to his landlord. The poverty, beggary, and sloth, which must ensue, are easily foreseen. But, in every king
1005
1006
1007
s.
d.
l.
l.
1008
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1009
1010
Inferno
1011
"Our popular government, perhaps, will render it difficult or dangerous for a minister to venture on so desperate an expedient as that of a voluntary bankruptcy; und though the House of Lords be altogether composed of proprietors of land, and the House of Commons chiefly, and consequently neither of them can be supposed to have great property in the funds, yet the connexions of the members may be so great with the proprietors as to render them more tenacious of public faith than prudence, policy, or even justice, strictly speaking, requires." And here followed a passage respecting our foreign relations, which he thought was worthy of particular attention,—"And perhaps, too, our foreign enemies may be so politic as to discover that our safety lies in despair, and may not therefore show the danger open and barefaced till it be inevitable. The balance of power in Europe, our forefathers and we, have deemed too unequal to be pre
1012
Mr. Liddell
said, that, after the very able speech of his hon. friend,—a speech of which he might say
"nullum fere genus quod non tetigit, et nihil tetigit quod non ornavit."
1013
1014
Mr. S. O' Brien
said, he considered a paper currency not only cheap but useful. It had been objected to the paper system, that it had given rise to the wildest speculations. That was true to a certain extent; but then it should also be considered, that it had given rise to the most useful enterprise, which had given employment to thousands, and had realized large fortunes to many honourable and industrious individuals. He could not see, if the public were secured by proper regulations, from the dangers to be apprehended from what was called over-trading, where the danger was of making the trial, or rather of continuing that which had been already made, and had been on the whole successful. As to the danger of over-issues, he thought it was only imaginary, as long as the Bank of England had the power of contracting its issues at pleasure. Besides, when we talked of the danger of the issue of small notes, he would ask, what security did their abolition afford against the insolvency of private bankers? There was none he contended, which they might not have at the present moment, and with a small-note currency. On the whole, he thought that a paper currency, founded on a metallic basis, was that which the country required, and without which we could not go on, with such a weight of debt as the country had to bear.
Mr. Frankland Lewis
said, that in his view of it, the whole tendency of the hon. baronet's speech resolved itself into a recommendation of a depreciated paper-currency. Then, he put it to the House, whether it would not be the more direct course for the hon. baronet to avow distinctly and at once what was his real object, and to bring it forward in a more tangible form. The hon. baronet had introduced a variety of extraneous topics, but no one who had attended to the course of his reasoning could fail to come to the conclusion, that the great end and aim of
1015
1016
1017
1018
Mr. Maberly
said, the right hon. gentleman proposed to bring in a bill, the effect of which would be, to prevent the circulation of Scotch notes in England; and that measure he wished to introduce, after a committee had sat to inquire into the subject of the circulation of Scotland, and had recommended parliament not to interfere with that circulation.—The business of the Scotch banks was carried on in the same manner as those of London.—Their exchanges were regularly made twice a week; and the consequence was, that there could be no over-issue of paper. If that system was changed, the poor would be deprived of the power of investment of small sums, while, as it at present stood, it was prevented from becoming injurious, by the frequent exchanges among
1019
Mr. Baring
said, he should not take up much time in delivering his opinion on the subject,, although it was undoubtedly one of the greatest importance. The original motion had been confined to a certain point; but the hon. baronet near him had gone into the discussion of the larger subject. He did not regret that the debate had thus taken a larger range, nor that the House had of late had frequent discussions upon this great question. It was to be recollected, that the charter of the Bank of England would, in a few years, expire, and it was time for them to sharpen their wits upon the important subject of banking, in order that they might be able to see which was the best course to be pursued, whether the system that was now in use in Scotland, and whether it would be advisable to introduce that system into England when the Bank charter was done away with here. After all that had been so plainly and dogmatically laid down on the subject of the currency, it was clear that there were no great questions on which most persons, both within and without those walls, were so completely, as it were, learning their lessons, as upon the questions of the circulation and the banking system. Indeed, he felt it necessary himself to speak with a degree of diffidence on the subject, when it appeared that as yet hardly any principle had been established, notwithstanding the opinions which had been given to the world, under the sanction of some men of great name,—Mr. Horner, for instance, and the right hon. gentleman opposite, who was certainly no ordinary authority. Indeed, when it was recollected, that it had been settled by a vote of that House, during a period when they were experiencing all the pressure of a long war, that within, a few months, and that, too, when
1020
1021
1022
l.
1023
1024
l.
l.
l.
l.
1025
1026
s.
d.
s.
1027
Lord Howick
thought, that the Restriction act, and also the act of 1819, was a piece of injustice; but he did not, therefore, think, that they should now do another act of injustice, which they would do if they retraced their steps, and again depreciated the currency. He should, however, vote for the amendment of his hon. friend, on the simple ground, that it was worthy of inquiry, as a paper was so much cheaper than a metallic currency, whether it could not also be made as safe as a metallic one. He thought it was no argument, because a paper currency had failed under a bad system of banking, perhaps the worst that ever existed, that it must necessarily fail under a system, with proper regulations, and with all those checks and safeguards which might be devised. No step should be taken which added unnecessarily to the burthens of the country. An inquiry could do no harm; and if it ended in suggesting proper checks, the country might be able again to have a paper currency, which was to be wished, on account of its cheapness. The chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that at present, the gold currency amounted to 22,000,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he could not but consider the argument of the right hon. gentleman a most lame and impotent reply to the admirable speech of the hon. baronet (the member for Carlisle). At the same time, with the experience they had unfortunately had of the results of the inquiries of committees, he could by no means vote for the hon. baronet's amend-
1028
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he should not have risen, had it not been for a remark of the late Vice-president of the Board of Trade. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the profit on one-pound notes was not of any consequence to the country bankers. But they had heard from the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, that the great pressure which was felt in the year 1825 was chiefly caused by the pressure of the country bankers on the Bank of England for gold. Now this was a statement which he felt himself called on to deny. The country bankers had done no more than any other men. They who held the paper of the
1029
s.
s.
d.
1030
Mr. Huskisson
said, it had been long his lot to address the House on all the general subjects which the hon. baronet had touched upon with a rapid and lucid view; but he would not go into a discussion, on the present occasion, upon the depreciation of the currency, the conduct of the country banks, or the blunders, as an hon. member had described them, of the committees of 1810 and 1819. He regretted that he had not had the advantage that evening of hearing the speech of the chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, therefore, that he wished very shortly to state the grounds on which he should vote for the proposition of his right hon. friend, and most decidedly against the amendment. He agreed with the noble lord, in the general proposition, that provided no risk or inconvenience attended the proceeding, it was desirable to go into a committee on such subjects; for the more they were inquired into, the more should we increase the stock of our practical experience, the want of which had led to the errors we had committed, to the great detriment of the national prosperity. But he would ask, was there no risk in unset-ling the mind of the public, as to what was to be the future state of the currency? He had no hesitation in saying, that many questions must be brought under the consideration of such a committee, if it should be appointed, the discussion of which
1031
1032
Mr. Bright
suggested, that the debate should be adjourned.
Mr. Bankes
was desirous that the matter should go to a committee. If the chancellor of the Exchequer did not
1033
After a short desultory conversation, it was proposed to adjourn the debate to Thursday. The Mouse divided; when there appeared, for the motion 82; against it 17:—majority 65.
The debate was accordingly adjourned to Thursday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 5.
SCOTCH SETTLEMENT BILL.]
The Earl of Roseberry
, in moving the second reading of the Scotch Settlement Bill, wished briefly to state the grounds upon which he had been led to support a measure which tended rather to alleviate an existing evil than altogether to remove it. The influx of Irishmen into Scotland was known to be considerable; and that being the fact, it appeared necessary that parliament should adopt some measure for putting a stop to the evil which grew out of such a system; he alluded to the competition in labour, which gradually tended to introduce a degree of want and misery into the country, that had not before existed in it. Under this conviction, therefore, he felt that he should be guilty of a breach of duty, were he to refuse stepping forward; and if he had not the power of destroying the evil, at least to use his influence to alleviate it. The point to which he more particularly wished to draw their lordships' attention, was that part of the existing law which gave to all persons the power of claiming a settlement in Scotland, after a residence of three years; and he thought that the population would be better, as well as more useful, members of society, if the settlement was extended from three to seven years. He had already mentioned how the law stood at present, and he would now state that the consequence of such a measure was, that numbers of aged and infirm persons were continually migrating from Ireland, for the purpose alone of procuring a settlement after so short a period; end by that means of claiming that parochial relief, which they could not acquire in their own country. The object of the bill
1034
Lord Melville
opposed the bill, because it was the first attempt to introduce a different species of legislation for different classes of his majesty's subjects. He contended that the natives of England and Ireland had a right to enter into Scotland. The bill would also be inoperative on account of the inaccuracy of keeping parish registers in Scotland, and the difficulty of ascertaining the claims of individuals. He opposed the bill on principle, and moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
The Earl of Limerick
said, he was surprised to hear the observations of the noble mover with regard to Ireland. The tenor of his speech could only be looked upon as a taint upon the character of the people of that country, and an indirect accusation of profligacy on their parts. The people of Ireland were armed with every principle of right, under the treaty of the Union: yet, since that treaty, the greatest inroads had been made upon their rights; and this was another attempt to inflict a further injury upon them. The cry now was, "Keep us from the Irish!" Some years back, the cry was, "For Heaven's sake keep us from the Scotch!" The great body of the people were, however, now looking forward for a day of conciliation, and not of recrimination. He objected to the bill as drawing a line of demarcation between the inhabitants of different parts of the same United empire. He did not wish to see such distinctions kept up, and looked forward to see all men made equal in the eye of the law.
The Earl of Roseberry
said, he had no wish to shew the slightest unkindness towards the Irish. The bill placed the Irish and English on the same footing.
The Earl of Haddington
said, that the proposed measure, under any circumstances, could not place the Irishman in a worse situation than he was at home; but after a residence of seven years, it would be found to place him in a far better condition: for he would then be entitled to that settlement which he could, never procure in his own country. The object of the bill was, not to discourage Irishmen from going over to Scotland, but to prevent them from obtaining so easy a settlement as the present system entitled them to. He would rather the bill should be in
1035
The Earl of Rosslyn
would never give his vote for a bill which would exclude Englishmen and Irishmen from obtaining a settlement in Scotland upon the same footing as the natives of that country.
Lord Belhaven
opposed the bill upon the same grounds.
The Earl of Darnley
could not vote for a bill which would exclude the natives of Ireland from the enjoyment of advantages in another country, which they were deprived of in their own.
The Earl of Roseberry
, in consequence of the objections which had been made to the bill, was desirous of suggesting whether it would not be better to have the bill read a second time, and on being committed to make such alterations as might be deemed necessary.
Lord Melville
had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the noble earl.
The bill was read a second time, and committed for the 11th instant.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 5, 1828.
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S BILL.]
The Attorney-General
Mr. Hume
was sorry that this bill had been considered a private bill. The object of it was, to grant to the Archbishop of Canterbury power to appoint to an office in reversion, which he believed to be a mere sinecure. The Archbishop had a right to appoint the principal Registrar of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and to put into the patent one, two or even three lives. Now, the late Archbishop had put into this office his three sons. One of them was lately dead; and the present Archbishop wished to insert a new life into the patent: but the two surviving sons of the late Archbishop refused to surrender their present patent, and so prevented the present Archbishop from inserting a new life in a new patent. The present Archbishop, therefore, came to the Mouse and asked it to enable him to add a third life to the two which were now inserted in the patent; the third life not taking any sham of the profits of the office until the death of the two present holders. By giving him that power, the House would, he believed, perpetuate an office which levied 29,000
l
1036
The Attorney-general
contended, that this was strictly a private bill. It had already undergone a strict ordeal in the House of Lords. He should therefore oppose the postponement, especially as a public report had been made respecting the office to which it referred; which report stated, that the duties of the office were executed with precision and regularity, and did not recommend any reduction in the amount of fees paid to the officers.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
thought, that the bill deserved the consideration of parliament, if it were true that the office, of which it was intended to give away the appointment, cost the public 29,000
l
Mr. Wynn
recommended that the third reading of the bill should be deferred for a week, on the ground, that further information should be laid before the House before the measure was passed.
The third reading was accordingly postponed to this day sen' night.
IMPROVEMENT OF IRELAND—STATE
Mr. Brownlow
rose, in pursuance of notice, to lay before the House a petition from Dublin relative to the unemployed poor of Ireland. He began by expressing his regret and surprise, that not a single minister of the Crown was present, although he had some time since intimated his intention of bringing under the consideration of the House this evening a subject of so much importance to Ireland. He was bound to presume, however, that matters of greater interest
1037
1038
1039
Mr. James Grattan
corroborated every word which had been uttered by his hon. friend, respecting the wide-spreading wretchedness of the Irish population. He had himself endeavoured, some time ago, to apply a modified system of poor-laws to this evil; but he was traduced and misrepresented, and compelled to abandon his intention. Nothing had been done to mitigate the afflictions of Ireland; and he blamed not the English and Scotch members, who were only doing their duty in endeavouring to meet the evil of the sojourn amongst them of these miserable Irish paupers. It was proved, so far back as the committee of 1819, that a large portion of these wretched beings were endeavouring to live upon boiled nettles; arid, in 1816, nearly sixty-five thousand were suffering under fever and famine. The committee of 1823 proved, that, there were two million five hundred out of employment in a surface of five million of acres; which was nearly half the land of Ireland. He gratefully acknowledged the assistance which this country had generously bestowed upon Ireland, in remitting, at the crisis of her sufferings, so large a sum as 300,000
l
1040
Mr. G. Dawson
said, as an Irish member of parliament he would say, that the statements contained in the speech of the two hon. members, and in the petition, were, to say the least of them, greatly exaggerated. It was certainly true, that there was a great quantity of distress in Ireland; but this arose chiefly from politics; to which, unfortunately, the people of that country were so devoted as to have become forgetful of their domestic interests and concerns. But, the actual condition of the country at large was very different from what it had been represented. The fact was, that, at that moment, no country was making more rapid progress towards wealth and prosperity than Ireland. Her trade had rapidly increased, and the facilities which steam-navigation afforded, had promoted in a most important degree the progress of improvement in Ireland. The condition of the greater part of the population was daily and hourly advancing towards improvement. The petition ended by calling on the government to advance a large sum of money to employ the population, and proposed the enactment of a general enclosure act, and a drainage bill. Both these means of redress were impracticable. The uncultivated lands were the property of private individuals, who would retain them as eagerly, as they would do the best lands in the country. As to a general drainage, the report of the commissioners on bogs, had certainly recommended such a measure: but even were the bogs of Ireland drained, and the waste land reclaimed, it would not be worth the trouble and expense. He himself possessed some hundreds of acres of land of that description; and having reclaimed a few of them, he was by no means inclined to repeat the experiment. The fact was, that such land would not repay the one-tenth of the money expended on its reclamation. He would not have the people of Ireland look forward to such a wild speculation as a means of improving their condition. It could be proved beyond all doubt, that Ireland was rapidly improving, and he was confident that, ere long, she would become a source
1041
Sir J. Newport
said, what had just fallen from the hon. gentleman recalled to his recollection a speech which he had heard from a member in the Irish parliament, and the facetious reply which it provoked. An hon. gentleman got up in the Irish House of Commons, and like the hon. gentleman opposite, gave a most glowing description of the resources of Ireland; when he had concluded another hon. member started up, and said—"I really imagined, while listening to the hon. member's description of the wealth of this country, that all the half-pence in Ireland had been converted into guineas; but, on putting my hand in my pocket and taking out a few, I found, to my disappointment, that they still continued to be half-pence." The hon. member had given them a fan-
1042
1043
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, he agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Derry, as to the general impolicy and utter hopelessness of the attempt, on the part of any government, to employ the population by advances of public money, and was convinced that any such attempt would ultimately occasion far more misery than it would prevent. He could not, however, assent to the proposition, that in no case it was expedient that the government should, by a moderate expenditure of public money, encourage individuals to invest their capital in enterprises of public utility. That was the object of this petition. Nobody could doubt that it was desirable to repress the vain hope, that it was possible to employ one or two millions of Irishmen. He did not go further than to contend, that within moderate limits it might be expedient for the sake of occasional employment, to advance small sums in order to encourage the investment of great capitals by individuals. But, in this case, the petitioners only asked the House to remove those impediments which the state of the law and the circumstances of Ireland interposed in the way of the cultivation of the country, and which required not the expenditure of a pound of the public money, but simply an act of parliament. The petitioners in the first instance, recommended, that roads should be opened to those tracts in the western and southern coasts of Ireland, which would give access to the fisheries; and he could speak from his personal observation, as well as on the authority of the reports of the engineers, that never was money expended which had returned such great interest. Tracts of mountain, formerly waste, were now in a high state of tillage; and parts of the coast where fish were never caught, had become scenes of active and animated industry. As he had been one of the commissioners who had inquired into the state of Ireland, the impression was the stronger upon his mind. He would state, for the information of the House, that no fact was better established, than that no serious impediment, cither financial or agricultural, prevented the reclamation of the bogs. The commissioners had employed ten engineers for four or five years; who during that time were engaged in surveying the waste lands of Ireland. They were employed, in different parts of the country, and at a distance from each other, but in the end, without
1044
l
l
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
was satisfied, that the reclaiming of the bogs and waste lands of Ireland, while it would afford, in its progress, employment to a considerable portion of the population, would finally be attended with the most beneficial results. As a sincere friend to Ireland, his most anxious wish was, that means should be devised for effecting the object contemplated by the petition.
Colonel Trench
advocated the propriety of giving employment to the people of Ireland. He felt himself compelled to differ from a part of the statement made by his hon. friend the member for Londonderry; for he could point out to his hon. friend, a population in Ireland, the state of which would be disgraceful to a waste in Africa. He knew that hundreds of families in that country even in the neighbourhood of county towns—the tenants of individuals who were as remarkable for their attention to their English, as they were for their disregard of their Irish tenants,—were plunged in the deepest distress. It had been argued, that no assistance of the description asked for should be granted to Ireland, because the capital thrown into that country would be wasted on jobs. Now, however good, as a general principle, it might be, not to advance the public money for such purposes, still he would say, that Ireland was a country to which that general principle was not applicable. He asked no more for Ireland, than that the same assistance which had been granted to Scotland should be extended to the sister country. The present was the moment when that assistance would produce infinite advantage. Let the House place what guards on the public bounty that to them might seem proper: but he called on them to give that assistance to Ireland which would be the means of rescuing her population from the utmost misery.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he could assure
1045
1046
1047
l
l
1048
Mr. H. Grattan
said, that so far from the country having increased in prosperity since the Union, it had been ruined, and was miserable to a degree, almost beyond credibility. The decline of the revenue proved the state of Ireland. Mr. Foster, when chancellor of the Exchequer for that country, had stated the revenue to be seven millions; last year it was only 3,400,000
l
l
l
Mr. Moore
said, that the fact, he believed, was undisputed, that Ireland presented the frightful calamity of an excessive unemployed population. Various suggestions had, from time to time, been made, with a view of improving the condition of the people. He agreed in many of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Louth, and the right hon. Secretary, that it would be unwise in all cases to grant public money to Ireland, but that it might be advantageous on some occasions so to do. Money, he thought
1049
Mr. O'Brien
complained of the duty levied upon coals, imported into Ireland, being doubled since the time of the Union.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SMITHFIELD MARKET;—PETITION
Mr. R. Gordon
presented a petition from upwards of 1,400 merchants, bankers, and inhabitants of London, complaining of the present condition and management of Smithfield, and the places appropriated to the slaughtering of cattle. The hon. gentleman entered into an examination of the present condition of Smithfield Market, and observed that its present situation rendered it objectionable upon several grounds. The first was, the manner in which the cattle were driven, with blows and execrations, through the streets of the metropolis, to the great danger of its inhabitants. The second objection arose from the system of driving the cattle into London on a Sunday evening, and keeping them penned up, without food or water, and in a state of the greatest torment, until Monday. Another objection to the present state of Smithfield was found in the
1050
l
l
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that though he was in the city six days in the
1051
l
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the subject had occupied public attention during the whole of the spring, nor was it so little known as the hon. alderman seemed to suppose. It was not proposed by the petitioners to interfere with the interests of the corporation of London; their object being only to remove a most offensive nuisance. He had himself been in Paris in the course of the last winter, and could bear testimony to the excellent plan on which the
abattoirs
Mr. Martin
said, that the inconvenience and danger of driving cattle through the streets of London must be apparent to every one. On a market-day, a man might as well walk in a country cattle-fair as from Ludgate-hill to Lombard-street. He believed that the opposition to the removal of Smithfield-market arose principally from persons who, because they had kept public-houses in the neighbourhood for some years, fancied that they had chartered
1052
Mr. Robinson
suggested, that there was no occasion for a committee to inquire into the inconvenience of driving cattle through the streets, because that was well known to every body. Let the hon. member bring in a bill at once for the removal of Smithfield-market.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he certainly could not congratulate any gentleman upon his task, who, at that late period of the session, should undertake to carry a bill through parliament, which should remove Smithfield-market, provide another, and settle all the claims for compensation of the parties concerned. He did, however, think that the proper course would be, to give notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee, and not make such a motion then. He had read the petition, and thought that a committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the statements it contained. For instance, the grounds upon which the nice calculation respecting the loss of meat from bruises, seemed to him to be worth inquiring into. He had received a letter from the master butchers, who were in the greatest alarm, and begged of him to oppose the prayer of this petition. He had assured those gentlemen, that nothing should be done without giving an opportunity to every party of being heard. It was impossible to look at the state of Smithfield-market and not say, that it would be very unfortunate if it must be continued. He did not consider it an objection, that these individuals had come forward with a view to their own private interests. Government, in this country, could not take charge of such institutions; they must be left to individuals as a great many others were; and if any set of individuals could effect a great public convenience, of course they ought to be remunerated for it. At the same time the rights of individuals ought to be taken care of; and it would be better if the hon. member would give notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee.
Mr. Alderman C. Smith
said, he should be glad to know who were the merchants and bankers that had signed this petition. In his opinion, there was a strong feeling in the city against it.
1053
Mr. P. Thompson
thought it would be advantageous, if a system similar to that of Paris was introduced in London. Every capital in Europe but our own, had its slaughter houses without the city.
Mr. Spottiswoode
stated, that these markets were the property of the city of London, and any disposal of the property of others involved grave consideration. The subject was one that should be left to private speculation.
Mr. Gordon
gave notice that, on Monday, he would move that "the Petition be referred to a Committee."
Ordered to lie on the table,
SAVINGS BANKS.]
Mr. Pallmer
rose to move "for leave to bring in a Bill to Consolidate and Amend the Laws relating to Savings Banks." In bringing forward this motion, he felt it unnecessary to apprise the House of the importance of the subject. He need only remind them, that whilst on the one hand it embraced the interests of nearly half a million of that class of his majesty's subjects who were peculiarly entitled to the protection of parliament, it involved, on the other hand, a consideration of nearly 16,000,000
l
l
s
d
1054
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SMALL NOTE CURRENCY—CIRCULATION
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the debate was resumed upon the Amendment made, on the 3rd of June, to the motion, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrain the negotiation within England of Promissory Notes and Inland Bills of Exchange, under a limited sum, issued by Bankers or others in Scotland or Ireland:"—which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the State of the Circulation in Promissory Notes under the value of 5
l
Mr. Davenport
said, that the question, as stated, seemed simply to him—whether the public should or should not be compelled to pay their publick and private debts in a currency of higher value than that in which they had contracted them. It was a question between the payers of taxes and the receivers of them. He had himself no trading connexion with the issue of paper in question; but he thought its continuance essential to the well-being of the country. His hon. friend, (the member for Radnorshire) was a political economist. He should like to hear that hon. member explain how it was, that there were at the same time masses of capital lying idle in the country, and millions of people out of employment?—How was it that the labourer was in rags, or naked, and the loom silent, because no market for its products could be found? The solution was, that a link in the great chain of national prosperity was wanting—the link of credit. The country banker, who formed that link, was almost wholly driven out and destroyed. The currency in circulation, he maintained, was not sufficient for the purposes of trade; and he was sur-
1055
l
ad captandum
l
s
s
1056
1057
l
Mr. Denison
declared, that upon the best consideration he could give the subject, he felt himself bound to vote against the proposition of the hon. member for Carlisle. As the Bank restriction of 1797 had been alluded to, and as he was one of the few members then in the House who had participated in the discussions on that measure, he hoped he should be excused if be said something respecting it. When that measure was proposed, the objection that had been made to it was, that if an extensive issue of paper were carried into effect, it must necessarily depreciate the standard of our currency. That anticipation had been verified by the event. The standard had been silently and gradually depreciated. It had been in vain contended, that all bad governments, from the time of the French committee of Public Safety back to the reign of Louis the 14th, and up to the Roman republic after the first Punic war, had adopted similar expedients. The arguments which he and others had used against the measure were of no avail; for an immense majority were in favour of it. It was carried; and it led to results glorious, no doubt, to our arms, but ruinous to our finances. He regretted much, that when the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) and others were endeavouring to find a remedy for the system in 1819, they had not resorted, when they found the currency so depreciated, to that of altering the standard. Such a measure would have prevented the ruin of the farmer, the tradesman, and the artisan;
1058
l
s
l
s
l
s
l
s
1059
Mr. Leslie Foster
asked, what it was they were called on to do? To find two millions and a half of gold circulation. He denied that they were called on to contract the currency. Whatever might be the present amount of our circulating medium, be it sixty-five millions or more, all that was requisite was, in particular districts, to find, for the small notes to be withdrawn, a compensating quantity of gold circulation, aided by notes of a higher value. We already possessed a gold circulation of two-and-twenty millions. Notwithstanding the mystery which had been thrown over the subject, there were
data
1060
l
1061
l
l
1062
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, he was at a loss to know on what grounds the hon. member could pronounce a measure to be so beneficial to England, and then argue that it ought not to be extended to Ireland and Scotland. He might be a good authority upon the affairs of Ireland, but he took too much upon himself when he pretended to pronounce the time at which the notes might, with propriety, be withdrawn from Scotland. He should give his vote under the impression for the continuance of the one-pound notes in circulation. Were a committee granted, the question of depreciation should not be discussed. Had he been in the House in 1819, he should certainly have wished for a higher standard than was at that time adopted, and by which a great deal of inconvenience would
1063
1064
1065
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he cordially concurred in the observation of an hon. member, that it would ill become them to speak too dogmatically upon matters of such great moment as those which the House was now engaged in considering. The facts to be collected were so numerous, so widely spread, affected the interests of so many, and were composed of such various elements, that that man must indeed entertain great confidence in his own judgment, who could make up his mind conclusively, on the whole bearing of the question. The hon. gentleman had alluded to the resolutions which parliament had come to, as a proof that they should abate their confidence; and in that also he agreed with the hon. gentleman. But while he admitted those positions, he must say that nothing could give rise to more serious evils, than keeping the public mind in a perpetual state of uncertainty, as to the intentions of the legislature. If they resolved at one time that the issue of small notes should cease, and at another time that they should continue,—if they went on vacillating between one course and another, and finally gave up the principle
1066
1067
1825.
1828.
Strong Beer
6,500,000
6,542,000
barrels
Table Beer
1,480,000
1,539,000
barrels
Tallow Candles
104,980,000
110,718,000
lb.
Wax Candles
959,240
923,000
lb.
In the last article, there was a falling off, but the consumption of the intermediate year, the year 1826, was 916,0001b. So that during the year 1827, there was an increase upon that of 1826, although the consumption was less than that of 1825.
1825.
1827.
Cider and Perry
22,000 hhds.
51,000 hhds.
Plate Glass Total Glass
14 096 cwts
16,613 cwts.
Crown Plate,
516,000 cwts
594,000 cwts.
Broad Green,
Malt
27,906,000 bush,
28,742,000 do.
25,340,000 (1827)
Paper
51,345,000 lbs.
52,304,000 do.
Printed goods
116,000.000 yds.
122,000,000 do.
88,000,000 (1827)
Soap
93,000,000'lbs.
97,000 000 do.
April 5, 1825.
April 5, 1828.
Aver. of last 3 yrs.
British Spirits
3,913,000 gals.
7,330,000 gals.
5,000,000 gals.
Starch
4,961,000 lbs
6,945,000 lbs
Tea
23,940,000 lbs
26 900,000 lbs
Vinegar
2,357,365
2,800,000
From this statement it would appear, that a considerable increase had taken place in every article, with the exception of wax candles; and the inference from these facts was, that the industry of the country in producing, and the comfort of the people in consuming, those articles, had increased in proportion. He would now pass to other
1068
felt. But, what was the fact? Had that diminution been felt in the revenue? He would not refer to that, however, because members might say, that its amount was only a proof of the great pressure the country was labouring under. He would refer to articles of general consumption; and he would shew that no diminution whatever had taken place. He would compare the year ending the 5th April, 1825, with the year ending the 5th April, 1827. This was favourable to his view; for half of the year 1825 was a time of excitement, when the country was in a state of what the hon. member would, probably, call great prosperity. He proposed to take for the illustration such articles as strong beer, table beer, tallow-candles, wax candles, cider, perry, malt, paper, glass, British spirits, and tea. He meant to compare the account of these articles consumed in the year ending April 1825, with the amount consumed in they ear ending April 1827; and the result would show the House, that they were not justified in taking that gloomy view which the hon. gentleman had thought himself justified in taking. The following were the returns of the consumption in those years respectively:—
1069
topics which would illustrate his observations, and submit the following list to the House:—
Ships entering Inwards from all Parts—British and Irish.
Tons.
Men.
Jan. 3,
1826.—21786
162,614.
162,000
1827.—18,960
151,327
151,000
1828.—20,457
165,548
165,000
Ships clearing Outwards—British Shipping.
Tonage.
Men.
Jan. 5,
1826.—2,633,000
160,000:
1827.—2,676,000
163,000
1828.—2,828,000
171,000
Value of Imports into Great Britain, at different Rates of Valuation.
Jan. 5,
1826
£42,600,000
1827
36,000,000
1828
43,467,000
Exports of Produce and Manufactures from Great Britain.
Jan. 5,
1826
£46,450,000
1827
40,000,000
1828
51,227,000
Looking, then, at all these general facts, he came to the conclusion, that there had been no falling off in British industry, and that therefore there was no reason for the gloomy anticipations of the hon. member for Callington. He came, then, to the questions involved in the motion, or rather in the amendment, of the hon. baronet. Was it desirable, or was it necessary, at this time, to lower the standard of value? As he understood the hon. baronet, his speech consisted of two distinct propositions: the first was, that the landed interest could not go on, unless the standard of value was lowered, because it was not possible to pay in a currency regulated on a metallic standard, a debt contracted in a paper currency. The second proposition of the hon. baronet was, that it was possible to maintain a paper currency, convertible into gold, when there was no gold as the basis of the currency. The first proposition was, to lower the standard; the second was, not to lower the standard, but to maintain a paper currency in circulation, when there was no gold, and both these propositions he should contest. If things were now in the state they were in 1819, it might be a question of depreciating the standard of value; but, after the act of 1819 had been ten years in existence, the question became a very different one. Whatever opinions he might have been disposed to entertain in 1819, he could not, for one moment, suppose, after the
1070
1071
l
1072
l
l
s
d
l
l
1073
s
s
d
s
s
l
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
l
1079
Mr. Attwood
said:—It is not now, Sir, for the first time, the right hon. gentleman, will allow me to remind him, that propositions for inquiry into the character of our own measures, and into questions of essential interest, have been met by statements from the Treasury-bench, such as he now makes, and by attempts to show, from official returns and tables of comparative consumption, how great was the general prosperity of the people, and how great the danger of interfering with so much happiness. But, I remind him also, that since the mistaken and unfortunate measure of 1819, those statements have, in every instance, proved either to have been fallacious when made, or have been instantly followed by reverses all but fatal to the country. I place, therefore, no reliance on the result the right hon. gentleman would draw from his tables, nor do I think he is himself satisfied of the accuracy of that result. He purposed to contradict, by these tables, the view I had taken, on a former occasion, of the existing distress of the country; but I said nothing of the consumption of candles, whether of wax or tallow, or of starch or vinegar, or any commodities of that nature. I spoke of agriculture: I told him of the condition of the farmer, of the poverty of the trader, of finances embarrassed, of sufferings pressing on the labourer, of gaols bursting with criminals. The right hon. gentleman must feel, that if he had given to my opinions a direct contradiction, instead of a constructive denial: if he had at once boldly affirmed, that the farmer was prosperous, the trader content, the finances flourishing, and the labourer employed, he would feel that such assurance would be opposed to the experience of every member who heard him.
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
s
s
d
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
s
s
1093
s
s
1094
1095
Sir F. Burdett
said, that at that late hour he should not think himself excusable in trespassing longer upon the time of the House, than was necessary for him briefly to express his sentiments in support of the amendment of the hon. baronet, confining himself simply to the expression of those sentiments, without-entering on the details, which were certainly important, but to which at that time of the night, and after a debate so protracted, he could not venture to trust himself. He could not avoid saying, however, that he considered the hon. baronet to have done a service to his country by the statement he had made on a subject of such importance to its vital interests: and he was surprised, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, and the protracted debate, when he considered the ability that had been displayed by the hon. baronet, and the information that had been brought to the discussion of the question by every hon. gentleman that had spoken upon it, and especially by the hon. member who had just sat down, who had presented for their consideration subjects well worthy of their best attention, and which few were capable of so well laying before them, that the House should not have displayed more patience in listening to the debate. Confident he was, that, if the House did its duty by attending to the statements of those hon. members, they would hesitate before they opposed the attempt to procure an inquiry, which was proved, more than ever, to be now necessary to the well-being of the country. There were two things in which he considered the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department to have been peculiarly infelicitous. He was unfortunate in having his name originally connected with this measure, which had been productive of more positive suffering, more unmixed misery, more breaking-up of the sources of wealth throughout the country, than any other that had ever been devised. It was true that this bill had not been adopted: but, whenever there had been an approach to its completion, whenever they
1096
1097
1098
Mr. Huskisson
rose to explain. He
1099
Mr. Attwood
called upon the right hon. gentleman to explain what he meant by imputing to him the promulgation of doctrines shameless and unprincipled.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the doctrines advocated by the hon. member were calculated to promote fraud, and lead to national bankruptcy.
Mr. Attwood
replied, that the right hon. gentleman was the advocate of doctrines far more calculated to promote fraud, and lead to bankruptcy, than any which he supported.
The House divided:—for the amendment 45; against it 154; majority 109. The motion of the chancellor of the Exchequer was then agreed to.
List of the
Astley, sir J.
Euston, lord
Bell, M.
Ennismore, lord
Baring, sir T.
Guise, sir W.
Bright, H.
Heathcote, G.
Benett, J.
Hume, J.
Bankes, H.
Howard, H.
Buck, L.
Kemp, T. R.
Burdett, sir F.
Keck, L.
Calvert, N.
Kennedy, T. F.
Clive, lord
Liddel, H. T.
Corbett, P.
Lloyd, sir E.
Cholmeley, M. J.
Milbank, R.
Cotterell, sir J.
Maberly, J.
Dawson, A.
Marjoribanks, S.
Dickinson, W.
Martin, J.
Davenport. E. D.
Martin, J. C.
1100
O'Brien, W.
Vyvyan, sir R.
Powlett, lord W.
Waithman, ald.
Palmer, C. F.
Wood, ald.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Williams, sir R.
Robarts, A.
Wodehouse, E
Smith, S.
Webb, col.
Smith, A.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Sibthorp, Col.
TELLERS.
Slaney, R. A.
Tuite, H. M.
Attwood, M.
Thompson, ald.
Graham, sir J.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Friday, June 6th, 1828.
PROVISION FOR THE FAMILY OF MR. CANNING—PENSIONS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.]
The Duke of Wellington
, in moving the second reading of the Pensions Act Amendment Bill, said, he would state to their lordships the grounds which induced him to be a party to the introduction of this measure, and those upon which he recommended it to their lordships' approbation. Mr. Canning, whose qualifications and abilities were well known to the country, entered his majesty's service in the year 1796, and, after having filled several important situations in the government of this country, died in the year 1827, holding, at the time, the office of chancellor of the Exchequer, and first lord of the Treasury. It was well-known that the salaries of officers, and particularly of high officers, in this country, were inadequate to defray the expenses into which they who filled those offices were obliged to enter. That might be good policy: it might be right, with a view to economy, that that should be the case; but it was quite clear, that when a person like Mr. Cunning, with but a small fortune, came to be called upon to perform the duties of one of those high offices, he must either perform them inadequately, or live in a manner unfit for a person holding a high office to live in, or fall upon some other means besides the emolument of his office for supporting its dignity. That was the case with that right hon. gentleman: he was obliged to expend those funds which were destined for the support of his family. He thought he might aver, that if Mr. Canning, instead of entering into the public service, had adhered to the profession for which he was educated, and for which he was so well qualified, there could, be no doubt that he would have risen to eminence in that profession, and would have left his family in a state of affluence. He
1101
1102
Lord Dacre
said, that if the proposition had been to vote a sum of money, he should not have offered any opposition to it. For, though he had, on very few occasions, while Mr. Canning was living, concurred with him, yet no man was more sensible than he was of the great talents, and vast acquirements of that right hon. gentleman. He had been opposed to that right hon. gentleman, on almost all questions of economical reform: he had met in him a most decided enemy to those constitutional principles which he (lord Dacre) had supported; and he had found him on all occasions, the active supporter of every proposition, which went to curtail the privileges of the people; but he must, however, say, that much as he was opposed to the right hon. gentleman, that would not have boon sufficient to make him oppose the bill. The noble duke had stated the grounds on which he should oppose the bill. The bill was, to amend an act, which, after long and repeated discussion, had been passed, to put an end to the power of granting reversionary offices, at a time when those who possessed the situation lately held by the right hon. gentleman, thought they had a just claim to enjoy them. The question now was, whether the bill, by which it was proposed to amend the 57th of his late majesty, which had been resolved on after long
1103
1104
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he believed, that even his enemies would not suppose that he was animated by any feelings of political hostility or rancour; and he was sure his friends would not suppose that he acted from any such feelings. It would be in the recollection of their lordships, that during the last session, there was no person who took a more prominent part against the policy of the right hon. gentleman than he did. He disapproved of his arrangements, both as to our domestic and foreign policy; and he had expressed his opposition before their lordships. He would never allow of the phrase, that he had "called anew world into existence." He had opposed the lamentable treaty of the 6th of July. He had opposed the policy which had led, unfortunately, the Russian armies across the Pruth, and perhaps across the Danube, and which might lead to the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Had it not been for the policy of that right hon. gentleman, the Russians would not have been encouraged to press forward; but he had made what s only a sentiment in him, but was life and death to the Russians, the basis of a treaty; and had he not urged forward the Russians, they would, probably, have fol-
1105
The Earl of Dudley
said, that after the speech of the noble duke, which had stated
1106
l.
1107
l.
1108
Lord Goderich
said, that while he had the honour of a seat in his Majesty's cabinet, this subject had been discussed, and he had then declared his decided opinion, that it was the duty of government to submit to parliament a proposition of this description. He conceived that the measure was justifiable, not merely on account of the splendid talents and great services of the eminent individual in question, but on the general principle, that if parliament chose to deprive the Crown of the power of conferring rewards upon the family of an individual who had held an important station under the Crown, and who had discharged the duties of that office with ability and zeal, it became the indispensable duty of parliament to bestow those rewards which the Crown had not the power to confer. It was always maintained, however, that though it was fit that parliament should deprive the Crown of that power, it was also equally fit that parliament should be called upon to fill up the deficiency, whenever a case arose which called for its generous interference. He could not, therefore, see any force in the objection of a noble lord to this bill, on the ground that it was an amendment upon an act which had obtained the sanction of parliament. It had been well observed by his noble friend who had spoken last, that this was the discharge of a debt of justice, rather than an act of liberality; and that was a sufficient answer to the objections of the noble lord. There was one observation which had fallen from the noble marquis with which he had been much struck. The noble marquis had said, that the pension which he had asked from the government, had been refused to him at the instance of Mr. Canning, and upon personal grounds. He should not weaken the effect of what had fallen from his noble friend (lord Dudley) by entering into a refutation of that charge, but he happened
1109
Lord Seaford
said:—My lords; if I eould consider the grant proposed to be made to Mr. Canning's family by the present bill, as affording in any degree a measure, either of his public services or of the estimation in which they arc held by the country, I must confess I could not but consider it to be very inadequate. There are, however, I am aware, circumstances by which similar grants are necessarily limited, and which have regulated and controlled the course of the government on the present occasion; considerations which, being quite independent either of the merits of the individual, or of the feelings of the country, render the present grant in no degree a correct criterion of either. And though I should have preferred that this grant had been regulated in the manner suggested by the noble lord, (Dacre) though I regret that it is not in its nature—that of a mere annuity on a single life; or in the amount of that annuity, more nearly commensurate with Mr. Canning's eminent services,—or more suitable to the liberality of a great and generous nation; I will not offer any objection to the present bill, but am content to accede to it, on the grounds proposed by the noble duke, who has introduced the measure with a fairness and candour, for which, as a friend of Mr. Canning, I feel bound to express my acknowledgments.
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
The Earl of Morley
said, that, having been an intimate friend of the late Mr. Canning, he was anxious to bear his testimony in addition to that of his noble friend, to the public-spirited motives which induced Mr. Canning to relinquish the appointment to the government of India. He happened to have in his possession a document amply confirmatory of the sentiments expressed by his noble friend on that subject. In a private letter, written 30th September, 1822, at the period when he had given up the appointment of Governor-general of India, Mr. Canning, after stating his reasons for doing so, and for accepting of the office of Secretary for Foreign Affairs says—"I take no joy, and I feel none. I have sacrificed my interests, my wishes, and I believe my happiness; but I hope I have done my duty."
Earl Grosvenor
said, that the act to which the noble duke had alluded was passed under a strong impression, on the part of parliament and the country, that sinecure places were of a mischievous nature. But the noble duke called upon them not to amend that act, but to make an addition to it; for the clause in question was an addition and not an amendment: its object was to authorise the Crown to do an act which it could not do under the existing law. The act which this bill proposed to amend, gave to the Crown the power to grant pensions to certain persons for public services rendered to the country, after their removal from office, and during the remainder of their lives. Now, a pension of that description could not last very long; but the one proposed by the noble duke might last for half a century. A noble lord had said, that this pension should be granted out of the consolidated fund; and he would prefer that mode of proceeding. He wished to consider this question solely in
1116
l.
l.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 6, 1828.
ST. MARY-LE-BONE VESTRY BILL.]
The report of the committee on this bill was brought up. On the motion, that the amendment be read a second time,
Mr. Astell
contended, that no case had been made out against the present Vestry. After the books for the last twenty-two years had been examined, certain gentlemen had found that more money had been expended than they were pleased to think necessary; but that fact did not at all show that the Select Vestry were unworthy of
1117
l.
Sir T. Baring
said, that the hon. gentleman was altogether ignorant of what had passed in the committee, and could not possibly know how far a case had been made out. He was himself acquainted with many members of the Select Vestry, and entertained respect for them individually, while he refused them his confidence as a public body. Their gross extravagance was proved by the fact, that the parish under their management had incurred the enormous debt of 227,000
l.
l.
1118
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Ross
said, that the hon. baronet had been misinformed in many of the statements he had made. He had stated the parish debt at 227,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1119
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the hon. gentlemen opposite had displayed a very earnest kind of eloquence on behalf of the select vestry, and he was not surprised at it, as they were, in fact, their own clients, being members of that body themselves. He was, however, notwithstanding all that had been said, as much opposed to the principle as ever; being well assured, that such power could never be exercised with satisfaction or advantage to the parish. It was asserted, that none of the allegations against their management were proved; But this he must deny, as several had been so far substantiated as fully to warrant a conclusion against the system generally. He was astonished to hear it asserted, that the inhabitants were satisfied, when it was known that five thousand had petitioned for the bill. Would it be affirmed that they were not parishioners? Although the duke of Portland was not a personal friend to the measure, five hundred of his tenants had given it their support. It was monstrous, that this irresponsible body, possessing a power so abhorrent from the spirit of the British constitution, should be suffered any longer to exist. The vestry said, "It was avowed that this bill, if carried, was only the first of a series of attacks against the system of select vestries generally." He, for one, avowed such an intention, and was about to give his vote in hopes of reforming the general frame of those bodies.
Colonel Baillie
insisted that the grievances complained of were wholly imaginary. The rates were less, on an average of ten years, than they had ever been, and the vestry contemplated a further reduction. The parishioners were in general satisfied with the decisions of the vestry in cases of appeals.
Sir T. Fremantle
contended that the charges against the Select Vestry were unfounded, and had originated in prejudice.
Mr. Hume
denied that the annual revenue of the parish was only 100,000
l.
1120
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Dr. Phillimore
objected to the bill, as he thought such an election annually would be productive of periodical tumult and disturbance, and he did not think any blame attributable to the present vestry.
Sir E. Owen
contended, that, for the sake of the peace and quiet of the parish, it was necessary that the bill should be passed.
Sir T. Baring
said, he was as anxious as any body to avoid the evil of a popular election; and was willing to raise the qualification of a voter to 50
l.
l.
Sir F. Burdett
thought that the objection suggested by the learned doctor, on the ground that an election, such as that
1121
l.
s.
The House divided: For the Amendment 105; Against it 88; Majority 17. The consideration of the report was consequently put off for six months.
BULL BAITING.]
Mr. Littleton
rose, for the purpose of presenting four petitions from Staffordshire, praying that a law may be enacted for the prohibition of the practice of Bull-baiting. After the late member for Galway (Mr. R. Martin) had succeeded in obtaining a bill for the better protection of cattle, magistrates, generally, for some time, acted on the impression, that a bull came within the term cattle. The court of King's Bench, however, had come to a contrary decision; and all the Judges had given it as their opinion, that bulls were not cattle, and, consequently, that they were not protected from being baited. It was decided, that cows and steers, of the age of two years, were cattle; but, that the adult male did not come within the description. This refinement of the court of law, he did not understand; and if Mr. Martin had not thought that his bill would put an end to the practice of Bull-baiting, he would have introduced a clause for the purpose, that it might never be looked upon as a matter of doubt. On the question itself, he had great doubt whether it would be wise in the legislature to put an
1122
Mr. W. Smith
supported the prayer of the petitioners. As even the hon. member himself had admitted that the practice was brutal and brutalizing, the sooner it was put an end to the better.
Sir James Mackintosh
presented a similar petition from West Bromwich. He entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition, and, though he was not prepared with any practical measure, he thought that the legislature might interfere with effect to prevent these barbarous and brutal sports.
Sir J. Newport
concurred in all that had been said on the subject, and cited the case of Waterford, in which the brutal practice had been terminated by the resolution of the mayor of that city.
Mr. Benett
followed on the same side. He said, he recollected when the practice was so prevalent, that in one day there were three Bull-baits in the cathedral church-yard of Wells. No legal mode of preventing it was available; as he was told that the people had a prescriptive right to bait bulls there on one day in the year. He was happy, however, to learn, that, from the influence of public opinion, the cruel practice had ceased altogether in Wells.
Sir J. Wrottesley
concurred in what had fallen from his hon. colleague, being quite sure that the increase of moral and religious feeling would shortly put an end to Bull-baiting, without recourse to a legislative enactment.
Ordered to lie on the table,
1123
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Miscellaneous Services were referred,
Mr. Dawson
said, that, in laying these estimates before the committee, he should be ready to give every information in his power, as to the grounds on which they were framed. There was, however, one item to which he wished more particularly to call the attention of the committee, as he thought it related to a subject in which hon. members must feel considerable interest. He alluded to an item of 7,000
l.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that, although when he first brought the subject of the library under the consideration of the House, his views had been misrepresented, and much sarcasm had been thrown on the project, he was convinced that it was a proper object on which to lay out a portion of the public money. He should be glad to see a sum of money voted in the present session for so desirable a purpose. He could wish the library to be open even when parliament was not sitting, for the convenience of members, who, when casually in town, might not
1124
Mr. Bankes
thought the House of Commons ought not to be without a library. It would, however, in making a selection of books, be as well to wait until next year, because probably they might then obtain, at a moderate price, duplicates of valuable works from the British Museum.
Mr. Bright
said, it was of very great importance to have a library to refer to.
Mr. Hume
approved of the formation of a library, and thought it ought to be kept open constantly. He was highly pleased with the conduct of Mr. Spiller, the librarian, who received only 100
l.
The Speaker
said, he had heard with great pleasure the eulogium bestowed on Mr. Spiller. The duties imposed on the librarian were scantily remunerated. He, however, had never heard any complaint from that individual. He believed that, with the exception of a fortnight in the year, the library was open to every member.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the labour of Mr. Spiller in the library had become so great, that it would be necessary for the House to grant him some assistance.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was of opinion, that a larger remuneration should be granted to the librarian, and entirely approved of the formation of a library.
l.
Mr. Hume
begged to know when there was to be an end to these alterations? 'When they were in their prosperity and had a god-send, they gave part of it, 500,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he felt himself bound to answer the question, from the double capacity in which he stood, of commissioner and chancellor of the Exchequer. It was true, that at first, 500,000
l.
1125
l.
l.
l.
data
Sir M. W. Ridley
confirmed the statement of his right hon. friend. Not a single shilling had been wastefully expended; not a stone had been placed which was afterwards withdrawn. Every thing had gone steadily and regularly forward, and in the best possible manner. It was the unexpected rottenness of some of the timbers which had so much enhanced the expense. On one occasion, a ceiling of one of the rooms had given way; and had there not fortunately been workmen on the spot, the whole north side would, in all probability, have come down. There was every reason to suppose that no further sum would be required for furniture than that stated in the estimate. There must undoubtedly have been a much greater outlay on that account, had not all the ornamental furniture, the candelabra, &c, been removed from Carlton-house, and carried to Windsor. The 50,000
l.
1126
Mr. F. Lewis
said, the fact was, that Windsor-castle had been left too long without repair. Nothing could be more gratifying than the sight of what had been done. He could not adequately express his admiration of the identity of effect which had been produced between the old and the new part of the structure. It was quite surprising that so much had been accomplished with the means. The money that had been already voted, however, was not, in his opinion, sufficient to do what ought to be done. Looking at the fair degree of splendor which ought to belong to the principal palace of the Sovereign of this country, he hoped parliament would not abandon the undertaking until it should be completed. No one could say that the money hitherto granted had not been well applied.
Mr. Hume
could not permit the hon. gentleman's statement to pass without entering his protest against it. It was mighty well for an hon. member to talk of a splendid residence for the king of the country. The hon. member had said, that no one would object to the expense that had been incurred. There were millions who would object to it. At a time when bread could scarcely be found for a large portion of our population, it was unjustifiable to lavish such sums upon such purposes. The expense, within the last four years, of Buckingham-palace and Windsor-castle would not be paid with 1,200,000
l.
l.
1127
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that with regard to regret for the expenditure that had been incurred, that regret would have been better expressed before the works were begun. To complain now was to complain at the wrong end of the business. He must repeat, that, of all the buildings he had ever seen, Windsor-castle was the most magnificent, and the best adapted to its purpose. It ought to be recollected, that Windsor-castle was the only palace ever erected for the king of England. Other palaces had been presented to the king of England by his subjects, or bought and improved for his use; but Windsor-castle was the only palace in this country that had ever been built as such. As to the furniture of Windsor-castle, the fact was, that there had actually been none in it. His late majesty being anxious, during the long war, to avoid increasing the pressure upon the country, had forborne to add any furniture to that already in the castle. This abstinence imposed on his late majesty's successor the necessity of
1128
Mr. Hume
said, he had never objected to the king's having a suitable palace. The only question was whether, after all, he would have one. The palace at Buckingham-house was disgraceful to every one connected with it. The money which had been laid out upon it, and the manner in which the money had been expended, were equally censurable. Adverting to what the right hon. gentleman had stated of the forbearance of his late majesty in furnishing Windsor-castle, he thought the moderate expense of the late reign was more suited to the simple and chaste old English character, than the course which had been since pursued.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had merely stated, that, in consequence of a long and expensive war, his late majesty had refrained from purchases which were oven necessary, and the House had seen how the hon. gentleman had turned this expression. He was sure it was not necessary for him, in that House, to speak in defence of his sovereign; he was sure that in that country, the people entertained much juster notions of their sovereign, than the hon. member had expressed. The hon. member might charge him with keeping up unnecessary splendor, but it ought to be recollected, that his majesty had done much for the country, and that he at least deserved to be spoken of respectfully. [Cheers.] The hon. gentleman had chosen the very night on which the question of his majesty's splendid gift to the country—he meant the library of the late king—had been called to the attention of the House, to indulge in these observations. If, however, that gift, and the expenses of his majesty's palaces were set against each other, there would be found little charge upon the country.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that, he could not hear what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, without entering
1129
Mr. R. Colborne
said, he was the last man to sanction any unnecessary expense; but he must express his admiration of the solid and excellent manner in which the repairs of Windsor-castle had been e fleeted.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the structure of Buckingham-palace, which the hon. gentleman had called a disgrace to all who were concerned in the erection of it, had nevertheless found admirers. He would venture to say, that when it was completed, it would be pronounced any thing but a disgrace to those who had superintended its erection. The same thing had been said of Regent-street; but what did people say of it now? As to the site of the palace, it was not the best possible, but it was chosen because it would not interfere with the conveniences of the people. It was at first proposed to build at Kensington-gardens, but that would have encroached on the comforts of the public. The same objection was thought fatal to the proposal to build the palace at the edge of the Green-park.
Colonel Davies
said, that when he looked at the square towers at the side, and at the wretched inverted egg-cup, at the top of Buckingham-palace, he must concur with his hon. friend, that it was a disgrace to all who were concerned in it.
Mr. Hume
said, he had intended to speak of the king with no disrespect, but only to regret the taste which he had displayed. If, however, he had said any thing which could be construed into dis
1130
l.
Mr. Hume
asked, whether that establishment was intended to be given up. It had been admitted last year, that it had not answered the purpose for which it was built.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, there had undoubtedly been a considerable expenditure with respect to the Penitentiary, but the building being now completed, he thought it would be improper to abandon it. In proportion as capital punishment was mitigated, it became necessary to find the means of secondary punishment. The Penitentiary afforded one of those means. The establishment was conducted on the most economical principles. It was superintended by a committee of twenty-one gentlemen, who devoted their time to that purpose gratuitously.
Mr. Maberly
said, that 500,000
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that all prisoners could not be sent to the hulks, but only those who were strong enough to work. He thought it would be as erroneous to abandon altogether the hope of reforming prisoners, as it was to attach too much importance to it. As affording an opportunity of steering a middle course between the two extremes, the Penitentiary was highly useful.
1131
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the grant. The Society had been a long time established, and for years used to receive a small grant from government, for the support of missionary clergy of the Church of England, but of late years it got this large sum, and had received altogether 145,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that this was not a new grant; a sum was formerly granted by government for the support of the clergy of the Church of England in Canada, but it had of late years been transferred to this society, who applied large funds of their own to the same purpose. In Nova Scotia twenty-eight thousand of the inhabitants, were members of the Church of England, which was a greater number than any one body of dissenters in that colony, He considered the assistance rendered in this way by government, for their instruction, well applied.
Mr. Monck
said, he wished well to the society, and hoped it would increase, but he did not think that it required any addition from government for the object mentioned. It was clear the members of the Church of England in these colonies were the minority, and he did not see why they should not pay for their own religious instruction, as well as other bodies of Christians.
Sir R. Inglis
said, it did not appear that the money had been misapplied. He would therefore support the grant.
Sir T. D. Acland
observed, that it would be great injustice to a very useful body to have this grant withheld, and that it would be unfair to take the House by surprise on this vote.
1132
Mr. Hume
denied that he took the House by surprise, for he had given notice of his objection last year.
Mr. Monck
said, if he thought that the withdrawal of half the grant would leave the clergy of the Church of England destitute, he would not support the amendment, but he could not think that the members of that Church would refuse to provide for their clergy if left to themselves.
Mr. O'Neil
said, he would support the grant, as he was unwilling to leave the clergy to the generosity of the public.
Mr. Labouchere
supported the original motion, but did not mean thereby to make the episcopal church the dominant party in the colony.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that, unless he could get some assurance that the grant would be reduced next year, he must support the amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he could not give any assurance of that kind.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he had great doubts as to the policy of continuing this grant, which was applied exclusively to the ministry of the Church of England. A large majority of the North American colonists were dissenters, and it had lately been resolved by one of the legislative assemblies, by a majority of thirty-five votes, that the Church of England was not the predominant religion. He therefore thought it should be submitted to a committee of that House, to decide whether the vote should be continued, and if continued, whether the money should not be distributed according to the religious circumstances of the population of the colonies.
Mr. Hume
thought this a fit subject for the consideration of the Finance-committee, or some other that might be appointed for the purpose. He would therefore move, that the vote be postponed for fourteen days, to allow time to have it examined.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
remarked, that the hon. gentleman, as a member of the Finance-committee, must know how inconvenient it would be to have the course they had chalked out for themselves broken in upon, for the purpose of discussing the employment of the public money for religious missions in North America. The subject in itself was very important, but it could not be usefully undertaken by the Finance-committee; nor
1133
The committee divided: For the Postponement 28; Against it 107; Majority 79. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, r. hon. J.
Palmer, Fysche
Benett, J.
Pendarvis, F. W.
Brougham, H.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Cave, Otway
Russell, J.
Davies, col.
Smith, Wm.
Dawson, A.
Waithman, alderman
Grattan, H.
Wilbraham, G.
Grattan, J.
Wilson, sir R.
Guest, J. J.
Webb, col.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Warburton, H.
Lumley, S.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Maberly, J.
Wood, alderman
Martin, J.
Wood, John
Monck, J. B.
TELLER.
Normanby, lord
Hume, Joseph
The other resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 9, 1828.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne
having moved the order of the day, the clerk read the following Resolution—
"That it is expedient to consider the state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom; to the stability of the Protestant establishment; and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects."
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of inviting their lordships to concur in the Resolution which had just been read; not less in deference to the extreme importance of the subject than to the custom which had been usually, if not invariably, followed in their lordships House, when any communication of the importance of the one now before their lordships came from the other House, of founding some proceeding upon it. He was ready to confess that was his chief apology, as it was one of his principal inducements for putting himself forward on the present occasion; for, though he had twice before been in-
1134
1135
minimum,
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
The Archbishop of Canterbury
, in a tone of voice scarcely audible at the bar, said, that from the high situation he held in the Church, he felt himself called upon to offer a few observations on the important question before the House. The noble marquis had brought forward a resolution for their lordships' concurrence, which had been passed by the other House, the object of which was, that they should give a pledge to attempt to discover such means as might be calculated to bring about conciliation with the Roman Catholics, in order to effect a final adjustment, calculated to increase the peace and strength of the united kingdom, to promote the stability of the Protestant Church, and the concord and satisfaction of all classes of the community. This was the effect of the resolution proposed by the noble marquis; and if it were as easy to execute as it was to propose those objects, no man in that House could be more anxious than he was to enter into the spirit of the pledge. But there was, as far as he could see, little or no prospect of accomplishing those desirable purposes; and the pledge, or the attempt, would only lead to fresh impatience and fresh disappointment, on the part of those who were the objects of it. The question
1151
The Archbishop of Tuam
said, he was not satisfied to give a silent vote on this important question. Were the subject to be determined solely on the ground of political expediency, he should not have intruded himself upon their lordships' time. Impressed as he was with the essential difference between what was
1152
1153
1154
protégé
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
The Earl of Winchilsea
said, it had often been matter of surprise to him, that men who stood forward on most occasions as the supporters of civil rights and liberties, should be found amongst the advocates of a spiritual despotism, which was decidedly hostile to the doctrines which at other times they strenuously maintained. He could only account for it by supposing that the persons to whom he alluded persuaded themselves, that the sentiments which were justly entertained respecting the Roman Catholic church of the seventeenth century, were not applicable to what they considered the modified and enlightened Catholic religion of the present time. In his opinion, however, it was in vain for the supporters of the Roman Catholics to allege, that their religion was altered, and was not what it had been, unless they were prepared to show at what period the beneficial change was effected. When had the intolerant and overbearing principles of the Roman Catholic church been publicly renounced? He challenged any person to bring forward proofs of that fact. Proofs to the contrary were abundant. He would only refer to one, and he requested their lordships' attention to it. It was a passage contained in a letter published a few years ago by one of the most exalted members of the Roman Catholic church; namely, Dr. Troy, the
1160
1161
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, that, if the question before the House had been to agree to a bill for the relief of the Catholics, he would not have troubled their lordships. In such a case it would have been sufficient for him to express his assent to, or dissent from, the proposition by a silent vote. But, as the question was, whether or not their lordships would take into consideration the claims of the Catholics, with a view of finally adjusting them, unless he was prepared to say that, under no circumstances would he grant them! emancipation, he could not consent silently to give a vote against the proposition. If he wanted any further excuse for rising, he should find it in the challenge which the noble marquis opposite had thrown out for those to declare their opinions, who thought that securities might be found. Now he thought that securities might be found, which would enable him to vote in favour of the Catholics; and he thought he was taking the fairest course, by stating what the securities were which he would demand. The securities which he would require contained nothing that ought either to alarm the Catholics, or afford ground of dissatisfaction to the Protestants. At the same time, he could not, considering the violent language which was held in other places, on both; sides, and in the petitions to that House, entertain a sanguine hope, that any such, amicable arrangement as that he proposed would take place. If, however, those Protestants, who thought securities could 'be found, would come forward and declare what the nature of those securities was, the question would stand a fairer chance of being set at rest than it did at present. Oaths and declarations move than sufficient had been proffered by the Catholics. He attached but little importance to them; but he thought it would be an ample security, if the nomination of Catholic bishops were placed in the hands of the sovereign. He was inclined to think that
1162
Earl Bathurst
said, that the motion which had been submitted to their lordships called upon them to concur in a resolution which had been agreed to by the Commons. Before their lordships concurred in that resolution, which it must be admitted was sufficiently general, it was necessary to come to some understanding as to its meaning and object. The resolution called upon them to consider the laws affecting the Roman Catholics. What, he would ask, had that and the other House of parliament been doing for six and twenty years, but taking those laws into consideration? That and the other House of parliament, too, had taken those laws into consideration, for the purpose of effecting an object which had always been avowed. The resolution which
1163
1164
1165
1166
The Earl of Darnley
said, he was anxious to call their lordships' attention to the real state of the question before them. They were not called upon to make any pledge with respect to any particular measure; but they were invited to take into consideration certain obnoxious laws, which affected a large portion of his majesty's subjects, to see if they could reconcile themselves to some means of extending relief to that body. The speech of the right rev. prelate, and that of the noble earl who succeeded him, went entirely upon objections to the creed of the Catholics, whilst the opposition of the noble earl who had spoken last was directed against the bill of 1825. Now, let their lordships' minds be recalled to the real state of the case. The Commons of Great Britain having several times sent up bills for the relief of the Roman Catholics, to their lordships' House, all of which had been deemed unworthy of their lordships' concurrence, the same House now, with, as he thought, great good sense, agreed to a resolution, which they transmitted to their lordships' House, entreating them in the name of the people of England, and of Ireland, to take the case of the Catholics into their consideration. That was the state of the question. To those who were of opinion that never, under any circumstances, ought concession to be made, he would apply no argument. Upon the present question he would say, as he had already said upon that of the repeal of the Test, and Corporation acts, that the best security which they could have was to be found in the unconditional concession of
1167
1168
1169
1170
veto
Lord Manners
, who spoke from the cross bench, in a situation which rendered it extremely difficult to hear him, commenced by complaining of the temper of the Irish Catholic Association, and of the tendency of their speeches to inflame and exasperate the public mind. He deprecated the spirit which had prevailed in all the proceedings of that ill-regulated and angry political association. It was impossible, he said, to grant the Catholics the concessions they sought, and afford any protection to the established reformed Church of Ireland, in the present temper of the Irish nation. The Catholic Association, which might be considered as displaying the spirit and disposition of their brethren, had hitherto done their utmost— in many instances but too successfully—to separate the tenant from his landlord, to produce discoid and anarchy throughout the country, and to estrange the loyalty and allegiance of all their fellow-subjects, over whom they could exercise any influence. It had been said, that concessions to the Catholics were demanded by policy and justice; but he could not perceive the applicability of either. With every disposition to grant emancipation, if such a measure could be conceded consistently with safety to the establishment, he could rot consent, under existing circumstances, to acknowledge claims which were essentially pernicious to the Protestant religion and the civil interests of the state.
The Earl of Guilford
said—It would be a waste of your lordships' time, were I to tread the ground so often and so ably occupied, in proof that the tenets of the Roman Catholic church, essentially intolerant, are ad verse to the existence of Protestant establishments, which they have incessantly condemned, as the receptacles of heresy and impiety. Not only have we the decretals of popes and councils in evidence of this fact, but we have also the
1171
1172
1173
1174
The Bishop of Durham
said:—My lords, when the question of the Catholic claims was last discussed in this House, I took occasion to state to your lordships my sentiments upon the general subject; and perhaps I should not now trouble your lordships again, were there not some points connected with the view I then took of the question, which have, since that period, been frequently adverted to, both in and out of parliament, and which appear to admit of further elucidation.
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
veto
1182
Viscount Goderich
said, I would not now have troubled your lordships if I had had any previous opportunity of expressing my sentiments upon this question in this House, and which sentiments I will endeavour to compress into as narrow a compass as possible. In this view, my lords, I shall not advert to that part of the subject which most directly arises out of what we all admit to be the errors of the Church of Rome. The question before your lordships does not really depend upon the consideration of whether the Roman Catholics are right or wrong in the religious opinions they hold; but whether there be any such the or connexion between these erroneous principles and their political relations to the state, as can justify parliament in maintaining restrictions, which all of us admit to be justifiable only on a clear and admitted 'ground of necessity. It is impossible for any man not to feel that this is a question of unspeakable importance; and, when I say it is one of unspeakable importance, strong as the expression maybe, I feel that I greatly underrate the character which really attaches to it. I think it is a question not merely important, but absolutely vital,—vital,notonly in the estimation of those who support it, but also of those who oppose it. If we, my lords, who are friendly to its concession, think that without it you can have no peace or tranquillity in one half of the kingdom, that without it, you never can possess that entire confidence in your own strength which is necessary to your own safety, because it is essential to teach other nations that it is a I dangerous thing to meddle with a united
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
quasi
de propaganda fide;
1188
Earl St. Vincent
said, he thought that the measure could not be any longer withheld. The privileges which were now demanded must sooner or later be granted. The exclusion from the enjoyment of those privileges was not congenial to the
1189
The Duke of Gloucester
.—As I have never, my lords, taken any part before in any of the debates upon this question, I rise to say a few words, in explanation of the vote which it is my intention to give, in support of the proposition of my noble friend. That proposition has been introduced by the noble marquis in a speech of so much eloquence and argument, and has been so ably seconded by the noble viscount, and others who have since addressed your lordships, that I feel it unnecessary to trouble your lordships at any length upon the subject; but I think, as I have hitherto abstained from making any observation, that it is my duty, on the present occasion, to explain the reasons of the vote I am about to give. After affording the subject the utmost consideration, I feel, indeed, that I should not do my duty if I refrained from supporting the measure which my noble friend proposes in the resolution he has submitted to the House. If, in the anxious consideration I have given to this subject, I could have perceived any danger likely to accrue either to the Established Church or to the constitution my family were brought to this country to maintain, from making concessions to the Roman Catholics, I may say, without hesitation, that nothing on earth could have induced me to lend those claims my support. After the most attentive consideration, I cannot, however, admit that any danger could accrue to any class of his majesty's subjects, from granting to the Roman Catholics the
1190
The Bishop of Lincoln said
:—If more than one noble lord, in addressing your lordships on the present occasion, has thought it necessary to begin with declaring, that his ingenuity does not enable him to suggest any thing new on a subject which has been so frequently under discussion, it is far more incumbent upon me to make a similar declaration. But I am anxious to explain very briefly my view of the concessions to which this House will be pledged, not expressly, indeed, but virtually, by adopting the proposition of the noble marquis; and, at the same time, to meet his demand, that we should state explicitly the danger which we apprehend from making those concessions. My lords, the danger which I apprehend is the same which has been stated by a noble and learned lord, who lately filled the highest legal office in the sister country— danger to the Protestant Establishment; and the authority to which I shall appeal, in proof of the reality of that danger, is the same to which that noble and learned lord appealed—the authority of Dr. Doyle. Your lordships may remember that, a few years since, it was suggested in another place, that the only effectual remedy for the ills of Ireland was an union of the two churches; and that Dr. Doyle addressed a letter to the author of that suggestion, highly applauding the sentiment, and stating, that to accomplish such an union would prove a less difficult task than might at first be supposed. In the latter part of this assertion I cannot believe Dr. Doyle to have been serious. He
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
The Duke of Cumberland
said, that he took a different view of this question from some of the noble lords who had addressed the House. It was asserted, that the concession they were required to make to the Roman Catholics would have the effect of tranquillizing Ireland. He must say, however, that if it would tranquillize Ireland, which he was not prepared to admit, it would, on the contrary, produce a very great disturbance here. Whatever ferment might exist in Ireland from withholding the boon of Catholic emancipation, it was a very doubtful matter to him, whether the granting it would not produce a much greater ferment in this country. For this reason, among others, he opposed the motion; and though some persons might be disposed to call him a bigot, he acted according to his real and conscientious belief, when he entered his strongest protest against the resolution recommended by the noble marquis.
1198
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he would not detain their lordships with any detail of his opinions upon this question. He could not, however, avoid observing, that the question was rapidly gaining ground, and that those who were opposed to any concession to the Catholics in one session, expressed their cordial assent to their emancipation in the next. His opinions upon the subject were unchanged: he had full and unlimited confidence in his majesty's government; but, notwithstanding the allegiance he owed the noble duke at the head of that government, it was not possible for him to depart from the opinions he had already expressed in favour of the Catholics. He was quite sure that the time would arrive, when the legislature must adopt the noble marquis's resolution, or some other measure which would have the effect of giving tranquillity to the Irish people. When the noble marquis was on the ministerial side of the House, he ought to have stepped forward and proposed some measure for the relief of the Roman Catholics. If he had done so, and made the same exertions in its support then, which he used now, he must have accomplished the object he had in view. As the noble marquis had proposed the resolution in a speech of singular ability, and as he cordially concurred in all the arguments he had used, he would content himself, on the present occasion, by declaring, that his humble exertions should, never be wanting to the support of the cause of the Catholics, and that he gave his vote most cordially in support of the present resolution.
The Bishop of Landaff
said, he was aware there was a progress of opinion in this country, which might, at some future period, admit of the entertainment of this question. But the present time and the present disposition of the people of this country wore not favourable to it. As he apprehended that the proposition now before the House, as a preliminary measure, would not be followed in the sequel by a legislative measure of relief, he was adverse to the adoption of it. It would only lead to the excitement of hopes which would not be realized. The doctrine of divided allegiance was one which he could not reconcile with the allegiance due by good subjects to their sovereign. Even Catholics themselves had recourse to sophistry in their endeavours to explain it, but he owned that it was one that had never been
1199
The Earl of Dartmouth
said, he was desirous of seeing the path of honourable ambition opened to Catholic peers and to Catholic gentlemen; but, looking to the proceedings of the Catholic Association, and to the writings of Catholic priests, he could not bring- himself to believe, that the carrying the question would have the effect of tranquillizing Ireland. On the contrary, he believed that the people of Ireland would consider emancipation only as a triumph, and as a step to the establishment of the Romish Church. At the same time, he should not be reluctant to consent to the experiment being made, if sufficient securities could be given; and he thought, if the Catholics were sincere in their professions, there could be little difficulty in finding such securities.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he wondered, since the noble earl was of opinion that none of the measures hitherto adopted had had the effect of tranquillizing Ireland, that he had never thought of trying what might be done by means of conciliation. The House of Commons had come to a resolution, that they would take this matter into consideration. His noble friend was accused of not having brought the subject before the House during- the last session, but the reason why he had not done so was obvious. In the last session the House of Commons had conic to an opinion directly the reverse of their present vote; and that was, in his opinion, reason enough why his noble friend had not brought it forward last year, and had done so in the present. Now, it would be remembered, that they had come to this decision, not at the call of the administration, nor at the suggestion of the Court, but under the influence of that which, in spite of sarcasm, he would pronounce the march of intellect—that which was not a new spirit, but as old as the Reformation —that which no policy of church or state
1200
1201
The debate was then adjourned till tomorrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 9.
RELATIONS WITH PORTUGAL.]
Mr. E. Davenport
requested the attention of the House upon a subject of great public interest, and upon which he might or
1202
1203
Mr. Secretary Peel
regretted that the hon. gentleman had not confined himself to a mere statement of the questions which he intended to ask, instead of having introduced a mass of observations and comments. He would answer the hon. gentleman's three questions in a plain and distinct manner. In answer to the first question, as to the forts given up, he had to state, that before the arrival of Don Miguel, it was determined by the British government—all fear of the invasion of Portugal having been removed—that the
1204
l.
1205
Sir J. Macintosh
said, he had heard with great satisfaction the declaration of the right hon. gentleman, that the British government, as well as the other governments of Europe, had suspended all diplomatic intercourse with the present rulers of Portugal. Such a suspension amounted to a declaration, that the present chief of that country was a rebel and an usurper, and to an approbation of the noble efforts of those faithful Portuguese, who had taken up arms against that atrocious usurpation, in defence of the cause of legitimate authority and constitutional liberty. He fervently prayed for the success of that glorious resistance pronounced to be lawful by the unanimous voice of Europe. Whatever might he his opinion about the moment chosen for our evacuation of Portugal, he rejoiced, on one account, that it had occurred so early. We had been told in the last and present year, that the Portuguese people were enamoured of servitude; that they loved even the despotism of Don Miguel; that England had imposed a constitution on them, and crammed it down their throats. The people of Portugal had now belied those assertions. Since the departure of the British army, they had risen to assert their liberty, to destroy tyranny, to overthrow usurpation, and to maintain the authority of their lawful prince. Even, if fortune should not crown their efforts, (which, God forbid), they had done enough to vindicate their character, and to justify that interposition of England, which was indeed no more than the bare observance of treaties, but which seemed to be obnoxious to many in this country, merely because that observance incidentally led us to give countenance and help to attempts made by a monarch to give liberty to his subjects. Events seemed as if they had been disposed for the express purpose of illustrating the impartial fidelity with which England had observed her engagements to Portugal.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he wished to
1206
Mr. E. Davenport
said, there was not an individual acquainted with the affairs of Portugal, who entertained the slightest doubt of the charge which he had made in the early part of his observations. Lord Liverpool had stated to a friend of his, that he had not a doubt of the fact.
SUGAR DUTIES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he rose for the purpose of moving for the continuance of the existing Duties on Sugar for another year. During the early part of the session, attempts had been repeatedly made to revise the existing law, and to make some arrangement, with respect to the sugar duties, which would be more satisfactory to all the parties concerned. It was unnecessary for him to enter into the details of the various plans which were proposed to effect this object, since none of them had been found to conciliate the approbation of those for whose benefit they were intended, and, as against all of them substantial objections might be urged. To some of them he was not indisposed to give his support; but, as they went to produce a material reduction of duty, and as none of the arrangements held out the slightest expectation of repairing, until a distant period, the great loss which the revenue was likely to sustain, under these circumstances, he had deemed it most prudent to propose the continuance of those duties for another session. The House must be aware of the large revenue derived from sugar, and could not but feel, that under circumstances even of the most favourable nature for that purpose, it; was a commodity which could not be smug-
1207
l.
Mr. C. Grant
said, he had given his best attention to the subject, for the purpose of correcting the anomalies of the system, and giving satisfaction to all parties. A proposition was made last year by those interested in the question, the nature of which was already before the public. He should abstain from entering into the details of that plan, because when it became his duty to meet the refiners, and other parties who had interest in it, he found, after maturely considering the subject, that it was his duty to reject what was proffered. He followed up that by another proposition, in some respects similar to that to which he had referred, but in others extremely different. In that plan he did not contemplate the restoration of bounties, as they had existed a few years before. After giving much consideration to the subject, he had arrived at the conclusion, that the only efficient plan would be one founded on the principle of a reduction of duty. The plan which he had at that time considered, he did not communicate either to the East or West India interest. He had abstained from making that communication, until the sanction of government was obtained. He therefore had proposed a reduction to the amount of 7
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
1208
1209
Mr. Whitmore
said, he could not think that there ought to be any difference between the duties on East and West Indian sugar. He would ask why, in two possessions belonging to the same country, there should be any such difference? As to the prescriptive right of the West-India proprietors, it would be recollected, that the present duties were settled in 1815, not by a discussion in that House, but by the parties interested. The question must stand upon justice, and not upon prescriptive rights. It had been often said, that sugar could not be produced in any part of our possessions in the East Indies. Bishop Heber, alluding to the ignorance which prevailed in this country with respect to Indian affairs, said, that the assertion that no sugar was raised in India might be contradicted by the mere cockneys of Calcutta, and pointed out places in which the raising of sugar was a part of the industry of the country. The admission of sugar upon fair terms would greatly promote the trade of this country with the Indies. In 1814, the first year of the free-trade system, the exports of this country to the East Indies amounted to 1,696,000
l.
l.
Mr. Bernal
begged the House to recollect, in considering the difference between the duties on East and West Indian produce, that no man could possess a yard of laud, in the East Indies; and, that there-
1210
Mr. Hume
expressed his entire concurrence in the view taken of this subject by the late President of the Board of Trade. His able speech was an additional proof of the loss which the country had sustained, in being deprived of his valuable services. He trusted that the liberal principles which the right hon. gentleman had so ably supported would be followed by his successor. With respect to the sugar duties, he did hope that government would consider the propriety of not keeping them at their present amount. So far from a reduction being injurious to the revenue, it would prove highly beneficial, by the increase of consumption. This was seen in the case of the reduction of the duties on wine. He would contend, that if the nine hundred thousand pounds of sugar exported were consumed in this country, as they would be if the duties were reduced, it would more than make good the deficiency created by the reduction. The same might be said of most other necessary articles. Thus, if in the article of tea the duty were reduced 25 per cent., the consumption would be so increased, that the revenue would gain by it. The consumption of sugar depended on the price. Last year there was a deficiency in the consumption of three hundred thousand pounds, owing to the increase of price. He contended, that an equalization of the duties on East and West India sugars would be
1211
Mr. J. Stewart
said, that if encouragement was given to the East-India sugar-trade, we should have a supply to any amount that might be required, and have a mart opened for our staple commodities. The demand for some of these, such as copper and lead, in India was scarcely worth mentioning; because they had nothing to return but articles which we would not take. The improvements in our cotton trade had already stopped every loom in India; and it was not fair that we should shut them out from a mart for the only staple they could give us. Under these circumstances, he would support the amendment.
Mr. F. Buxton
expressed his surprise, that any hon. member should wish for the introduction of foreign sugar. If honourable members knew the horrors of slavery connected with its produce, they could not give it any encouragement. He considered that we were in some degree pledged against any such encouragement. At the Congress of Vienna, it was agreed, by those nations favourable to the abolition of the slave-trade, that if France, Spain, and Portugal continued that traffic, their sugars would not be received. It was a mistake to suppose that the comforts of the slave-population depended on the high price of sugar; for it was proved by experience, that in proportion as sugar was cultivated, the condition of the slave was rendered worse, and
vice versa.
1212
Mr. Bright
was glad that ministers considered themselves as a new government, and took time to consider this question. The wide distinction between the West and the East Indies was, that the West Indies were cultivated by British capital. This country had monopolized the supply of stores to the West Indies, by preventing the direct supply from America; the West Indies, therefore, had a peculiar claim on this country. Besides, the West Indians had a pledge, that the bounty on the exportation of sugars should be augmented in proportion to the duty on importation. The East Indies stood on a very different footing. He hoped the government would not be led away by idle theories, but would deal with the question like practical statesmen.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he must explicitly deny, that any of the alterations to which allusions had been made, had taken place, without proper deliberation as to their consequences upon our colonial relations. He concurred in the proposed postponement because he knew that the chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted himself to the consideration of the subject, and had carefully investigated all its bearings upon the West-India interest, the shipping interest, and, above all, the interests of the great bulk of the consumers of sugar in this country. If it could be afforded at a cheaper rate to those whose habits had rendered it one of their most essential commodities, it was desirable it should be so. He was glad that his right hon. friend had that night delivered his able view of this question; because it was on his part, as well as on that of his right hon. friend, a redemption of their promise of last year, to introduce this subject for consideration, with regard to the whole of the important interests connected with it. If it were possible to take off between one third and one fourth of the duty on sugar, the result might prove a great relief to the West-India planter, in the increased consumption which it would create, a new demand would be induced, and the pressure upon the old of the new markets of Berbice, Demerara, and the coast of Guiana would be relieved. When he looked at the present state of affairs,
1213
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it would not become him, after the statements of his right hon. friends, to say much more than that he concurred in the general tenor of their observations. He was sensible of the great importance of this question in all its bearings: he admitted, that an increased consumption would make up for a diminished duty, still he was bound to pause before he risked the loss of a million of his means. He was satisfied that general benefit would ensue from the postponement of this question for another year.
Mr. Whitmore
proposed as an amendment, that after the resolution declaratory
1214
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 10, 1828.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned debate, on the Resolution moved by the marquis of Lansdowne,
Lord Colchester
rose and said:—My Lords, although this important subject has frequently undergone discussion in parliament during the last twenty years, and although the progress of the present debate has not produced much new matter either of fact or of argument, nevertheless, in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, expressed in a resolution formally communicated to us, I am desirous of stating, briefly and plainly, the reasons which oblige me to refuse my consent to the present motion.
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
concordatum
Rex spospondit
l.
l.
1222
1223
The Marquis of Bute
said, he could not, with the best attention it was in his power to give the speech of his noble friend, feel himself influenced by the same reasons, or induced to arrive at a similar conclusion. He thought that, in the consideration of this question, it was incumbent upon those who were opposed to this vote, rather to show the political necessity for their opposition, than to call on those who brought it forward to show the reasons for its adoption. Still, however, its supporters had, in compliment to their opponents, stated the grounds of their support, and it was now the duty of the House to give the question their fullest consideration. Looking, therefore, only to those who were opposed to this motion, he thought they ought rather to show that there would be greater risk to the establishments of
1224
"A milk white hind, immortal and unchanged;"
1225
1226
l.
1227
1228
The Earl of Haddington
said, he was anxious, upon many accounts, to place on
1229
1230
prœmunire
1231
1232
Regium Donum
1233
1234
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
said, he could not give a silent vote on the present question, the rather as it appeared to him that the real merits of the case lay in a small compass. There were two points to be ascertained by their lordships—these were, first, whether or not the Roman Catholics had any just right or claim to what was now demanded; and next, if they had not such a right, whether we were called upon, on any principle of justice or expediency, to grant the privileges which they sought. There was a manifest difference between political and religious toleration: religious toleration had reference to the intercourse subsisting between the creature and his Creator—political toleration respected the intercourse between man and man. It would be a needless waste of their lordships' time to attempt to prove that the Roman Catholics were in possession of complete and unqualified religious toleration: suffice it to say, that Roman Catholic places of worship were recognized by the law, and every one was at liberty to worship God as his reason and his conscience might direct. But it would be said why was not political toleration equally conceded to the Catholics with that which had been extended to the exercise of their religion? And why were not the professors of different religious beliefs equally admissible
1235
semper eadem
1236
animus imponentis
animus suscipientis.
1237
The Earl of Falmouth
said, he believed that the feeling of the Catholic body generally was in unison with that displayed in the Catholic Association, and in direct hostility to the established church. If he had not seriously considered the question, his judgment might, perhaps, have been influenced by the eloquence of the noble marquis who had advocated their lordships' assent to the resolution. He had attended the discussions of the question in that House from 1808 to the present day, and had read most of the pamphlets written with respect to it, including the most recent by Mr. Gally Knight, and the strange proposition of Mr. Wilmot Horton. With these arguments before him, and with the passing events of the day to illustrate them, he must declare, that so far from his opinions having undergone any change, they were more rivetted and confirmed. The noble marquis who brought forward the motion had quoted the example of foreign states in which the Catholics were admitted to political power; but he had failed to show, that those examples were applicable to our peculiar constitution. With respect to the only state whose constitution bore any affinity to that of Great Britain, he had failed to prove the antiquity of the practice which he recommended the adoption of. The constitution of Holland was framed only in 1815, and was only just completed. Many of the omissions of the noble marquis had, however, been ably supplied by the noble president of the council. In most of the continental countries to which the noble marquis had referred, the governments were purely despotic, and therefore bore no analogy to that of England. There was no resemblance, in any of the constitutions of the countries alluded to by the noble marquis, to those peculiarities in the British constitution, which had heretofore been considered our greatest blessings, but which were now, it seemed, to be trod under foot by what was called the "march of intellect." The wisdom of our ancestors at the time of the
1238
"In taking this step, the best security possible for the attainment of the great object in view—a constitution wholly Protestant—was effected: the title of the sovereign and all his future successors was made contingent upon their being Protes-
1239
Cessante ratione cessit ipsa et lex.
"It may be proper to add to the above bases of our present Protestant constitution, that, in consequence of the failure of issue, both from William and Mary, and particularly from Anne, by the death of her son, the Act of Settlement, transferring the Crown to the House of Hanover, was passed in the 12th and 13th of William 3rd. This Act of Settlement expressly recited and re-enacted the Bill of Rights, already mentioned, in every particular; pledged the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, 'in the name of all the people of this realm, most humbly and faithfully to submit themselves and their posterities' to the 'most excellent princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants;' and on this condition, further pledged themselves 'to stand, to maintain, and defend, the said princess Sophia and her heirs, against all persons whatsoever, with their lives and estates.' While, however, the Act of Settlement was in progress, a most remarkable circumstance occurred, the whole importance of which arises from the very fact of the direct descendants of James 2nd being extinct by the death of cardinal York. The following passage is
1240
Sec. 45. The Act of Succession gave umbrage to all the popish princes who were more nearly related to the Crown than this lady (the princess Sophia), whom the parliament had preferred to all others. The duchess of Savoy, granddaughter to king Charles 1st, by her mother, ordered her ambassador, count Maffei, to make a protestation to the parliament of England, in her name, against all resolutions and decisions contrary to her title, as sole daughter to the princess Henrietta, next in succession to the Crown of England, after king William and the princess Anne of Denmark. Two copies of this protest Maffei sent in letters to the Lord Keeper and the Speaker of the Lower House, by two of his gentlemen, and a public notary to attest the delivery; but no notice was taken of the declaration. The duke of Savoy, while his minister was thus employed in England, engaged in an alliance with the crowns of France and Spain, on condition that his Catholic majesty should espouse his youngest daughter without a dowry.
"All that we shall observe upon this protest is, that the present duchess of Modena, united by her husband with the imperial family of Austria, is the next living descendant of the above duchess of Savoy, and that, on the failure of issue from her, the present dauphin of France succeeds to all the hereditary rights of those princesses! Will any Englishman, with this frightful view of the effects of granting the popish 'claims' before his eyes, be bold enough to say that he will 'pass the Rubicon?'"
1241
The Duke of Sussex
said, he was anxious to notice what had fallen from the noble lord who spoke last Being himself a member of the royal family, who held their situation in this country upon the principles which the noble lord had just expressed, he fully accorded in the justice of those principles; but the noble lord would allow him to say, that while he admitted them in the fullest extent, he differed from him widely as to the measures by which they were to be supported and advanced. He was anxious not to give a silent vote upon the motion, because he still entertained the same opinions upon the subject, which had always impressed his mind. He would not presume to take up the time of their lordships by proving what they would all admit, that the civil advantages of our incomparable constitution belonged equally to every
1242
1243
prœmunire
1244
1245
1246
The Lord Chancellor
said, he wished at that early period of the debate to state the precise grounds upon which he felt himself bound to oppose the motion. He concurred with the royal duke who had just sat down, in approving of the tone and temper in which the discussion had been conducted—a tone and temper adapted as well to the dignity of that House as to the
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
Lord Plunkett
said:—I am anxious to take the first opportunity that fairly oc-
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
Lord Eldon
.—I claim my share of that imputation.
Lord Plunkett
assured the noble and learned lord, that all he felt it his duty to state on this subject, he said in good feeling towards him, and without meaning it in any way offensively to him, for no man had a higher respect for the character of the noble and learned lord than he entertained. His argument was, that it was extremely unfair to hold out Mr. Pitt as the enemy of Catholic emancipation, and to associate the general principles of that statesman with opposition to the measure.
Lord Eldon
denied that he had so held out the opinion of Mr. Pitt.
Lord Plunkett
.—That is exactly what I wanted to hear. But whoever sent forth such an erroneous opinion to the country is deeply answerable for it. Another insinuation is, that Protestant ascendancy is opposed to radicalism, and the inference sought to be obtained is, that those who support the one are opposed to the other.
1271
Lord Kenyon
.—May I be permitted to say a few words? [cries of "order, order"].
Lord Plunkett
.—I meant distinctly to convey to the noble lord my opinion, that the publication of those letters was not proper; but, in doing so, I never intended to convey any thing that was personally offensive. I must repeat, that the publication of letters, tending to influence a measure before parliament, by putting in opposition to it the opinion of the late king, was not a fair mode of dealing with the subject. When I say this, I mean no insinuation against the sincerity of his late majesty. They are the conscientious opinions of an honest man, and the mode in which they are put is calculated to endear his memory to the people, and prove him a worthy member of the House of Brunswick. But it is miserable to think of the use which has been made of that opinion, and how the ear of royalty may be abused in some cases; for his majesty was made to believe, that he had no right to assent to the measures to which the letters referred, and that such assent would be a violation of his Coronation Oath. The opinions of lord Kenyon were those of a sound lawyer and an honest man. What he said was, that it was not incumbent on his majesty to refuse his assent to the repeal of those acts, when the Houses of parliament, in proposing that repeal, considered it for the benefit of the country. In the same view, he mentioned that the repeal of the Test Act might take place without
1272
1273
1274
1275
Regium Donum
1276
1277
panacea
1278
The Earl of Eldon
complained of the attack made upon him by the learned lord, who had represented him as a person determined never to consent to any measure of tranquillity to England and Ireland. He protested, that he had never used, towards any class of his fellow-subjects, any language which could justify that statement. The only determination he had formed upon this subject was, to investigate it, and to watch it as closely as possible; and, whatever might be the result of his deliberations, he would act upon them unhesitatingly. His motto had ever been, "Be just, and fear not." Before he entered on the subject immediately before the House, he begged permission to say one word in allusion to what had been observed respecting the late Mr. Pitt. There was no person whose memory was more dear to him. There was no charge he should feel more acutely if it could be made against him justly, than that of having offered any disrespect to the memory or the character of that great man. He was ready to plead guilty to the charge of having annually, since his death, and of intending annually, as long as he was able, until his own should happen, to celebrate Mr. Pitt's birth-day. He begged, however, to deny on his own part, and on the part of those who were equally guilty with him of this charge, that it was his purpose or theirs, to make use of that great man's name against the Roman Catholics of this country or of Ireland. He knew, and he had always acted on the knowledge, that Mr. Pitt had an earnest desire to relieve the Roman Catholics from their disabilities, both in England and in Ireland, if he could have done it consistently with his public duty, and have obtained those securities which he thought necessary to the safety of the religious establishments of the country. He would take the liberty, in addition to what appeared in the letters to which the learned lord had referred, to state, that there were certain securities or restrictions which Mr. Pitt would have insisted upon, as a preliminary condition to the concession of the claims of the Roman Catholics. Having had the opportunity, again and again, in the course of his intercourse with that great person, and being most anxious to regulate his own conduct in
1279
1280
1281
in ordine ad spirituale.
in ordine ad spirituale
1282
ipso facto
1283
1284
The Marquis Wellesley
said, that the resolution which had been proposed for their adoption should receive his cordial support. Were he to state the grounds of his vote, he should occupy hours of the night, which had already so far advanced. He supported the claims of the Roman Catholics from solemn conviction, founded on long and studious attention to the operation in Ireland of the laws enacted for their exclusion. The result of his experience was, a thorough impression, that those laws did not tend to the security of the Church and State, as was fondly imagined, but only produced danger to what they had been designed as a safeguard. It had been his lot to watch all the bearings of the system, and he could not but consider it no less impolitic than it was unjust. In the discharge of his official duty in Ireland, he had had the most efficient assistance from the members of his majesty's government,—he felt at the time, and he now acknowledged with gratitude, their active co-operation—he had been also supported by the personal favour of his beloved sovereign; and yet, notwithstanding those advantages, his exertions for the tranquillization of that country had been too often counteracted by the dreadful influence of this code. He was surprised that the present resolution should be objected to, as it did not pledge their lordships to any particular plan, but merely set forth, that "it was expedient to consider the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment, as might be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom, to the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty's sub-
1285
1286
The Duke of Wellington
said:—My lords, I rise under extreme difficulty to address your lordships on this most important subject. I feel particular concern at being under the necessity of following my noble relative, and of stating that I differ in opinion from him whom I so dearly love, and for whose opinions I entertain so much respect and deference. I cannot, however, consent to the view which he has taken of this subject; but shall proceed to state my own opinions; hoping that, in the end, the views of my
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
Lord Redesdale
said, that the bill he had introduced into parliament had been passed in the hopes that it would prove sufficient to allay any uneasiness in this country; and he thought the measure better calculated to produce that effect than any other. The first emancipation that the Roman Catholics of Ireland stood in need of was an emancipation from the tyranny that was exercised over them by their clergy.
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said:—My lords, I shall forbear troubling your lordships at any great length in reply. In what has fallen in the course of the debate, there have been many things that have encouraged me, in my view of the subject. In the first place, I collect this encouragement from the tone of the whole debate. I have also collected encouragement, not only from the supporters of the proposition, but from the suggestions furnished by the very enemies of the cause. I have even collected encouragement from the hints, cautions, and hesitations, which fell from the right reverend bench; and most of all, I have collected encouragement from that important admission from the noble lord on the woolsack, that he was aware of a great difficulty existing, and out of which he at present saw no outlet. This admission has since been confirmed by the noble duke; so that it will not now be denied, that the Catholic question has reduced this country to a state of great difficulty. This statement having been made by two noblemen so high in the confidence of the sovereign, it almost necessarily follows, that it is accompanied with their intention of looking at this difficulty, with a view to its final arrangement [cheers]. Because, when the proposition that I make,
1293
1294
The House then divided—Contents, present 92; Ditto, proxies 45–137.—Not-contents, present, 123; proxies, 58–181: Majority against the motion 44.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY—PRESENT.
Dukes.
Westmorland
Cumberland
Stamford
Richmond
Winchilsea
Beaufort
Shaftesbury
Leeds
Abingdon
Manchester
Dartmouth
Dorset
Plymouth
Newcastle
Scarborough
Wellington
Aylesford
Marquisses.
Macclesfield
Winchester
Pomfret
Salisbury
Ashburnham
Bath
Guilford
Thomond
Norwich (Duke of Gordon)
Exeter
Ailesbury
Talbot
Earls.
Digby
Bathurst (lord President)
Mansfield
Longford
1295
Enniskillen
Bayning
Romney
Ribblesdale
Manvers
Dufferin
Orford
Redesdale
Chichester
Lilford
Lonsdale
Arden
Harewood
Sheffield
Verulam
Manners
Brownlow
Ross (Glasgow)
Bradford
Colchester
Beauchamp
Ker (Lothian)
Eldon
Delamere
Falmouth
Forester
Powis
Bexley
Stradbroke
Penshurst (Strangford)
Viscounts.
Ravensworth
Bolingbroke
Farnborough
Sydney
Feversham
Sidmouth
Tenterden
Lorton
Stuart of Rothesay
Lake
Heytesbury
Exmouth
Clanwilliam
Beresford
Wallace
Barons.
Skelmersdale
Lyndhurst
Archbishops.
De Clifford
York
Audley
Tuam
Willoughby de Broke
Bishops.
Teynham
London
Byron
Durham
Sinclair
Winchester
Hay
Salisbury
Colville
St. Asaph
Boston
Ely
Hawke
Bath and Wells
Dynevor
Lincoln
Bagot
Glocester
Grantley
Chichester
Walsingham
Chester
Rodney
St. David's
Carteret
Oxford
Montagu
Bristol
Kenyon
Carlisle
Fisherwick (Donegal)
Llandaff
Douglas
Ossory
Rolle
Clonfert
Northwich
PROXIES.
Earl O'Neil
Lord Farnham
Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe
Lord Middleton
Earl of Cardigan
Lord Wodehouse
Lord Saltersford (Earl Courtown)
Lord St. Helen's
Bishop of Peterborough
Earl of Home
Lord Carbery
Bishop of Bangor
Earl of Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)
Bishop of Hereford
Duke of Clarence
Earl of Moreton
Earl Poulett
Marquis of Cholmondeley
Lord Le Despenser
Lord Rivers
Lord Clanbrassil (Roden)
Duke of St. Alban's
Bishop of Exeter
Earl of Mountcashel
Lord Stowell
Bishop of Lichfield
Lord Gray
Lord Wemyss
Lord Wigan (Balcarras)
Earl of Malmesbury
Marquis of Hertford
1296
Earl of Rochford
Earl Strange (Duke of Athol)
Earl of Abergavenny
Earl Graham (Duke of Montrose)
Earl Cathcart
Duke of Northumberland
Lord Brodrick (Middleton)
Earl of Carrick
Earl Nelson
Earl Harcourt
Bishop of Worcester
Ld. Meldrum (Aboyne)
Viscount Strathallan
Lord Harris
Lord Saltoun
Earl Forbes
Lord Loftus
Lord Gambier
Lord Fife
Earl of Mayo
Earl Charleville
Earl of Brook and Warwick
Lord Gort
Earl of Chatham
Lord De La Zouch
Earl Stanhope
Archbishop of Canterbury
Earl of Egremont
MINORITY.—PRESENT.
Dukes.
Viscounts.
Sussex
Leinster (Duke of Leinster)
Glocester
Somerset
Maynard
Devonshire
Duncan
St. Vincent
Marquisses.
Melville
Conyngham
Anson
Queensberry
Hood
Lansdowne
Gordon (Aberdeen)
Bute
Goderich
Camden
Barons.
Bristol
Dacre
Cleveland
Clinton
Earls.
Howard de Walden
Denbigh
Saye and Sele
Chesterfield
Ellenborough (Privy Seal)
Thanet
Essex
Clifton (Darnley)
Carlisle
Gower
Jersey
Napier
Rosebery
Belhaven
Ferrers
Boyle (Cork)
Tankerville
King
Cowper
Montford
Ilchester
Grantham
De Lawar
Holland
Radnor
Foley
Hilsborough (Downshire)
Southampton
Braybrooke
Clarendon
Auckland
Grosvenor
Mendip (Clifden)
Carnarvon
Selsey
Charlemont
Dundas
Wicklow
Dawney (Downe)
Lucan
Calthorpe
Belmore
Gwydyr
Rosslyn
De Dunstanville
Wilton
Wellesley
Limerick
Fitzgibbon (Clare)
Gosford
Alvanley
Grey
Mount-Eagle (Sligo)
Harrowby
Breadalbane
Minto
Hill
Morley
Ormonde (Marquis of Ormonde)
Vane (Londonderry)
Dudley
Somerhill (Clanricarde)
Cawdor
1297
Ranfurley (Northland)
Melross (Haddington)
Warncliffe
Durham
Seaford
Bishop.
Plunket
Rochester
PROXIES.
Earl of Buckinghamshire
Earl of Erroll
Viscount Granville
Earl Fitzwilliam
Lord Erskine
Bishop of Norwich
Marquis of Stafford
Viscount Hereford
Lord Grenville
Lord Churchill
Lord Crewe
Lord Lauderdale
Earl of Kingston
Earl Spencer
Earl of Caledon
Duke of Grafton
Lord Berwick
Lord Yarborough
Duke of Buckingham
Earl of Derby
Duke of Bedford
Earl Cornwallis
Earl of Albemarle
Earl of Hardwicke
Viscount Hutchinson
Lord Suffield
Earl of Oxford
Earl Somers
Lord Sondes
Duke of Marlborough
Earl of Waldegrave
Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire
Lord Lynedoch
Lord Ponsonby (Besborough)
Lord Sherborne
Earl of St. Germain's
Lord Howard of Effingham
Lord Ducie
Earl of Elgin
Lord Hopetoun
Lord Carrington
Earl of Fortescue
PAIRED OFF.
Lord Abercromby
Lord Ailsa (Earl of Casillis)
Duke of Portland
Lord Carleton (Shannon)
Duke of Rutland
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 10, 1828.
CORPORATE FUNDS.]
Mr. Otway Cave
rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the application of Corporate Funds to Electioneering Purposes, and began by stating that his measure would resemble that which an hon. and gallant colonel (Maberly) had introduced last year. He rested his motion solely on the ground, that for a corporation to apply part of its funds to promote the return of a particular candidate, was an illegal interference with the privileges of the House. It was scarcely necessary for him to do more than to recal the attention of members to the leading facts detailed by his hon. and gallant friend; one of the main features of the case being the resolution of the corporation of Leicester to devote 1,000
l.
1298
1299
l.
1300
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1301
1302
Mr. Legh Keck
said, he was not acquainted with the contents of the petition which had been presented on a former occasion, and withdrawn on account of informality. He had further to say, that he was not acquainted with the merits of this particular case at that time, and that he still remained ignorant of them.
Sir C. Hastings
said, his hon. colleague had complained of his conduct in presenting a petition the other day from the corporation of Leicester, without informing his hon. colleague of his intention. But the hon. gentleman should remember, that his charge against the corporation was of a severe nature, and that the House had no documents before it to enable it to judge of its propriety. Therefore the corporation had intrusted him with the petition to present in their defence; but, as it turned out, on reading it, that there was an irregularity in it, he had withdrawn it. The charge related to the expenditure of money in the last contest for the representation of the city; and he understood that the corporation had called on his hon. colleague for a certain sum, to defray his proportion of the expense; but his hon. colleague had not thought fit to answer the call made upon him. He would not object to the introduction of the bill; but he would give it his decided opposition, as an infringement of the rights and privileges of corporations, not justified by any necessity.
Mr. Ross
was thoroughly convinced that the vote of money by the corporation was perfectly legal.
Mr. Fyler
said, he would give his decided opposition to the bill in all its stages.
Mr. S. Rice
said, he would support the bill, not on account of the particular cases of Leicester or Northampton, but Upon the great constitutional principle which had been always asserted in that, and in the other House of Parliament. A bill founded
1303
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that a bill of this description having, last session, passed that House, was a sufficient reason why the motion should be received. He should not, however, pledge himself not to oppose this bill in its future stages. Whatever had been done with the former bill in the other House, should not enter into their consideration now. Last session, a charge had been preferred against a corporation, of having diverted charitable funds intrusted to their care, to the purposes of an election. A more serious charge could not be preferred; but he believed it was satisfactorily refuted.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he should support the bill, which was founded upon an excellent principle.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PENSIONS ON THE CIVIL LIST.]
Mr. Hume
, in rising to bring forward his motion, "to take into consideration the expediency of revising the Civil List, as far as regards the sums now appropriated to
1304
l.
1305
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1306
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1307
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it appeared that the hon. gentleman wished to bring under discussion the arrangement which had been entered into with his majesty at the beginning of his reign, and which, in every constitutional point of view, was then, and ought still to be, considered a final settlement of the Civil List, unless the Crown deviated from its part of the compact; and, by suffering an arrear to accumulate, was obliged to come to parliament for assistance. He would say, with the hon. gentleman, that this question had little to do with the feelings of his majesty. It was in that House a rule, and a very proper one, that we should forbear from mentioning matters personal to the sovereign. Keeping that rule in view, he would not enter into what
1308
1309
1310
Mr. Huskisson
said, his right hon. friend had taken a very correct view of the nature of the Civil List. He had, in his opinion, sufficiently illustrated the position, that it was not possible, without breaking through an arrangement, and putting the public to great inconvenience, to resume, during the present reign, any interference with that compact. The preamble to the act put an end to this question. He did not mean to say, that parliament, in its omnipotence, might not undertake anything; but, in this instance, they could not accede to such a motion, without breaking the agreement between the Crown and the public. Now, he thought that if they did break that compact—if the door were thrown open for the reclamation of the hereditary revenues—the country would not be the gainer. The doctrine brought forward that night had been reprobated by all the authorities on every side of that House. The hon. member had noticed the proceedings of 1812 and 1816. Why, on both those occasions, the Civil List was brought under their consideration, because the Crown had applied to parliament for assistance. On those occasions, the House certainly did receive that valuable information contained in the large volume referred to by the hon. member, relative to the expense of the larder, the kitchen, the stables, &c. He (Mr. Huskisson) had stated, on a former occasion, that he would not consent that the bins of his majesty's stables should be inspected to see what portion of oats was consumed from day to day; but, when he said that, he admitted, that if the Crown requested aid for the Civil List, then parliament had a right to inquire under what circumstances the debt had been incurred. But the hon. gentleman had gone further than he expected any individual would have done, when he called for a return of pensions chargeable on the Civil List, in order that he might see whether any of them were improperly
1311
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1312
l.
l.
l.
The House divided: Ayes 13; Noes 86; Majority 72.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, June 12th, 1828.
SOUTH AMERICAN PIRACY.]
1313
Lord Strangford
rose, for the purpose of presenting three petitions, deserving their lordships' most serious attention. The first came from a numerous body of merchants and ship-owners in London. The petitioners complained of the vast losses which they continued to sustain, in consequence of the system of Piracy and depredation, carried on under the flags of Buenos Ayres and Colombia. They complained of the almost annihilation of their; commerce with that part of the world; but they complained still less of the grievances which they themselves suffered, than of the revolting atrocities perpetrated on their fellow-subjects;—atrocities, in one instance (that of a ship called the "Morning Star," proceeding from Ceylon to this country) of such a nature, that a sentiment of respect towards their lordships prevented him from describing the manner in which Englishmen had been treated by the subjects of governments, which England herself made it her boast to have called into being. He knew, indeed, that these atrocities would be excused by those who were determined to discover nothing but what was good and virtuous in republican institutions, and who thought that the crimes of young states were juvenile indiscretions to be passed over. He knew it would be said, that it was extremely unfair to judge of the many from the conduct of the few, and to condemn a government for the acts of its servants; but when he saw that no effectual steps were taken to punish or apprehend the authors of these enormities—when he found, on the contrary, that they were, on their return to their country, promoted, and furnished with new vessels and new commissions, and sent anew roving and bucaniering against the commerce of friendly and neutral powers, he had a right to say, that some of these republics were founded and sustained by robbery. England might boast of this creation, but he feared she had produced no creditable progeny; and if the time ever came when we should have again to contend with the United States of Northern America, we should find that we had been recruiting for their navies, and that for their benefit, those colonies had been torn from that Spain, under whose responsibility we should wish that they had been allowed quietly to remain.—The second petition came from the merchants and ship-owners of Jersey. Jersey employs—or rather did employ—upwards
1314
1315
The Earl of Aberdeen
wished it was in his power to give that satisfaction which his noble friend desired, and which the subject to which the petitions referred undoubtedly deserved. He knew that his noble friend who preceded him in the office which he had the honour to fill, had made numerous and urgent recommendations on this subject to the South American governments; and he had great pleasure in stating, that the Brazilian government had promised that full reparation which the case demanded, and which was in the course of being made. With respect to the outrages mentioned by the noble lord, unquestionably the government of this country ought to extend protection to its subjects pursuing a lawful and peaceful commerce in those seas; and he trusted, that every possible reparation would be obtained. At least, those steps would not be wanting, which appeared most likely to obtain reparation. With respect to the subject of peace, he trusted that in much less time than the noble lord had mentioned, such a peace would be concluded as would afford the best opportunity of preventing future atrocities.
PORTUGAL—LORD BERESFORD'S EXPLANATION.]
Lord Dundas
said, that, in consequence of certain rumours which had been alluded to elsewhere, he wished to ask a noble lord opposite, whether or not there was any foundation for those rumours? He entertained no feeling of hostility to the noble lord in putting this question, which he was quite sure would be answered satisfactorily; convinced as he was, that that noble lord was incapable of carrying on any correspondence hostile to the interests of this country.
Lord Beresford
said, he wished to make no observation on the manner in which this accusation had been made, under circumstances which prevented the antidote from being applied to the poison. After a long residence in Portugal, and an intimate acquaintance with that country for upwards of twenty years, it was not extraordinary that he should have been on terms of friendly intercourse with many
1316
The Duke of Wellington
said, his noble friend had shown him the letters which he
1317
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 12, 1828.
SMITHFIELD MARKET.]
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that the butchers of the metropolis had intrusted him with a petition against the intended removal of Smithfield Market. The trade viewed this measure with great uneasiness, as it would occasion them considerable additional trouble and expense. The cost incidental to such a change must cause an increase of at least a penny per pound on all animal food sold in. the city. Should the subject be permitted to stand over till next session, he had no doubt the corporation of London would make application for a bill to remove the inconveniences now complained of.
Sir J. Yorke
said, it was absolutely necessary to alter the present system, if its effects were not much misrepresented. A document had been put into his hands, setting forth the expediency of this measure, but combining such nauseous details that he should not be surprised, what with the Grand Junction Water Company and this, to see a general vomit through the House. Father Thames was polluted by streams of putrid gore that never ceased disgorging their filth into its waters. From a regard, therefore, for the health and cleanliness of the city, he should be anxious to see the project now petitioned against carried into effect.
Colonel Trench
thought, that the present arrangements for slaughtering cattle were disgusting in the highest degree; and saw no reasonable objection to the introduction of the system so successfully acted on at Paris. He should be pleased to see the Milbank Penitentiary converted into an abattoir, as it seemed peculiarly eligible for that purpose.
Mr. Alderman Wood
deprecated any
1318
Ordered to he on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Sir F. Burdett
, in presenting a petition from the Catholic inhabitants of Drumlane, praying for Emancipation, remarked, that the claims which the people of Ireland so justly sought for from the legislature, had been disposed of, at least for a time, by the other House of parliament. He could not present this petition, without saying a few words upon the subject to which it referred. It appeared to him, that more rational expectations were now held out to the country of the final adjustment of this question and he trusted that they would have the beneficial effect of allaying that irritation which it was impossible for men situated like the people of Ireland not to feel. But he hoped and trusted, that better times were at hand, and that in the next session something would be done to settle this question. His hopes arose from what had occurred in another place, and from manner in which this question had been recently discussed; there. Such a view of the present state of things he was anxious to believe would; induce the Catholics of Ireland, while they relaxed not in their constitutional efforts for relief, to rely more confidently upon the approaching success of their claims. They should bear in mind that this branch of the legislature had repeatedly decided in favour of those claims; and they should recollect, that though the other House had refused to take them into consideration for the present, there were circumstances connected with their discussion there, which augured well for their final success. When he reflected upon the opinions which had been expressed in the course of that discussion,—when he found the most determined opponents of the measure looking at the question with a temper materially altered,—and when it was agreed upon all hands, that it was impossible for things to remain in their present state,—he did hope that in the ensuing session, his majesty's ministers would introduce some measure for the amelioration of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics. The obsolete objections which had been so frequently urged against the measure appeared to have been thrown aside. The noble duke who presided over his majesty's councils had
1319
odium theologicum
1320
1321
1322
1323
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as the hon. baronet had expressed a hope, that the present administration would take up this question in the next session, and introduce some measure for its settlement, lest any misconception should go abroad respecting his sentiments, he was anxious to speak upon this point for himself, and for himself alone. Under the constitution of the present government, each individual member of it was at liberty to entertain and support his own opinions regarding this question. Conceiving then, that it was only necessary for him to state his own individual opinion on the subject, he would refer the hon. baronet and the House to the declaration which he had repeatedly made respecting it, and, speaking then as an individual member of the government, he explained, as he was at liberty to do, his own sentiments on the question. To that declaration, and to those opinions, he still adhered, and he conceived that, in saying so, he had said enough to satisfy the House that his sentiments upon the subject remained unaltered.
Mr. W. Baring
remarked, that if the object of government was to preserve public order and defend those who had property from those who had it not, the situation of the government of Ireland must be peculiarly difficult; because there was no country in the world in which the division between the rich and the poor was so broad and sudden. In England, there were intermediate links in the chain of society between the highest and the lowest; but in that country they were wanting altogether. What resource had the government under these circumstances? Was it to rely upon the number of the
1324
Sir. J. Yorke
said, it was quite true, that all the
odium theologicum,
1325
Mr. Wynn
said, it was with extreme regret that he had heard of the vote to which the House of Lords had come, on the resolution transmitted from that House for their lordships' concurrence. He should have thought such a resolution could not have been met, in any British House of Parliament, by a negative. He could conceive that their lordships might have said, that they had not made up their minds on the subject: he could understand them, if they had asked for delay, and postponed the further consideration of the question to the next session: but he confessed he was not prepared for a negative from their lordships to a resolution couched in such language; and when it was notorious that every man, both in and out of parliament, concurred as to the dangerous situation of Ireland, it was surprising that their lordships should refuse to enter upon the consideration of the means by which they might possibly avert such danger. He had not had the advantage of hearing the debate which had taken place elsewhere; but he must confess that, judging from the reports which he had read, he indulged in none of the sanguine expectations of the hon. member for Westminster; judging by the report which he had seen, of the speech of the noble duke alluded to, he could merely see throughout it a studious wish to excite hopes, and an equally studious determination to say nothing which could warrant their existence. He greatly preferred the conduct of his right hon. friend opposite; it was open, and manly. He had referred to his former declaration. In that declaration, the right hon. gentleman had stated, that he would not be satisfied with any security which would not exclude Roman Catholics from parliament and from the councils of the state. However he might dissent from the right hon. gentleman, he could not charge him with that
1326
Lord Althorp
concurred with his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, in entertaining great expectations from the tone and temper with which the question had been discussed in the other House. It was gratifying to observe the difference which existed in that tone, from what was manifested on former occasions. The noble duke at the head of his majesty's councils admitted the existence of the danger which resulted from the agitation of this question, and he appeared desirous to settle it, if he could have sufficient securities. Now, this was an important admission. He trusted, however, that the Catholics of Ireland would not be induced, on that account, to press forward with less zeal, in the constitutional assertion of their rights. It was impossible that things could remain as they were, and some proposition must, sooner or later, be brought forward. The right hon. Secretary had informed them of the constitution of the present government; but he considered it a most unconstitutional administration. It was founded upon the principle of division with regard to a question of the greatest importance to the country; and, while so constituted, it never ought to have the confidence of that House. He never would give his confidence to such an administration; but, before he became directly hostile to it, he should wait to see its measures.
Sir T. Lethbridge
agreed with the noble lord as to the mischiefs of having an administration divided on this most vital question. He considered it as the greatest misfortune this country laboured under. If, of late, he had placed his confidence in his majesty's government, it was because
1327
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he agreed in the opinion, that the Catholic cause was rapidly gaining ground. The hon. baronet, who had last spoken, seemed to think, that the result which the friends of the Catholics had in view, was only to be gained by abstaining from discussion. But how was it, that the friends of the Catholic cause had made any progress in their great work? It was by discussion: and, if they hoped to make any progress hereafter, it must be, not by silence, but by discussion. If they abstained from discussion, the inference would be, that they were doubtful of the justice of their
1328
1329
1330
Lord Morpeth
said, he felt deeply for the situation of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects of Ireland, but he was not so sanguine in his hopes of the success of their cause, as some gentlemen appeared to be. There were, however, in the present state of affairs, some circumstances of a satisfactory nature, which led him to entertain a hope, that the ultimate fate of the question would be propitious. As to the motives of the noble duke at the head of the administration, he could, not dive into them; and therefore his hope was not founded on those motives. His hope rested on the declaration of the hon. baronet opposite, that the Catholic cause was making progress. If the noble duke had given any thing like a pledge for the settlement of this important question, that pledge ought to be redeemed. When a case of difficulty and danger was confessed to exist, it must be the paramount duty of a statesman to attempt to extricate his country therefrom. It was not the part of a statesman to excite any hope which he did not mean to satisfy. No individual should take a course from which a friendly feeling to the Catholics might be inferred, unless he intended to redeem the pledge thus given. These were the reasons which induced him to cherish a feeling of hope for the present, and of pleasing anticipation for the future. He trusted that another session would not
1331
Mr. Brougham
said, he entirely concurred with his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, in considering it a very serious evil, not to say a great calamity, that the other House had rejected their temperate resolution. But he must say, that though the resolution was rejected, there were great grounds for consolation. He admitted, with his hon. friend, that his hope was more lively a great deal than his faith, on the present occasion; but, nevertheless, there were some circumstances from which he derived great comfort, in the manner in which the resolution of that House had been rejected. No man who had attended to those circumstances could doubt that a better day was approaching. He could not say, that the circumstances to which he alluded arose from the co-operation of new allies, or the accession of new friends; but from the recorded admissions of former foes. The tone of their adversaries was different from what it used to be. The friends of the Catholics had not now arrayed against them the same unbending, intolerant, and bigotted spirit, by which all former attempts at conciliation and concession were uniformly opposed. They had, in the first place, all the theological lumber thrown overboard. They had no longer to talk of councils and decrees. It was now admitted, upon high authority, that this was a question of expediency alone, and must be met with legislation and not by negotiation. The latter was not the way to cops with the difficulty of the case. The legislature had no right to go to the Roman Catholics and say, "Will you take this portion of power, and give us this or that security?" That was not. The way to proceed. The legislature ought to make up their own minds on the subject. Due regard being had to the rights of the great body of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, it was for parliament to legislate according to the exigency of the occasion, and the situation of the empire, and it was for those who said that securities were necessary, to propound those securities. It was not for those who denied that any necessity for securities existed to come forward and propose securities. Enough had been admitted to point out to them how they
1332
Lord Ebrington
said, it had been his lot to hear those expressions in the other House to which so much importance was now attached. In those expressions there certainly was a tone which indicated the desire of some satisfactory termination of the question; but in the sequel it appeared, that there were great difficulties
1333
Mr. Peel
.—I was speaking in my individual capacity, and not as the organ of government.
Lord Ebrington
.—Now, when he considered the vague and unsatisfactory expressions which he had heard in another place, and contrasted them with the plain and distinct opinions which the right hon. gentleman had that evening avowed, he could not think that any thing was to be expected from government, with respect to this great question. In making this observation, he did not mean to say that he did not entertain hopes of the ultimate success of the question. He, however, grounded those hopes on the increasing information of the country, and the increasing spirit of liberality which was observable in that House.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 13, 1828.
CORN BILL.]
The Duke of Wellington
, in moving that this bill be read a second time, said, that the principle of it was to regulate the introduction of Foreign Corn into the home market, by a scale of duties, instead of by an entire prohibition under a certain price, and was thus the same principle which the House had adopted in the bill of last session. It ought to be observed, that the principle of prohibition was a new principle, until the act passed in 1815. Now, it appeared to him, that the corn trade ought always to be regulated by a scale of duties, rather than by means of a prohibition; and it was undoubtedly true, that from 1815 down to the present time, the system of prohibition had been found exceedingly inconvenient. Indeed, on a variety of occasions, it had become necessary for the government to interfere to introduce corn by proclamation into the country, to prevent, on the one hand, the price of it from rising to such a height as would inflict distress upon the consumer, and on the other such a subsequent influx of it from foreign ports, as would be prejudicial to the grower. On that ground it was, that the resolution to let in foreign corn by a scale of duties, rather than to keep it out by a system of prohibition, was
1334
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he gave his noble friend full credit for being convinced that this measure, under all the circumstances, was the best that could be devised; and he trusted that his noble friend would give him equal credit when he said, that he would not stand up to oppose his noble friend's measure, unless he was convinced that it would be prejudicial to the best interests of the country. He was sure he should not hear from his noble friend—indeed he doubted whether he should hear from any of their lordships—a repetition of the calumnies uttered on former occasions, when any one rose to 'advocate that side of the question which he was then going to advocate; namely; "that we are led, from interested motives, to secure a profit to ourselves as landholders, at the expense of the poorer classes of the community; in other words, that we are seeking to establish for ourselves a monopoly in the trade of corn." A monopoly ! In whose favour? In favour of the agriculturists? Could he be told, that a monopoly which was established in favour of the country at large, was productive of the injurious effects which attended private monopolies? He had never accused any public men of acting from private views of interest or ambition. He had himself never acted but
1335
1336
1337
1338
minimum
s.
s.
maximum
s.
s.
1339
d.
d.
1340
1341
1342
Lord Goderich
said, he knew not in what class of politicians the noble lord might be disposed to place him, according to the distinction which, with a mixture of good humour and severity, he had drawn upon the present occasion. The noble lord had described the difference of their respective opinions with perfect accuracy; but though he (lord Goderich) had maintained, both there and elsewhere, the principles of free trade, he was not such an absolute philosopher, as not to compromise the principle when it was necessary that he should do so in order to bring it into partial operation. But that compromise did not show that he was the less confident in the principle which he professed; for, though he differed totally in the view which the noble lord took of the present law, he would allow that it was impossible for this country to adopt the abstract principle of free trade, under all the complication of interests which had grown up with the wealth and resources of the nation. His opinion was, that the laws ought to be revised, with a view to bring them back to the state in which they stood before the late war. Therefore, he feared no charge against him as a theorist, or as one who did not care what became of the agricultural interest; nor did he fear that he could be fairly charged, upon the other hand, with having deserted the principle of free trade, of which he was an avowed and sincere supporter. The noble lord had argued as if they were now legislating upon a principle entirely new, and as if the policy which he supported was that which the country had always maintained; but nothing could be more fallacious than such an insinuation. In 1804, the high duty was first proposed up to the price of 54
s.
1343
s.
maximum,
minimum;
1344
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that up to a certain point it was always his opinion that prohibition should exist. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), who might be considered the father of the free-trade system, had admitted the miscalculation which he had committed in the first instance, in taking the average too low. When that was the case with respect to so experienced a judge, might he not suppose that, in the present year, the same mistake was committed? Supposing they had been last year legislating for a permanent measure, what would the consequence have been?—that they had taken a wrong average. Was that no argument for exercising caution now? It was surely not too much to ask that this country should be placed in the same state as other countries, with regard to that great article of consumption, corn, which could only be done by a contract between the grower and the consumer. It was not too much to expect from the consumer, that he should say, "I will give you a certain price, which shall be sufficient to protect you against the foreign grower." The ways in which foreign corn might operate against the grower of this country were various. He would give one instance. Suppose certain merchants had speculated in foreign corn to the amount of 300,000
l.
l.
1345
l.
l.
Lord King
said, he was somewhat in doubt as to whether he should oppose or support the bill; and that doubt arose from the measure not going far enough, as he thought, to weaken the monopoly of the landed interest. A noble lord had expressed his surprise that that should be called a monopoly which he said was for the benefit of the whole country. He, however, thought it was a monopoly for the advantage of one order of the state to the injury of every other. The only part of the bill he really liked was that which repealed the bill of 1815. He would take that opportunity of giving his parting malediction to that iniquitous measure. In his opinion, justice had never been done upon that old culprit. Even at that moment he felt surprised at the impudence with which that bill had been introduced. The object of those who introduced that measure was to keep the price of corn at 80
s.
s.
s.
1346
The Marquis of Bristol
said:—My long and near connexion with a noble earl now unfortunately secluded from public life, with whom this measure is known to have originated, and under the sanction of whose name it was first brought before the public, has made me watch its progress with peculiar interest, and as there is no individual who would have seen with more regret any modification of it inconsistent with the principles on which it was founded, I am anxious to take this opportunity of stating my entire satisfaction at the shape in which it now appears, and feel bound in candour to acknowledge, not only that the bill is substantially the same as the one proposed by lord Liverpool, but that the alterations in the scale of duties are practical improvements, and tend to secure more regular supplies and less fluctuating prices. Whatever difference of opinion, however, may prevail as to the measure itself, all must, I think, agree that the frequent debates upon this subject, and the long attention bestowed upon it, has been productive of infinite advantage, for it is notorious that all classes now take a far juster view of the question than they did last year. I feel confident that, notwithstanding every attempt to set one half of the country in hostile array against the other half, we shall all of us come out of these discussions, merchants, manufacturers, and agriculturists, with a fuller knowledge of our true interests, and with kinder feelings towards each other; above all, with a constant recollection that no one of the
1347
1348
1349
1350
Earl Stanhope
said, it was certainly necessary, as had been well stated by the noble duke, to give a due and adequate protection to the agriculture of this country, not only on account of its own importance, but also on account of the immense capital invested in it, and the vast numbers who were interested in its prosperity. He might consider that proposition as much better proved by the noble duke, than he could prove it; but, admitting and admiring, as he did, the doctrines of the noble duke, he could not but be surprised at the conclusion at which he had arrived. This was a dangerous innovation on the system which had preceded this new plan of graduated duties: for what was the former system? It had been said, that it was a system of monopoly; but he contended that it was not a system of monopoly, but of protection. In his view of the subject, however, these duties would not be prohibitory, and he would endeavour to show, when the bill came to be committed, that the duties would not be prohibitory, and that there was the strongest ground for apprehension, that the measure would prove injurious to the rents of the landlord, the constitution, and the government. The noble marquis had admitted, that the prosperity of the country depended upon its own supply of the necessaries of life for its own population; and in this he was confirmed by the opinion even of Mr. Jacob, who distinctly stated, that the country ought not to be dependent for the supplies of the necessaries of life upon other countries, but that we ought to look for those supplies, if not exclusively, yet chiefly, to our own country. The system of protecting our own agricultural produce from the too great pressure of foreign competition was of a very old date, much older than the time of Charles 2nd; but, in that reign, when the price of wheat was 56
s.
s.
1351
s.
l.
l.
l.
1352
Lord Ellenborough
regretted, that his noble friend objected to the principle of the measure. Now, it was his perfect conviction, that ministers could not have discharged their duty if they had brought before their lordships any bill respecting the Corn-laws, founded on any other principle than that which was generally adopted by the two Houses last year, and upon which the present bill was founded. His noble friend had stated, that he (lord E.) had given his consent to the measure of last year as a temporary measure, and as an experiment. That was perfectly true it was only as an experiment that he could have consented to that measure; but, having had the example of that experiment, he had now applied the benefit of that experience to the bill before their lordships, His noble friend had dealt more harshly with the measure of last year than he was disposed to do. He had attributed the whole of the reduction in the price of wheat, which had taken place in the six months subsequent, to the introduction of five hundred thousand quarters of corn, which had come into the home market under the operation of that act. His noble friend forgot that the price of corn, subsequent to the introduction of the five hundred thousand quarters, could not have been solely affected by the introduction of that known small quantity of corn, but also by the unknown quantity of the whole harvest. If his noble friend, and other noble lords, were determined to oppose every measure which should not have the character of permanency, he feared, it would be impossible to introduce any measure which could secure their support. A permanent measure on the subject of corn was, in its very nature, impossible. If any measure should be founded, as proposed by a noble lord, on the extreme principle of free trade, the ruin which that principle
1353
s.
1354
Lord Redesdale
said, he disapproved of the system, because it promoted speculation; which was what he most dreaded. They should always remember, that what was produced in a country cost it nothing; but that what was brought from other countries must be paid for. Applying this principle to the Corn-laws, he contended, that it was wise to produce as much as possible of those things to which the climate and soil of a country were adapted. It was right to encourage the productions of our own country; for they supported whatever trade we had. If our own country were to become barren, or to cease to produce, even our people must perish.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 13,1828.
SMITHFIELD MARKET.]
Mr. R. Gor-
1355
Mr. Alderman Wood
objected to the motion. If a bill for the alteration of this market should be brought in next session, he would cheerfully support it. The contemplated measure would affect nearly 5,000,000
l.
Mr. Benett
thought, that the establishment of a market at the west end of the town would be most beneficial to the interests of the metropolis.
Mr. Lennard
insisted on the necessity of a change, and enlarged on the disgusting spectacle which Whitechapel-market presented on slaughter-days.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that the printed statements were entirely fallacious. He must say, that this attempt to remove Smithfield-market was a job for the advantage of a few individuals. He denied that the evils were of the nature stated by those who called for the removal. Great odium was thrown on the city, because it did not provide adequate space; but every thing that could be done for that purpose had been since done. As to the state of the slaughter-houses, none in Paris or elsewhere could be cleaner than those in Newgate and Leadenhall-markets. These were under the control of the Corporation, who had spent thousands in improving them. When the city asked the sanction of the House for the removal of this market, partial interests interfered, and the bill was successfully opposed, after it had passed that House. Another time, when the city proposed the enlargement of the market, the bill was thrown out in the Lords, because some peers, who happened to be governors of the Charter-house, were afraid that the annoyance of the cattle would be brought too near that seminary. The Corporation; had since expended 25,000
l.
1356
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was no anxious to see any measure precipitated which might affect vested interests of so much magnitude; more particularly when the representatives of the city declared their readiness to give the fullest consideration to any plan for the improvement of the market. The master-butchers of Smithfield had once applied to him, when he was represented as having intended the establishment of
abattoirs.
The amendment was withdrawn and a committee appointed.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.]
On the Order of the Day for going into a Committee of Supply,
Colonel Davies
opposed the Speaker's
1357
l.
l.
1358
Mr. Alderman Waithman
strongly recommended a rigid system of economy.
Mr. Monck
insisted upon the absolute necessity' of reduction, in the present state of the country.
Mr. Hume
said, that the general apathy which existed on this subject appeared to him very extraordinary. In 1822 and 1823, that House and the country were clamorous for reduction in the public expenditure; they now scarcely heard a word upon the subject, although some millions had been added to the expenditure. If they did not adopt a system of reduction now, what could they do when a war should come? They were now about to vote upwards of 16,000,000
l.
l.
1359
Mr. W. Smith
said, he was quite sure the country could not bear the burthen which was thrown upon it. It was perfectly clear that their expenses were increasing, while they ought to be diminished. The utmost amount of debt reduced since 1813 was 2,700,000
l.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that in submitting the Army Estimates to the committee, he did not mean to occupy any great, portion of their attention. He confessed that he came before the committee under some degree of disadvantage; because he had not been able to render himself so completely master of the details as he could wish. Much of the inconvenience was, however, removed by the discussion which had taken place, about two months ago, with respect to the force which was intended to be kept up. On that occasion his noble friend had got a vote of money on account, preparatory to the in-
1360
l.
l.
l.
l.
1361
l.
Colonel Davies
maintained that if colonial corps were established to the number of twenty or thirty thousand men—there would then be no stigma attached to them. They would be well officered; and being well officered would be as effective and valuable as any other troops. He admitted, that there were advantages attendant on the dépôt companies; but their great expense was objectionable. We really were descending from that 'vantage ground which our insular situation gave us. While we retained the command of the sea, it was impossible that any foreign power could invade our West-India islands, before we could send out a force capable of resisting. The military men of this country argued as if we were a continental state. If we were like Austria, or Prussia, then, indeed, we must always maintain a large military force, however the expense of doing so might depress our commerce or agriculture. But, in our insular state, the maintenance of such a force was unnecessary.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that English gentlemen were the best officers in the world. If regiments were permanently established in the colonies, they would be deprived of the greater part of those officers.
Mr. Hume
referred to the case of the troops in India, who were permanently established there; and who, nevertheless, were as good soldiers as any in the world.
1362
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, the fact was, that the establishment of each regiment now consisted of seven hundred and forty men, or ten companies, but with no more officers than if the rank and file of each regiment had amounted to eight hundred men. In 1792, the same number of officers would have belonged only to four ! hundred men. It was his sincere opinion, that the present organization of the army was the best that had been formed within his memory. He denied that the officers of the dépôt companies were employed in recruiting; but he admitted that they were occupied in drilling and training recruits. The only officers employed in re-
1363
s.
Colonel Trench
said, that the system of the war department reflected equal credit on those who had gone out, and those who were in. He was anxious to make a short statement in opposition to that of the hon. member for Aberdeen, in justice to the memory of an illustrious individual, now no more, under whose superintendence the army had arrived at its present improved condition. He then entered into various calculations, to prove that the cost of the same number of cavalry and infantry, in 1792, was precisely 453,000
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
observed, that this was a most useless vote. It was a charge for educating young men for the army, which the country ought not to pay. The sum we had already paid during the last ten years, amounted to232,437
l.
l.
Sir A. Hope
said, that as one of the commissioners to whom the confidence of the Crown had committed the superintendence of this establishment, he felt it his duty to defend it against the attacks of the hon. member. The establishment was not, as the hon. member had said, for boys. It was for the education of the staff. In 1792, a favourite year with the hon. member, we had no education for the army; and the exercise of firing by platoons, or a general salute to a commanding officer, were the only education of our officers. In the war in Flanders, to the disgrace of our army, we had to ap-
1364
The resolution was agreed to.
GAME BILL.]
Mr. Stuart Worthy
, in moving that the House go into a Committee on this bill, observed, that the bill had received the sanction of the aristocracy and the great landed proprietors of the kingdom. The scarcity of game in I the market had long held out to poachers a temptation to the commission of depredations upon the preserves; but he was satisfied that this bill, by rendering game less valuable, would materially check the evil.
Sir John Brydges
said, he altogether disapproved of the bill. The interests of the class of independent country gentlemen would be sacrificed by it, and the higher and the lower orders only would be benefitted. The first being enabled from extensive and uninterrupted acres, to bring to market a very profitable produce of game for sale; and the last, receiving a right to kill game on their own lands, by possessing ten acres only. Under this provision, it would be no longer possible for those country gentlemen, living in that part of England where property was much divided, to protect their game. This ten acre qualification would be a constant source of altercation, and would greatly tend to create ill blood between neighbours, who would otherwise live in harmony. This bill would operate against the inducement country gentlemen should feel, to reside on their estates; a most mischievous effect, and which was one of the great evils tinder which Ireland was suffering. As to
1365
Sir J. Shelley
said, he had for many years opposed the principle of this bill; but he felt it his duty no longer to do so. He had not relinquished any of his opinions on the subject of these laws; but they would not be interfered with by the principle of this bill. One of the great evils of the Game-laws arose from the system of battues, which was the practice of enticing the game into a corner, and destroying them there. The crime of poaching was chiefly encouraged by the mode of keeping preserves.
Sir H. Vivian
said, that from the facilities which the bill gave to the sale of game, he thought that poachers would increase. Wherever preserves sprang up, poachers invariably sprang up also. By lowering the qualification, as was proposed, idler-ness and brawls would be encouraged among the inferior classes, and particularly amongst young farmers and apprentices. It would also have the effect of driving the country gentlemen to the metropolis; as they would no longer have the exclusive right of sporting, which constituted their principal amusement. If the bill should pass, he hoped it might receive such alterations, as would render it more beneficial to the country.
Mr. C. Wood
said, that some alteration in these laws was required by the country, and he thought that alteration likely to be effected by the present bill. It was notorious, that there was a feeling in favour of poachers, which prevented them from being visited by the punishment which the law enacted.
Lord W. Powlett
approved of the bill, because it would decrease the remuneration for poaching, and would consequently diminish the crime.
Mr. R. Colborne
would not oppose the measure, although ho did not altogether accede to its principle or provisions.
Mr. F. Lewis
supported the bill. The present laws for preventing poaching were quite inoperative; whereas the law proposed to be enacted might be acted upon, He considered that the quantity of game would be increased under the proposed bill; as farmers, finding a legal mode of
1366
Mr. Secretary Peel
supported the bill, although he was not so sanguine in his expectations of its success, as were some of his friends. He felt convinced that the present system was a bad one, and that the adoption of this measure would be one great step towards its amendment. At present, no man could preserve his game, without the employment of an armed force, and this created a disagreeable feeling between parties who ought to stand in a different relation towards each other. He thought certain qualifications might be introduced, which would induce the owner of small portions of land to part with their right of sporting and sale of game to their more opulent neighbours.
Lord Morpeth
approved of the general principle of the measure, and observed, that his hon. friend, and his noble relative in the other House, deserved the thanks of the country for bringing it forward.
Mr. Duncombe
supported the bill, on the ground that legalising the sale of game would put an end to poaching.
Mr. G. Lamb
wished to see the market for the sale of game thrown open; but he feared that this bill would not effect all the desired purposes.
Mr. Benett
supported the bill, as one step towards an improvement of the existing code of laws.
The bill was then committed.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, June 16.
PROTEST AGAINST THE CORN BILL.]
The following Protest was entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient.—Because the bill, imposing high and most unreasonable duties on the importation of foreign corn, is most impolitic, if intended as a source of revenue, inasmuch as taxes laid upon the necessaries of life increase the cost of labour, diminish the profit of capital, and are the immediate cause of general decay and impoverishment. It is most unjust, if intended to enhance the price of corn for the advantage of individuals, inasmuch as a monopoly for that purpose is opposed to the first principles of legislation, and invades the rights of the community at large.
"2nd. Because it is an abuse of the legislative, power, held in trust for the pub-
1367
"3rd. Because the present bill affords no expectation of establishing a final settlement of the Corn-laws, so desirable and necessary for the country, after suffering the evil of monopoly, fluctuation, and uncertainty, for a period of thirteen years; but utterly hopeless, until the proposed laws shall be consonant to sound policy, common right, and equal justice.
"4th. Because a varying scale of duties has the effect of making the importation of corn irregular, on account of the apprehension of unfavourable, or the expectation of favourable, opportunities; whereas a moderate fixed duty would encourage a large investment of capital in the corn trade, and thereby afford the best security which the nature of the commodity allows, of obtaining steady prices, no less desirable to the consumer than to the producer of grain.
(Signed) "KING."
STAMP DUTIES IN INDIA.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he had a petition to present from the merchants, traders, and inhabitants of one of our most important colonial possessions, Calcutta, who thought themselves aggrieved by transactions which had taken place there. These opulent persons complained that, without any sufficient notice, and on grounds which they considered illegal, the local government imposed a heavy stamp-duty on all transactions which might take place in that city. The local government had thought itself entitled to raise that duty, under the 53rd of the late king, by which
1368
Lord Melville
said, that this subject was submitted to their consideration, first, upon the legality of the proceeding, and next, on its expediency. With respect to the former, he thought it quite clear, that, by the 53rd of the late king, there was a legal power to impose this tax: it had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the judges of which were unanimous as to the strict legality of the act. If die parties were dissatisfied, why not bring the question before the privy council in the form of an-
1369
Ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTCH PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS
The House having gone into a committee on this bill,
Lord Melville
said, he must oppose this bill, because its enactments were quite at variance with the title. It purported to extend the period necessary to constitute a Settlement in Scotland; but this it did not do, for it left the natives of Scotland in this respect where it found them, while it extended from three to seven years the time of settlement for persons who were not natives of Scotland. The sole object of this bill was, in fact, to prevent the influx of the poor Irish into Scotland. This mode of legislating was contrary to the spirit of the Act of Union, and was unfair and invidious. He would move, as an amendment, that the words "not being a native of Scotland," be omitted. The omission of those words would make the bill a general bill, and prevent it from being applicable to particular individuals only. He would also omit the proviso of the bill. He was not, however, prepared to defend his own amendment; for he thought it would be much better to defer the consideration of the whole measure to the next session.
The Earl of Rosebery
said, he should not press his opposition to the amendment to a division; but if any other noble lord should divide the House, he would divide with him. He exonerated the bill from the charge of its being an anti-national bill, as affecting the people of Ireland, and contended, that the amendment completely
1370
Lord Napier
said, he must oppose the bill, as it went to subvert the ancient system of poor-laws in Scotland. He believed that altering the time necessary to obtain a settlement from five to seven, years, would make the case much worse than it was at present. This bill had been passed by the other House, in consequence of a petition from the manufacturers of Glasgow; and yet he understood that whenever the manufacturers of Glasgow were in want of hands, they sent to Ireland to obtain them. The Irishmen came over in crowds: and then, at the end of five or seven years, the Glasgow manufacturers having sucked their blood, became anxious to get rid of them. He looked upon such conduct as a species of barbarity, which the House ought not to tolerate.
The Marquis of Bute
said, he had doubts whether the evils which this bill was intended to remedy would be remedied by extending the time necessary to obtain a settlement in Scotland. This bill was not brought forward entirely on the representations of the manufacturers of Glasgow; for the evil was felt pretty generally throughout Scotland. He would adopt the alteration which had been proposed by the noble viscount; and would then let the bill drop for the present session, not by withdrawing it, but by failing to move its further progress. Such a mode of proceeding would call the consideration of parliament to it in an increased degree next session.
The Earl of Limerick
said, that as this bill was founded on a principle of exclusion, it had been his intention to oppose it; but, after the declaration of the noble viscount, he considered it to be already dead in law. He deprecated the introduction of the English system of poor-laws into Ireland; and contended, that the emigration of the redundant population of Ireland into Scotland was calculated to raise the emigrating population to the same moral level with that on which the population stood among which it settled.
The Earl of Haddington
said, that the opposition which had been made to this bill, would create a strong impression in Scotland, that something ought to be done
1371
The amendment was agreed to. The report was brought up and ordered to be received this day three months.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 16.
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S BILL.]
The Attorney-general having moved the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Hume
said, he could not consent to the passing of this bill in its present state. An account of the fees and emoluments accruing from the offices of which his grace had the appointment had been put into his hands. The salary of the principal registrar, in the year 1826, had amounted to 7,600
l.,
l.,
1372
The Attorney-general
said, that the report of the committee alluded to was highly creditable to the manner in which the duties of the situation had been invariably discharged, and he could not consent to the principal officer being superseded. Such a measure could not change the nature of the office, although it would withdraw the responsibility from the persons in whose hands it was most suitably intrusted. Nor had the report animadverted on the fees of the office as being too large for the duties which it imposed. He doubted whether the hon. gentleman, though so rigid an economist, would think 12
d.
Mr. Wynn
supported the amendment. They were now called upon to continue a sinecure amounting to 8,000
l.
l.
Dr. Lushington
said, he was not convinced of the justice or necessity of such a course. He nevertheless was by no means prepared to say, that this office was not a fit subject for future regulation. It was at present conducted in a manner satisfactory to the public; and it ought to be remembered, that the archbishop would have the power to introduce younger lives, in the event of the bill being rejected.
Dr. Phillimore
said, that in 1810, on the recommendation of a committee, cer-
1373
l.
l.
l.
The Solicitor-general
said, the office had already undergone the sifting of a committee, whose report was on the table of the House: it was therefore rather hard to say now that it required revision and regulation. The real question before the House was, whether the position in which the parties stood—seeing that under certain circumstances they had been obliged to come before the House to claim its aid—was such as to call upon that House to do that circuitously and indirectly, which it had not taken up openly and directly [hear]. The commission in 1823, which suggested the abolition of certain offices, never mentioned this.
Sir J. Yorke
said, it appeared that enormous emoluments were attached to this office, and a great increase had taken place in those emoluments, while the duties of the office were performed by deputy. Now reductions should be made in offices of that description before the House were called upon to reduce the pay and half-pay of those poor fellows who had fought and bled for their country.
The House then divided: For the Amendment 49; Against it 83; Majority 34.
EAST INDIA TRADE—EQUALIZATION
Mr. Huskisson
said, that, although he had given notice of his intention to present a petition from the Merchants of Calcutta re-
1374
1375
Mr. Whitmore
said, he did not agree with his right hon. friend, that this question ought not to be discussed on the present occasion. On the contrary, such was its importance, that it ought constantly to be before the House. They had an empire in India, covering nearly thirty degrees of latitude, and upwards of thirty
1376
1377
Mr. Hume
was greatly pleased that the right hon. gentleman had presented a petition, which stated so broadly and so justly the principles on which the House ought to proceed. If they looked back, however, to what had been done since the last renewal of the Company's charter, they would find that there was not one of those important principles that had not been violated in India. The petition contained two main propositions; one with regard to free trade, and the other with respect to the intercourse of Europeans with India. The rights of British subjects in that country had been violated by the act of parliament, and by every regulation passed by the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. While 27
l.
l.
1378
Mr. Astell
declined going into the wide field opened by the hon. member, and which had no connection with the petition. Whether the system of government adopted with regard to India ought to be changed or not was not now the question; he would not, therefore, enter into it. But he could not hear the hon. member charge the East-India Company with prejudice and monopoly, without denying that any such charge properly attached to them. He presumed to think, that in the government of India the Court of Directors exercised their honest judgment. Whenever that question came before the House, he should be prepared to go into it.
Mr. Baring
agreed, that this was too wide a question to be discussed on a petition. When the great question of the charter came on, and also the question of the monopoly of the China trade, that would be the proper time for discussion. This question, than which he knew of no one of greater importance, had, he must say, been treated by his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) on the most narrow scale possible. It was not a question of indigo or sugar: it rested upon much more important grounds. As to the question of East-India Sugar, he believed that it had been altogether overrated, both with respect to the benefits which the West Indians derived from the restriction, and with respect to the extent to which the East Indians could carry this trade. Sugar never would come from the East Indies but in the way of ballast; and he entertained great doubts whether a large quantity of sugar could ever be raised in the East Indies.
Mr. Warburton
said, the hon. member had spoken as if it had ever been contended, that colonization should be effected in India as in Canada. Their object, as to Canada, was to send out their pauper population there; but could any one be absurd enough to propose, that paupers should be sent to a country, where the wages of the labourer were under 3
d.
1379
Mr. Robert Grant
said, that the petition was extremely mild and temperate. It called upon the House to consider whether the prohibitions upon the intercourse of Europeans with the interior of the country,—prohibitions imposed, not by the company but by the parliament, and also the commercial restrictions, ought to be allowed to continue. As to the intercourse of Europeans with the interior, whether the prohibition were right or wrong, it had existed from all time; and the petitioners, not venturing to point out any course for the adoption of the House, merely prayed that they would take into their consideration, whether it would not be expedient to repeal the act of parliament which enacted this prohibition; and he would appeal to the House, whether these temperate petitioners were treated fairly by gentlemen who introduced angry and irritating topics. With respect to the renewal of the charter, he was so deeply impressed with the difficulties of the question and the magnitude of the interests involved, that he must suspend his judgment. Whenever he came to give his vote on the subject he should have the satisfaction of knowing that his judgment had been conscientiously formed. He would, however, say, that this was not merely a commercial question. The interests of millions were connected with it in a commercial, but they were infinitely more closely connected with it in a political, point of view. He remembered when evidence was heard at the bar of the House, prior to the last renewal of the charter, that sir Thomas Munro had given it as his opinion, that, considered simply as a commercial question, freedom from restriction would considerably increase the
1380
Mr. Courtenay
said, that since the year 1813, he had been witness to many great and important alterations, all of which wore in favour of the removal of restrictions. If the discussion was continued, it would be impossible to get through the orders of the day; one of which would give him an opportunity of carrying into effect some of the recommendations of hon. gentlemen.
Ordered to lie on the table.
BANK NOTES (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill.
Mr. Hume
said, that the object of the bill was to restrain Scotch Bank Notes from circulating in England. This must lessen the circulating medium of England. He had objected to putting an end to the small notes, in 1826; and he had seen nothing since to induce him to change his opinion. Did the right hon. gentleman mean to make any difference in principle, between a paper circulation of 1
l.
l.
1381
l.
l.
1382
Lord Howick
said, he would oppose the present bill, simply upon the ground of the excessive mischief which it must produce in the north, when the same money which was current on one side of a given line, would now be forbidden to be received on the other. The effect of such a law could only be, that it would be violated, whenever men's interests were concerned in setting it at defiance; and a system of informing would grow up: men would take a Scotch note from their employer one day, and inform against him the next.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
believed that the chancellor of the Exchequer had estimated the small-note currency of the kingdom too low. The right hon. gentleman had put the whole amount under two millions and a half. But there were six-hundred and sixty-eight bankers in England; more than five hundred were issuers of one-pound notes; and, supposing each to have only 10,000
l.
l.
1383
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the bill before them, which was one of the most absurd pieces of legislation ever introduced into that House. It granted a great boon to Scotland, and imposed a great privation on England. If he read its provisions rightly, they amounted to this—If an Englishman took a Scotch note of 20
s.
l.
l.
Mr. Baring
said, that the objection of the hon. member would most properly come before the House when the bill was in committee. As on the general question of restricting the circulation of the one-pound notes, there might be a difference of opinion; but it having been agreed that the issue of such notes in England should cease, to forbid the circulation of Scotch notes of the same description on this side the border seemed to follow as patter of course. If this bill were not
1384
1385
1386
Sir H. Parnell
said, his hon. friend had himself supplied an answer to his own case, by admitting the difficulties which would be experienced by the limitation of the currency. The argument assumed was, that the Scotch notes would, if permitted to cross the border, spread over England. Now, if we were to resort to practice instead of theory, we were supplied with it by the experience of what occurred in 1797. In the inquiry with respect to Scotch banks, it was proved that no Scotch notes found their way to England; so that any supposed injury on this ground was to be left out of the question. Where notes were circulated in the counties adjoining each side of the border, the English bankers might take the notes of their Scottish neighbours, and have theirs taken in the same way; but the more distant inland bankers, who had not the same connexion with Scotland, would not be in the same situation; and therefore the apprehension of a general circulation of Scotch notes was groundless. But the case of 1797 was the best proof that there was no ground to justify the course now proposed. The truth was, that his hon. friend and the right hon. secretary, had made up their minds, that the best currency they could have was a large metallic circulation. This was the fallacy on
1387
Mr. Bankes
said, he was no friend to a paper currency, for its own sake: as far as he could avoid it he would; but it was frequently necessary. That he believed to be the case in the present instance, and that was one objection to this bill. Another was, that the bill was wholly unnecessary. He was speaking of the circulation of small notes in a certain portion of England, and of their not going beyond it. This was found to be a great convenience. Why, then, should the chancellor of the Exchequer wish to disturb it? He spoke not of the advantage of the system
1388
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that of all the arguments which he had heard on this subject, that just delivered by his hon. friend was, without disrespect to him, the most ridiculous. He admitted, that our currency v"as never in a more prosperous state; and he urged that as a reason for
1389
ad infinitum:
1390
l.
l.
l.
l.,
Mr. P. Thompson
said, that if he could be persuaded to believe, that the Scotch notes would spread themselves from that country to Northampton, and from Northampton to London, he would have no objection to vote for the present measure.
1391
Mr. Manning
said, it was evident that the small notes now in circulation might continue in circulation for a considerable period after 1829. He thought that, having endured a great part of the inconvenience resulting from a return to a metallic currency, the House should not now undo its former labours. He had no objection to the circulation of small notes in Scotland, but as they occasionally circulated in the northern parts of England, he thought it desirable to adopt the proposition of the chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Whitmore
said, that the country had passed the period of greatest pressure, in the progress of resuming a gold currency. He believed that, unless the bill passed, much mischief would be caused in England by the circulation of Scotch notes.
Lord Ebrington
believed, that the legislature, by requiring securities of the country bankers, would obtain all the advantages, without running the risk of any of
1392
The House divided: For going into the Committee 115; For Mr. Hume's Amendment 24: Majority 91. The House went into the committee, when several verbal amendments were agreed to
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 17, 1828.
SCOTCH PEERAGE BILL.]
Lord Belhaven
, in moving the second reading of the Scotch Peerage Bill, contended that this measure was not a contravention of any of the articles of Union. He introduced it with the consent of the great majority of the Scottish peers. His first object was to place the representative peers of Scotland on the same footing as other noble lords in that House; and next, to have them eligible, if they thought proper, to sit in the lower House of parliament, as members for counties and boroughs.
The Earl of Mansfield
felt convinced, that the bill not only went to repeal some of the provisions of the Act of Union, but of another act connected with it. The first clause went to allow the sixteen Scottish peers next elected to sit for life. This was contrary to the Act of Union, for, by that act, a certain number of the peers were selected lo represent the whole body; and though the connexion between the constituency and the elected was weak, still it was, at certain intervals, redeemable, and the electors could on such occasions testify their sense of the manner in which the trust was performed, by either rejection or re-election. Another part of the bill went to empower Scottish peers to be elected as members of the Commons. This practice was tolerated by the Act of Union with Ireland, still he could not consent, to tamper with the compact made in behalf of Scotland. They should always remember, that one of the parties could never be replaced in its previous position. In the peerage question of 1719, and in the duke of Richmond's bill of 1780, the Act of Union was held to be inviolable. If they now began to alter it, where would they stop? Would they go on to avoid the other proviso, by which papists and persons suspected of popery, were excluded from being either electors or representatives. The next point related to eldest sons of peers; and he did not know how far this arrangement was stipu-
1393
The Earl of Rosebery
said, that he had been at first adverse to this measure, but was now in favour of it. As to the argument of its being in contravention of the Act of Union, that act had been violated within a year and a half after its enactment? By the 6th and 7th of queen Anne, the mode of electing Scottish peers, as fixed by the Act of Union, had been entirely altered. In George 2nd's time the hereditary jurisdiction had been overthrown, and the law of forfeiture had undergone great alteration. There could, therefore, be no great stress laid upon the inviolability of the Act of Union. The question that followed was simply this—was the proposed alteration likely to be beneficial or not? He thought that to elect the representative peers of Scotland for life would be a great improvement on the present system. It would be more consistent with the dignity of a legislative peerage; it would elevate the character of the representative peers; and it would, therefore, confer a benefit on all who were entitled to aspire to that high honour.—With regard to that part of the bill which would enable those peers who were not representative peers to sit in the House of Commons, he was surprised to hear it represented as a degradation to the peerage of Scotland. It appeared hard that the eldest sons of Scottish peers should not sit in parliament for the counties and boroughs with which they were connected; and still harder that the eldest sons of Scotch gentlemen, created peers since the Union, should possess that privilege which was denied to the eldest sons of the old aristocracy. He was, however, of opinion, that a bill to remedy this anomaly ought to be introduced. The bill, as a substantive measure, appeared to him calculated to raise the character of the peerage of Scotland.
The Earl of Huddington
said, he would
1394
1395
Lord Melville
said, he should oppose the bill in all its parts, as a direct violation both of the letter and spirit of the treaty of Union. It was as competent to their lordships to make a law, declaring that the forty-five representatives of the shires and boroughs should hold their seats in the other House for life, as it was for them to carry the proposed bill into a law. Nothing short of absolute necessity could justify their lordships in departing from the treaty of Union; and no such necessity existed. A majority of the Scotch peers being favourable to the measure was not a sufficient ground for passing such a resolution: if a single peer were against it, he had a right to demand that the treaty of Union should be adhered to. The measure was against the interest of the peers of Scotland. It had been contended that not more than forty Scotch peers
1396
The Earl of Lauderdale
approved of the measure, and thought it would be highly advantageous to the peers of Scotland to have their privileges, with respect to sitting in parliament, assimilated to those of the peers of Ireland. The measure was founded upon the experience drawn from the Irish Union, and from seeing how well it worked with respect to the representative peers in that House. He could inform the noble viscount, with respect to the twenty Scotch peers put into that House by patents of English peerage, that the House had come to a resolution, that they should not have the right of voting. But, in a few years, in the case of a contested election, the House violated its own order. On that occasion the articles of Union were dwelt upon by both sides as making out their case. The Union had always been kept or violated by the hand of power, as it was found convenient. With respect to the proportion of the land-tax settled by the act of Union, it had been virtually violated by the imposition of the property tax. He had wished to resist this latter imposition in the court of Exchequer, as a breach of the articles of Union; but he could not procure a single peer to join him in his resistance. He thought it right that the eldest
1397
Lord Redesdale
said, that the measure was directly opposed to the articles of Union. No doubt their lordships had the power to alter those articles if they thought fit; but it would be a question whether it would be right to exercise it. If the measure were to be brought forward at all, it should be in another shape.
Lord Belhaven
said, that after what had passed, he would not take the sense of their lordships upon the measure, but should consider himself pledged to bring it forward next session.
The amendment was agreed to. The bill was consequently lost.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 17,1828.
STAMP TAX IN INDIA.]
Sir James Mackintosh
, in rising to present a petition from "the Inhabitants of Calcutta against the Imposition of a Stamp Tax," said, that whether he considered the place from which the petition came, or the nature of the grievances of which it complained, he felt himself borne out in stating, that the petitioners possessed peculiar claims upon the attention of the House. In the first place, it related to a grievance in regard to the raising of money upon British subjects—a matter which was an
1398
s.
s.
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
l.
l.
l.
1404
l.
1405
Mr. Wynn
said, he could not help doubting whether his right hon. friend, if a select committee were appointed, would be able, in the slightest degree, to obtain the objects enumerated in his speech. The petition simply pointed out the objections which the petitioners entertained, with respect to the stamp regulations of Calcutta; and it called on the House to pass a declaratory act, denying the right of the government of India to frame such a regulation. That being the scope of the petition, he doubted whether a committee appointed to consider its prayer, could inquire into the various objects mentioned by his right hon. friend. He admitted, however, that the subjects introduced by his right hon. friend were well worthy the attentive consideration of the House; and he trusted that, at a proper time, due attention would be paid to them. He now wished to call the attention of the House to a particular point, which his right hon. friend seemed to think of no importance whatever. Now, he contended that, by a clause of the 53rd of George 3rd, the go-
1406
1407
1408
1409
Mr. Hume
said, he would make a few observations upon the concluding part of the right hon. gentleman's speech. The right hon. gentleman said, he thought the period too early for inquiry; but, if evidence was to be the rule on which that House was to proceed, the inquiry ought
1410
1411
Lord Ashley
said, that no man could be more alive than he was to the propriety of doing every thing for our fellow-subjects in India which could be done for the people of this country, but complaints had been brought forward on the other side, which were void of reasonable foundation. It was difficult to make taxation palatable; and to the stamp duty considerable dislike appeared to be entertained. But many circumstances had been dwelt upon as grievances, which, in point of fact, could not be considered as taxes at all. For instance, lotteries could not be called a direct tax. But all that was gained by them the government laid out in cleansing and beautifying the city of Calcutta. The portage and harbourage dues also did not defray the expenses attendant upon the
1412
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Trant
said, he had long been resident amongst the British merchants in Calcutta, and was satisfied that no class of men possessed greater advantages, or had less to complain of, than those per-
1413
Mr. Astell
said, that this was the case of petitioners who were merchants of Calcutta, complaining of certain duties imposed upon stamps, which they denounced as illegal and impolitic. As to the impolicy of those duties, he would remind the House, that the governor and council had actually, of late years, remitted several duties and taxes. The happiness of the people of Calcutta had gone hand in hand with their commercial wealth and prosperity. The complaints put forth by those who styled themselves the advocates of India, were extremely ill-founded. He contended for the legality of the impost which had been petitioned against, and vindicated generally the government of the East-India Company. There was no real impediment, he observed, to British settlers going out to India; for none able and willing to be of use there were refused the facilities of going out. The hon. member then proceeded to notice the demand for a free press, which he strenuously combatted, and concluded by expressing his determination to resist the motion before the House.
Mr. Brougham
said, that rather than that nothing should be done, in consequence of the representations contained in the present petition, he would consent to the referring the whole matter to a committee; for if that reference were attended with no other good effect, it would at least let in light upon the affairs of India. It was therefore that he would, if his right hon. friend pressed the question to a division, certainly vote with him; at the same time, he fully agreed with those who thought that that was not the most convenient period of the session to enter upon questions of such magnitude. He differed altogether with those who
1414
1415
panacea
Mr. Courtenay
could not positively speak as to what he might have said sixteen years before, but he conscientiously believed that it was intended by the clause in question to give to the presidencies the power of taxation to as great an extent as possible, subject to the control of the directors. The right hon. gentleman had said, that not only the directors, but the government, had led them to believe, that an open trade was to be established with India. He could take on himself to say, having then filled the situation he had lately held, that this was not the opinion of either the directors or the government. It was not the opinion of lord Buckingham or Mr. Sullivan, or any of the members of the Board of Control: it was not the opinion of the humble individual who was then addressing them, nor was it the tendency of any advice he had ever given; and he might say, it would not be the tendency of any advice he might give in future, though the measures he should recommend, and hope to see carried into execution, would be to give liberal facilities to trade.
Mr. Robert Grant
said, that of the policy of this tax, and of its justice he
1416
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he was sure that every member had listened with satisfaction to the speech of the noble lord, who had, he believed, for the first time, at any considerable length, addressed the House. That noble lord had evinced a knowledge of his subject that did him the greatest honour; and he had also evinced an extent of information which might prove highly serviceable to his country. He hailed the expression of liberal sentiments which had that night been elicited, as an auspicious commencement of a series of discussions which, he trusted, would terminate in the adoption of a wise and beneficial system of government in India, in the hope that measures of relief, of wisdom, of sound policy, would not be hereafter resisted, he consented to withdraw his motion, and would content himself for the present with intimating an intention of bringing the situation of India before parliament in the course of next session.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
BRITISH SHIPPING INTEREST.]
General Gascoyne
wished to call the attention of the House to what the real nature of his motion was; because it had been much misunderstood, both in that House and
1417
Ships and Shipping.
Tonnage.
Seamen.
1817
25,864
2,078,400
178,000
1822
23,199
2,050,944
166,333
l.
l.
Ships and Snipping.
Tonnage.
Seamen.
1827
24,625
2,635,000
167,636
1828
23,195
2,460,500
151,415
1418
Ships and Shipping.
Seamen.
1826
20,409
149,894
1827
19,035
130,494
d.
1419
s.
l.
l.
1420
ships or vesesls.
Tonnage.
Seamen.
1896
24,625
2,635,644
167,636
1827
23,195
2,460,500
151,415
being a diminution of
1,430
175,144
16,221
"Also it appears, in the same account, that the ships registered for the United Kingdom in the year
Ships or vessels.
Tonnage.
Seamen.
1826
20,469
2,381,069
149,894
1827
19,035
2,150,464
130,494
"That this House cannot view this diminution without concern, and will next session inquire into the causes thereof."
Mr. Courtenay
said, that if he did not follow the hon. general into detail in the statement which he had delivered to the House, it was not from any disrespect to him, or because he undervalued the importance of the subject; but because he considered the present period was too late in the session to enter upon the subject with the hope of any practical result. It was the intention of his right hon. colleague and himself to go into a full consideration of the subject during the recess. It was impossible that either he or his right hon. colleague could have sat so long in the House, and voted so often on these matters, without having formed an opinion upon them; but as members were sometimes impressed with opinions formed by party connexions, it was the intention of himself and his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, to take a review of, and to make up their minds on, the whole system of our trade and navigation, as if they had never before given an opinion upon them, and as if their minds were, as respected them, a sheet of blank paper. If he were to enter into any controversy on the question at present, it would, he conceived, interfere with that dispassionate view of the subject which it was their intention to take; and, therefore, instead of going now into a discussion,
1421
Mr. Robinson
said, that the right hon. gentleman, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, had objected to the motion of the gallant general, that it offered no practical plan to the House. This, he conceived, was no answer to the motion. He contended, that the House was bound to entertain it. After the treatment which the shipowners had received last year, it was too much to say, that there was now no ground whatever for receiving the motion before them. But the right hon. gentleman had told them, that he and his colleague would give the subject their best attention during the recess, and would inquire whether the statement made was founded on fact. He was glad to hear this, as far as it went; but it should be recollected, that these were the assertions of men in office, who might not be in office next year. He appealed to the experience of the mutations in the government for the last eighteen months, whether much reliance could be placed on the declaration of a minister in one session, that he would take a certain course in the next. He would not go into any lengthened detail, but there were a few remarks which he felt it necessary to make. Instead of looking at the number of vessels employed, a better criterion of the state of our trade would be, to see what was the situation of the building trade, and whether the number of vessels built was on the increase or decline—whether steps were taken to supply the places of those which were going to decay. The ships already built were obliged to be used, at a profit or otherwise, to prevent their rotting in docks; but men did not build new ships, unless a prospect of employment was held out. Now, what was the state of ship-building in the last three years? In 1826, the number was one thousand five hundred and thirty-nine; in 1827, one thousand seven hundred and ninety; and in 1828, one thousand two hundred and eighty-five. It also appeared that in 182 5, the total num-
1422
1423
l.
pro tanto
Mr. C. Grant
remarked, that this was the first time he had ever heard a regular speech in reply to a Debate that had taken place twelve months ago. It had also afforded him some surprise to hear from the right hon. gentleman, that it was the intention of government to
1424
1425
de novo
1426
de novo
1427
Great Britain.
Years.
British.
Foreign.
1825
162,614
48,943
1826
151,327
37,137
1827
165,548
41,508
Ireland.
Total.
British.
Foreign.
British.
Foreign.
1825,
65,921.
3,779.
228,535
52,722
1826,
73,301
2,701
224,628
39,838
1827,
71,913
2,028
237,461
43,536
1428
British.
Foreign.
Tons.
Tons.
1825
2,027,469
892,601
1826
1,796,250
643,922
1827
1,972,780
715,824
1429
—
1824
—
8,101,337
—
1825
—
8,300,756
—
1826
—
8,368,812
—
1827
—
8,186,701
Inwards
Outwards.
Vessels.
Tonnage
Vessels.
Tonnage.
1826
2,974.
107,455
2,939
82,976
1827
2,882
97,443
3,203
102,575
1828
3,052
141,093
3,046
129,053
1430
Mr. Liddell
said, he would not attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman through the very complicated statement which he had just made. He must say, however, that he was still incredulous on many points; and representing as he did a large county, which was so closely connected with the shipping interest, he should feel it his duty to make a few observations in reply to them. Notwithstanding the arguments of the right hon. gentleman, it was an appalling prospect for himself, and those with whom he was connected, to see their property daily depreciated, and no remuneration for the expenditure of their capital. Was it then wonderful if he clung to the faintest hope, that some remedies might be devised to check the growing evil, in order that those who had, for centuries past, considered themselves under the protection of the government might be restored to something like their former state of prosperity. The shipowners believed their distress to be mainly owing to the competition with foreign vessels, which they were unable to keep up. The charge for freight was now so low, that some protection was absolutely neces-
1431
Mr. Poulett Thompson
denied the expressions attributed to him by the hon. member for Worcester. What he had, on a former occasion, said was, not that British ships could be built, but that they could be sailed in competition with foreign shipping. This arose from their greater durability, their cheaper insurance, and the other palpable advantages which were known to belong to them. As a proof of this superiority, he need only refer to the report of the committee on foreign trade. Now, how did the fact stand, as to the comparative business of the British and foreign shipping in the general trade of this country? There had been, as the return of British shipping showed, an increase between the years 1827 and 1824, of five hundred and fifty-six thousand tons, and of thirty-four thousand four hundred and sixty-six men, and a decrease of the foreign to the extent of seven thousand, seven hundred and forty-eight tons, and of one thousand four hundred and ten men. And this comparative increase in favour of this country, was observable in the first year of the operation of the new measures, which were said to have inflicted so much evil. There had been, at the same time, a great increase of shipbuilding in the colonies; still he denied
in toto
s.
s.
s.
d.
d.
d.
d.
s.
s.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
1432
s.
s.
s.
s.
l.
1433
Mr. Huskisson
said, that at that late hour of the night he would not trespass long upon the attention of the House. In the preceding session he had stated at large his views and principles in reference to this important question; and it would be quite impossible for him to add any thing to the lucid statement of facts which his right hon. friend had laid before the House upon this almost exhausted subject. The hon. member for Dover had expressed his indignant feelings at the treatment which he (Mr. Huskisson) had received from certain parties. He could assure the House, that such treatment had in no degree disturbed the tranquillity of his feelings, and if they had paid but 200
l.
de novo.
1434
1435
1436
1437
Lord W. Powlett
recommended his gallant friend to withdraw the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was anxious on the part of his majesty's government, to disclaim the opinions which had been, in some degree imputed to them, by his right hon. friend the member for Inverness, and more strongly by the hon. member for Dover. The hon. member for Dover seemed to think, from something which had fallen from the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, that government intended to abandon the principles, with respect to navigation and trade, which they had acted on previously to the late separation; but his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, had fairly answered the hon. member for Dover, when he asked, how it was possible that government could abandon those principles, when so many members of the administration were the very individuals under whose auspices those principles were first promulgated. He could sincerely say, on the part of those members of the administration and of himself, that there never was the slightest disposition to abandon those principles. Time was only wanting to show how decidedly and unequivocally they would be followed up.
Sir M. W. Ridley
disapproved of the motion. Indeed, it was one by no means calculated to give satisfaction to the ship-owners themselves. If persisted in, he should therefore vote against it.
General Gascoyne
said, he would not press the motion to a division; and one reason which principally induced him not to do so, was the advanced period of the session.
The motion was put, and negatived, without a division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, June 19 th,1828.
USURY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
Mr. P. Thompson moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Davenport
said, he should oppose the bill, as he considered it to be highly injurious both to the landed and commercial interests. Gentlemen when they now mortgaged their property, knew that as long as they paid their five per cent limited interest they were all safe; but if this bill were passed there would be no end to the extortion practised upon
1438
Mr. Irving
approved of the principle of the bill; and, with regard to the object of affording facilities to the mercantile world for borrowing money in times of momentary pressure, he thought the suggestions of the hon. member deserved the best consideration; but, at the same time, he thought the measure ought to be confined to commercial concerns, and that real or landed securities should remain untouched. The hon. member for Dover deserved the thanks of the country for what he had done; but the subject was one which ought to be taken up by the government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
suggested the propriety of postponing the bill to the next session; not from any unfriendly feeling towards its principle, but from a wish that it should be rendered as perfect as possible, and the public mind prepared for any change which might be deemed expedient.
Mr. Heathcote
concurred in recommending postponement.
Sir G. Philips
thought, that unless the right hon. gentleman would give a distinct pledge, on the part of the government, to bring forward a measure of this sort next session, or unless he would promise to support the measure when again produced by the hon. member for Dover, that hon. member ought not to withdraw his bill at this moment.
Mr. K. Douglas
said, that the laws relating to usury had been referred to a committee in 1818, and that committee had made a report which was extremely favourable to their repeal. Since that time four different bills had been brought in for the repeal of the Usury-laws; and the principle of all of them had been admitted and recognized by the House. Considering the particular situation in which the chancellor of the Exchequer had
1439
Mr. Sugden
said, he had been a close observer of the operation of the Usury-laws, and was convinced of their injurious effects. The commercial body and the landed interest were both equal sufferers by them. The commercial body evaded them by tricks; and the landed interest by borrowing money on annuities. Annuities not only raised the rate of interest against the borrower, but also locked up a certain amount of capital, which would otherwise be producing its effect on the marketable industry of the community. The Usury-laws, were also bad in another respect. They were framed in the most general terms, in order to avoid any evasion of them; and the consequence was, that many transactions, in which the parties had no intention to take usurious interest, had been declared tainted with usury. He was therefore anxious to see the present laws altered; although the alteration which he was anxious to see effected was very different from that which the hon. member for Dover now proposed. Any person who had read Mr. Bentham's "Defence of Usury," would agree, that the argument which that learned person had employed against the present laws was unanswerable. But men found, in many cases, that theory went one way and practice the other. Indefensible as the present laws were in theory, it was impossible to deny that some benefit had arisen from them. There was no inconvenience Celt from the Usury-laws, when the market rate of interest fell below the legal standard: the inconvenience arose when the rate of interest exceeded it. The advantage of the Usury-laws in such a contingency was, that they studied and controlled the rate of interest; especially so far as the landholders were concerned. It was by thus looking at the working of the Usury-laws, that he had come to the conclusion, that though they were, in many cases, injurious to all classes of the community, the total repeal of them would be injurious. His objection to the bill before the House was, its
1440
Mr. Robinson
observed, that the hon. member for Cheshire had founded his objections to the bill on the ground that it would be disadvantageous to the landed interest. Now, in order to make out a fair case of opposition, the hon. member should prove, that the laws which it intended to repeal worked favourably to the public at large; for though the landed interest was entitled to a large protection, he could not admit that laws so penal in their consequences should be allowed to remain on the Statute-book, merely because it was stated, that they acted unfavourably on that particular class. If hon. gentlemen would look at the report of 1819, they would see that more conclusive documents in favour of the repeal of the Usury-laws could not be placed before any legislative assembly. Now, what was the use of that report, if this bill were now to be opposed on the ground that the country had flourished under the operation of these laws? The fact was, that the country had flourished in spite of them. As his hon. friend could not effect any practical good by his bill at that period of the session, he hoped that the recommendation of the hon. member opposite would be adopted. At the same time he would vote for the motion if pressed to a division.
Mr. L. Foster
contended, that the bill was as sweeping a repeal of the Usury-laws as any that had ever been proposed to parliament. He agreed that intolerable hardships arose to the commercial body from the existence of these laws; and to any plan that could remove those hardships he should have no objection. The hon. gentleman then referred to the evidence of Mr. Preston, who was examined by the committee on the state of the Usury-laws, and who gave it as his opinion, that the whole landed interest of the kingdom would be seriously injured by the repeal of those laws. What was the extent of the value of the landed interest of England? In 1804, the whole rental of England, that was to say, the whole annual amount of its land, amounted to 38,000,000
l
l
1441
l
l
l
minimum
Lord Palmerston
said, that as far as the opinions of all classes could be collected, they were unanimous in reprobating the present Usury-laws. Every body admitted their inefficiency in checking and apportioning the rate of interest for the loan of money. Those laws enacted, that the holders of money shall not make the best use of it, but shall be restricted to a limited rate of interest. When the Usury-laws were first enacted, it was considered right to regulate the rate of interest payable for the loan of money, and to inflict penalties, if-more interest were taken than the law allowed. The reign of Henry 8th was full of examples of a mischievous interference with respect to this subject. Penalties the most oppressive were had recourse to, to regulate and control the affairs of men of business. But the present time was essentially different from that to which he had referred. Every man should now be left to the care of his own individual interest; and no vexatious impediments should interfere to prevent
1442
Mr. D. W. Harvey
was surprised that the noble lord should be so strenuous in supporting the interest of one class only of those who were most interested in the present question. He differed from the noble lord, and conceived that the measure would not have the effect of benefitting the landed interest. It was said, that if some such relief were not afforded, the proprietors of land, when in want of money, must have recourse to annuities to raise it; but he would venture to assert, that if the Annuity-office were searched, instances would be rarely found where fee-simple estates were encumbered with annuities. He thought that the law respecting annuities might be altered with advantage; and, as far as the penalties under the present Usury-laws could with propriety be modified, he would wish to see it done. If juries, for instance, instead of being obliged to return their verdicts upon the bare wording of the act of parliament, were obliged to judge, not only of the law but of the fact also, it would in a great measure disarm the effects of the penal-
1443
Mr. Bright
opposed the bill. It was assumed that money was like any other commodity; but he contended that it was not. No man could go into the market to borrow money openly as he could go to buy commodities. The hon. member read a passage from Mr. Rothschild's evidence, to show that doing away the legal standard of interest would be an injury to the landed interest.
Mr. P. Thompson
observed, that though he intended to press the bill to a second reading that evening, he would not carry it further during the present session, on the understanding that the chancellor of the Exchequer would, in the course of the next session, introduce some measure on the subject.
Mr. Herries
said, that though he agreed with the hon. mover that something ought to be done, yet it would be necessary to draw a wide distinction between some classes of the community and others: he, however, was willing to admit, that it would be beneficial to all, if those Jaws were greatly modified, if not entirely repealed. On the understanding that further proceedings on the bill would be abandoned during the present session, he should vote with the hon. gentleman, and had no doubt that, in the course of the next session, some measure would be proposed by the government, that would make a considerable improvement in the law as it now stood.
The House divided: For the second reading 52; Against it 40. The bill was read a second time, and the committee put off for three months.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 20, 1828.
PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
The Earl of Carnarvon
, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, said, it would be his duty to call the attention of their lordships to the general bearing of the evidence on which this bill was founded. Their lordships had all the details of that evidence before them, and he would not waste the time of the House by repeating it. What he wished to call the attention of the House to was the general character of the borough. The
1444
l.
l.
1445
l.
1446
l.
1447
The Lord Chancellor
said, that, having as a part of his duty, attended to the evidence produced at the bar in support of the bill, their lordships would expect him to state the effect which that evidence had produced on his mind. The noble earl had assumed, from the office which he held, and the opinions he supposed him to entertain, that he would, as a matter of course, oppose the second reading of the bill. He wished the noble earl would be good enough to state from what vote of his, in that or in the other House of Parliament, he had felt himself justified in coming to such a conclusion, supposing that the bill had been supported by sufficient evidence. It was because the bill was not supported by evidence that he felt himself called upon to oppose it. The noble earl had not referred the House, as, he was bound to do in candour, to the course which parliament was in the habit of adopting, with respect to such bills as the present. If the noble earl had done so, he must have admitted, that the House had not proceeded to the disfranchisement of a borough in any one instance, without proof of bribery against the majority of the voters—not mere conjecture, as in the present case—not mere assumption or probability, but distinct and positive proof. The case of Shoreham was the first. The number of voters in that case did not exceed one hundred and forty; and out of that number ninety-two had been proved to have taken bribes. The next case was that of Cricklade, in which, out of one hundred and seventy-two voters, one hundred and sixty had been proved to have received bribes. The Aylesbury case was another. The borough contained about four hundred voters, who were summoned by beat of drum to receive their bribes. In the case of Grampound there were fifty-eight voters, forty-seven of whom had received bribes. The greater part had been prosecuted, some had been overlooked in consequence of their poverty, and a few had escaped through some informality in the proceedings. The noble earl was bound to have stated these facts, that the House might be in possession of the usual course of dealing with corrupt boroughs. The noble earl had begun with the case of 1802; but why had he not taken the last?
1448
l.
Lord De Dunstanville
said, that the object of the present bill was to extend the right of-voting to the freeholders of the surrounding hundreds; and it had been said, that as he possessed considerable property in that neighbourhood, it would give him the power of influencing the elections. It was true, he had property in that part of the country; but there were nine or ten other persons, some of them members of that House, who might, in like manner, be said to increase their influence, if the bill was passed. But he was convinced the charge was untrue; for the independence of the freeholders there, especially of the substantial yeomen, was such, that if all the men of rank were to unite their influence in favour of one I candidate, and a popular candidate was to start, he would beat their united strength. He would not, however, avail himself even of the chance of increasing any supposed influence he might have, but would show his impartiality by declaring, that there was no evidence to justify the change now proposed. In his opinion, no case had been made out, either in law or equity, to justify the present bill.
The Earl of Eldon
said, he thought it his duty to express his opinion upon the
1449
Lord Dacre
said, that if he could consider the question merely as a judicial one, he should feel obliged to give a verdict of acquittal; but it was not a novel practice for that House to examine witnesses to other facts than those of corruption. Inadequacy of numbers, as well as preference of their own over the general interest, was a cause of disfranchisement. In some boroughs, such, for instance, as those which have burgage tenures for the basis of their votes, it was impossible, at all times, to detect the corruption of the voters. If, therefore, nothing but the adoption of proof of corruption, on the part of some of these boroughs, was to be the means of admitting others into the representation, they would ultimately reject all those boroughs that were the depositaries of the commercial interests of the country, from the hope of commanding a seat in the House of Commons. He was no friend to those wild doctrines of reform that would establish universal suffrage, or even householder's suffrage in every case; for he did not think that any one uniform principle of voting could be adopted. There was one principle fixed in the landed property of the kingdom; there was another in the personal and commercial property of the country; and the last was represented by the populous boroughs that sent members to parliament, and some of them almost depended on the principle of universal suffrage. Whenever a bill of the nature of the present was before the House, he should look into it to see whether its object was to remove the franchise to an interest similar to that from which it had been subtracted; and if it was, he should support it. As the object of this bill was to transfer the franchise from the commercial to the landed interest, he should certainly oppose it, because it was in contravention of the principle he had just stated. The right of representation ought to be exercised for public advantage, alone; and he would not do any thing that might divert it to, the purposes of private advantage, convinced, as he was, that the time must come, when the great manufacturing districts would claim their right of having, representatives in parliament.
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, that the preamble of the bill ran in this form—.
1450
The Earl of Carnarvon
observed, that if the preamble contained the wildest doctrine of radical reform, it was a doctrine which had been acted upon by our ancient monarchs in summoning; the representatives of boroughs to parliament; and it was especially one that was adopted by that very radical reformer, Henry 8th. As he saw the general opinion of the House was against the bill, he would not press it to a division.
The bill was then negatived.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 20.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred. On the resolution "for granting 36,898
l.
s.
d.
Colonel Davies
said, he did not rise to oppose the resolution. He had very often pointed out parts of the military expenditure which might be saved; but, as he saw no disposition in the House to make any reduction of the public burthens, he thought it would be absurd to take up the time of the House uselessly.
Mr. Hume
said, he thought there were a variety of items, which, with a view to economy, might be saved. The sum now called for was composed, in a great measure, of sinecures. Now, whether a sinecure was civil, military, or clerical, he felt it right to make war upon it. After enumerating the different garrisons where governors received salaries, although there were no garrisons at the stations, the hon. member expressed a hope, that the government would allow these sinecure garrisons to expire with the lives of their present possessors.
Sir H. Hardinge
did not defend these garrisons upon any other principle, than that they were gifts in the disposal of the Crown, for the reward of long and distinguished services. If the present mode of disposing of them could not stand upon that principle, he readily admitted they
1451
l.
Colonel Davies
said, the danger was, that these sinecures might be bestowed on individuals on account of political connexions, and not in consequence of public services.
Mr. Hume
said, he should be glad to know what were the meritorious services of the governor of Dartmouth?
Sir H. Hardinge
replied, that the situation had been, for upwards of a century and a half, in the same family.
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that many officers received 500
l.
Sir James Graham
said, that Dartmouth had been in the hands of civilians of the same family for a long time; not for any laudable purpose, but for the most suspicious possible. The holder of it had great interest in the borough, which returned two members to parliament. He should feel it his duty to move, that the grant be reduced by 173
l.
s.
Captain Bastard
said, he believed the fort had been built by the family, in whose hands the office of governor had so long remained.
Mr. Maberly
thought, that, as a finance committee was sitting, whose business it would be to investigate all matters of this nature, the subject had better be left to them.
Sir J. Graham
said, that if the right hon. gentleman would postpone the grant until it was ascertained whether the fort had been built by the family, he would postpone his motion.
Sir H. Hardinge
next moved "that 283,193
l.
1452
Mr. S. Rice
thought that much of this large expense might have been saved. This militia had cost the country 2,500,000
l.
l.
l.
1453
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the imputations cast upon government were not warranted by facts. When he was a member of the Irish government, he had brought in a bill to reduce the militia staff of Ireland, by which a saving had been effected to the country. He thought that parliament would very properly object to invest government with a power to deal with this constitutional force according to [their discretion. Whatever power was granted to the executive by the legislature on the subject, ought to be strictly defined. He would not maintain that it might not become expedient to alter the constitution of this force, in a manner which might save expense without depriving the country of the benefit of the militia service at the breaking out of a war. He denied that the present system of ballot and training was not useful. The ballot gave a certain number of men, who were bound to perform duty when called upon; and it was necessary to know where men were to be found on a sudden occasion. The government would submit a plan to the House when it was prepared, by which a reduction might be made by definite rather than general powers to be granted by the legislature.
Sir John Wrottesley
said, he did not think it right to abolish the militia force. In 1793, the military establishment was so small, that the country, at the breaking out of the war, was absolutely dependent; for its security upon the militia. He would, however, point out a plan by; which the efficiency of the militia could be increased without any additional expense. Within the last thirteen years, the infantry of the line had been greatly improved, whilst no attention had been paid to those improvements by the militia; and were a war to break out, the Serjeants of militia would know nothing beyond what they were informed of at the close of the last conflict. There ought to be a permanent militia force kept up, with a due proportion between the numbers of officers and men, and a constant system of exercise
1454
Colonel Wood
said, it was not desirable to break down a force like the militia, which was capable of being called into active service at a short notice. If war were to take place with France, now that the facilities of steam navigation were so extended, the services of the militia would be indispensable. It might be desirable to give government the power of suspending the ballot; but even that should not be done lightly and as a matter of course; for it had been before refused by parliament, on the ground of its being unconstitutional. He was colonel of a corps of militia, which consisted of one thousand two hundred men, and he had that morning asked his adjutant how many men would be likely to turn out if they were called on. The adjutant replied that one thousand men would assemble in the course of a few days. Upon the whole, he was inclined to think that some reductions might-advantageously be made, but he would never consent to any proposition for putting down the service altogether.
Mr. Warburton
said, that the expense of their regular force during the last eleven years had amounted to 5,410,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
asked, why were they not called on to make similar grants to Limerick or Waterford, as well as to Cork?
Mr. R. Gordon
saw no reason why Cork, which was a wealthy city, should not maintain a literary society, if it chose to have one, at its own expense.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the institution was established in 1802 by private subscription, and was continued'
1455
l.
l.
l.
Mr. S. Rice
was of opinion, that unless the pesent Finance committee took up all these subjects, and reported on them as that of 1817 had done,
seriatim
l.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he had, last session, suggested the expediency of establishing one or more committees to inquire into such subjects. Discussions, such as the present, were productive of no good, and only served to sink the House of Commons in the estimation of the country.
Lord Morpeth
said, it was high time retrenchment should be introduced in every branch of expenditure, and he should therefore move, as an amendment, that the vote be reduced from 1,500
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
remarked, that whilst we were contributing to improve the people of Cork by hundreds of pounds at a vote, their own contribution to the object in view amounted to no more in hand than 170
l.
Mr. North
was apprehensive, if the reduction was so sudden, that the institution would be deprived of means to defray the salaries of the highly scientific lecturers in the institution. The argument that England maintained its own scientific, literary, and mechanics' institutions, was not fairly applied to the question, because England was wealthy; Ireland excessively impoverished. As
1456
Lord Morpeth
said, that the reduction was very moderate, and he should certainly divide the committee on the question.
The Committee divided: For the Amendment 26; Against it 66: Majority 40. After which, the Chairman reported progress.
NEW SOUTH WALES BILL.]
Mr. Huskisson
Sir J. Mackintosh
rose, and after alluding to the various changes that had taken place in the Colonial office, to which might be attributed a great portion of the delay which the measures proposed by the right hen. gentleman had met with, he said, that at that late hour of the night, and in the exhausted state in which he found himself, he should take care not to waste any part of that time and attention which the kindness of the House usually bestowed upon him, by unnecessary delay, or still more unnecessary apologies. Without further comment, therefore, he should proceed at once. The objects embraced in the motion of which he had given notice, were embodied in the following resolutions, which he should now read, as the foundation for those arguments with which he should afterwards trouble the House. The first resolution which he should propose was, "That it be an instruction to the committee to receive a clause for the immediate establishment of trial by jury in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land (excepting the penal settlement for offenders there convicted), and for directing the governor and council of each colony respectively, to frame regulations for that purpose, respecting the number and qualifications of jurors, either in the whole colony, or in any districts which may seem to them to require modification." The second resolution was,—"That it be an instruction to the committee to receive a clause to provide for the election of one-third of the legislative councils of both the said colonies (till assemblies shall be called by his majesty), to be chosen for five years, by all persons enjoying a clear yearly income of 100
l.
1457
1458
1459
On the first resolution being put,
Mr. Huskisson
said, he would offer a few observations in support of the measure which had been originally proposed. It had not been framed without a careful investigation into the circumstances of the
1460
1461
1462
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, he had always felt a great interest in the fate of New South Wales, which he could not avoid thinking was destined to spread the British language to as wide as extent in the east, as our other colonies had carried it in the west. He was, therefore, much delighted to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that so much of the constitutional doctrine of the mother country ought to be infused into the government of a colony, which was rapidly rising to power and importance. He felt satisfied, from the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that in a country, where so large a proportion of the population were slaves, trial by jury could not be yet introduced with safety. He thought, however, that there might be a slight mixture of representation introduced. For that purpose he would give the new settlers a vote for the election of a representative; and he thought that by these means the colonists might gradually acquire the advantage of a representative government.
Mr. Hume
was sorry that the inhabitants of this colony had been pronounced unworthy to be admitted to the privileges of the British constitution. It was said, that trial by jury should not be introduced suddenly into New South Wales. In proof of the fallacy of that position, he would instance the cases of Florida and Louisiana, into which trial by jury was introduced one week after the colonies were ceded to the United States, and its introduction rendered the inhabitants good subjects and good members of society. He
1463
Mr. Warburton
intimated, that when the House went into committee he should propose to leave out the clause giving suitors in the courts of justice in New South Wales, the power of appeal to the Privy Council.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
eulogised the bill, which he considered admirably adapted to carry into effect the objects it had it view. New South Wales was placed in a different situation from that of other colonies; the continual influx of a certain class of persons into that colony opposed a bar to the sudden introduction of legislative improvements, and created and maintained
castes
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he could state, upon the authority of persons well acquainted with New South Wales, that it would be impossible to introduce either trial by jury or a legislative assembly there, under the present circumstances of the colony. He would suggest, however, that the official appointments should be published in the London Gazette, that the public might have an opportunity of judging of the character of the individuals selected to fill such situation.
Mr. H. Twiss
said, that the governor of the colony had the power of extending to the colonists the right of trial by jury, if he should deem it expedient.
Sir J. Mackintosh
here intimated that he should not press his amendments—They were accordingly put and negatived.
HOUSE OF LORDS
Friday, June 23, 1828.
SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.]
Earl Grosvenor
said, he had a petition to present from Chester, on the subject of "the Abolition, of Slavery in the West-Indian Colonies". Their lordships were perfectly aware that since the year 1807, when the Slave-trade was put an end to, until 1823, little or nothing was done with a view to the amelioration of the slave-population, or of putting an end to slavery itself. It therefore happened that in 1823 there was an universal call upon government to come forward and do something; and a most distinguished
1464
1465
The Duke of Wellington
said, he could assure the noble earl, that his majesty's servants who were in office when these resolutions had been passed, the government which had succeeded them, and the
1466
1467
l.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that, instead of being disposed to look with confidence towards the colonies for a redress of wrongs, he saw nothing in their conduct which did not lead him to draw an opposite inference. He was quite at a loss to reconcile the noble duke's hopes with the recorded acts of these colonial bodies, and their avowed determination to thwart all the recommendations of the government at home upon the subject. In fact, the negroes
1468
Lord Seaford
said:—My lords; though I cannot consider the present occasion, when there is no practical question before the House, to be one on which it can be desirable to discuss so delicate a question as that of the emancipation of the slaves in the West-India colonies, yet, as the noble lord who began this discussion, and the noble lord who spoke last, have both of them thought fit to enter very widely into this subject, and to indulge in some animadversions upon the conduct of the
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
Earl Bathurst
said, he had great pleasure in being enabled to state, from communications he had had with the bishops of Jamaica and Barbadoes, that these prelates in their circuits through the islands had found the planters most solicitous to promote morality and religion among their slaves. In another particular he must
1475
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 23.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that since his return to office, no subject had occupied so much of his attention as this bill. Until lately he had hoped to be able to pass the bill into a law during the present session. That hope had now vanished;— but it was satisfactory to know, that the difficulties which opposed the passing of it were not connected with the principle of the measure. He would briefly state the circumstances which induced him not to attempt to pass the bill during the present session. If the bill were to pass, it must contain a clause for affording compensation to those holders of patent offices whose interests might be affected by it.— Nothing could be more disadvantageous to the public, than those partial compensations. Bills of this nature, whilst they diminished the emoluments of some patent offices, increased those of others. Then, when the latter came to be dealt with, the public were obliged to make compensation for the increased emoluments occasioned by previous reforms. Since the bill was introduced into the House, a commission had been appointed to inquire into the practice in the superior courts of law.—It was probable that the commission would suggest some plan for dealing with the patent offices generally. At all events he was disposed to wait until he could ascertain the intentions of the commissioners on that point. He thought it would be much more advantageous to consider the claims of the holders of patent offices altogether, than to go on making compensation by instalments. It was with great regret he saw that all the pains he had bestowed on the bill would he unavailing, so tar as regarded the present session; but he felt that he should be acting for the interests of the public to abandon the measure for the present.
1476
After a short conversation, the bill was read a second time and committed for Friday.
MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, he rose, in pursuance of his notice, to address the House on a subject which was deeply interesting to all who had any regard to the first principles of the constitution. The jealousy of the House with respect to the issue of Public Money was proved, by the records of parliament, to have existed as long as the parliament itself; and he needed not occupy the time of the House by any argument of his to vindicate the feelings which had given rise to that jealousy. He took it to be an established principle, that the House of Commons had a right to control the expenditure of public money, come in what shape and from what quarter it might into the hands of the executive government; and he boldly asserted, that any deviation from that principle and rule of conduct was a violation of the privileges of the House, and, on the part of the government, a censurable dereliction of its duty to the public. He had now had the honour of sitting nearly forty years in the House of Commons, and he had taken up this subject from a conviction that it was his duty not to overlook one of the most flagrant and daring violations of the privileges of parliament, which had taken place since the æra of the Revolution. The statements which he was then about to make arose out of the papers which had been laid upon their table. They arose, also, out of facts which had come to his knowledge from other quarters. He believed those facts to be true, and he challenged the government to contradict them. We must all recollect the unfortunate war which had so long distracted and desolated Europe, and which had burthened England with a load of debt, which was hourly consuming its energies. It had entailed lasting misery, he was afraid, upon the country; and from that war, and from its consequences, the present motion took its rise. At the close of that unfortunate war, it was found that many of the subjects of Great Britain had strong claims on the government of France for property which had been unjustly confiscated by it during the Revolution; and by the treaty of Paris, in May, 1814, it was stipulated, that the government of France should pay
1477
l.
l.
l.
1478
l.
1479
l.
l.
l.
l.
1480
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1481
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1482
l.
l.
l.
1483
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
"Resolved,—That the application of any sum of unappropriated money, or surpluses of funds, to uses not voted or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of this House."
Mr. Herries
said, the reason why he ventured to present himself so early in the debate to the attention of the House, arose from the circumstance of the peculiar office which he held at the time having rendered him conversant with the transaction to which this motion had reference. It had been stated by the hon. member, with all that gravity which showed that he attached a deep importance to the question, that a transaction of more grievance to the subject, and in more direct violation of the privileges of parliament, had not occurred since the Revolution. If the subject were indeed of that nature, a heavy responsibility would attach to one individual, who, though still alive, was no longer in a condition to vindicate
1484
1485
l.
l.
1486
1487
Mr. Baring
said, that, having been occupied for some time in the finance committee, he thought it right, in the absence of the hon. chairman, to put the House in possession of the veal facts of the case. Although the hon. member for Durham had already so fully stated them, they had yet been so changed and turned about by the tortuous speech of the right hon. gentleman, that the House might be presumed scarcely to know the real undisguised truth on which they were to form their decision. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman, who would have them to depart thence without deeming it their duty to take any notice whatever of the subject. In a case like this, where the character and dignity of the House were concerned, they should not assume, upon the word of any individual, that government had been guilty of no improper conduct. The right hon. gentleman appeared to follow a rather extraordinary course respecting this question, as when it was canvassed in the finance committee, he had admitted, that "it was certainly rather irregular." He also said, if his memory did not deceive him, "he wished it had been otherwise." In reply, he remembered to have himself said, that as irregularity was acknowledged, it was their duty to investigate, whether some
1488
l.
l.
1489
l.
l.
l.
1490
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that the hon. mover had, from an imperfect knowledge of the facts, misrepresented his part of this transaction. He remembered the matter began thus:—One morning he was with lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning, when a question was put to Mr. M'Kenzie, one of the commissioners for French claims, when that gentleman explained, that 500,000
l.
1491
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Howick
said, that lord Goderich had expressly called for the original grant for Buckingham-house, "for repairs and fitment;" and when he called for 200,000
l.
l.
l.
1492
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the present question had been brought forward most irregularly. His hon. friend who had introduced it had, with his usual talent for detail, ransacked every source of information, and brought every thing, both from the records of the House and elsewhere, that could in any way assist his views, or be analogous to the case which he sup-
1493
1494
1495
Mr. Stanley
said, that notwithstanding the ingenious and cautious speech of his right hon. friend, he should not be doing his duty if he did not say, that he considered the whole conduct of ministers, with respect to this transaction, as mean, shuffling, and underhanded. If he objected to the misappropriation of the fund in question, it was not from any want of respect to the distinguished individuals concerned in it. He regretted, indeed, that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herries) had thought it necessary for his case, to bring forward their names; appealing, as it were, to their immediate friends to deal lightly with the present charge, in consideration of the part which they had taken in it. Up to the present moment, no account had been laid before parliament of the sums expended in the erection of Buckingham-palace. It appeared, however, that the whole amount expended by the Woods and Forests upon that building, was only 27,000
l.
l.
1496
Mr. Secretary Peel
wished, laying aside all technicalities, to come to the inquiry, whether the transaction alluded to was an abuse of such a nature as to call for the public censure of two individuals, who were no longer in a condition to defend themselves; and he believed that upon such an inquiry, so conducted, their conduct would appear to be perfectly innocent in granting the warrants for the application of the money, which they never thought could involve them in any charge of illegal or unconstitutional conduct. He could undertake to show, that the course which they had adopted was warranted by act of parliament, and that if any blame attached to them, it also attached to that House. The main question was, whether they had a legal power to do as they had done, or whether, having that power, it was still, though legal, so unconstitutional in its nature and bearing, as to require to be marked by the displeasure of that House. He could not disconnect that transaction from the period of the treaty of Paris, and he only wished that those who opposed the measure so much, would refer to the debates of 1816. There they would find that, in consequence of the triumphant issue of the war, this country had become possessed of three different sums of money from France. The first was 700,000
l.
1497
l.
1498
l.
Lord John Russell
complained, that the right hon. gentleman had attempted to enlist the feelings of the House in favour of distinguished individuals, to the neglect of those higher and more solemn duties which they owed the constitution. But it
1499
Mr. Brougham
said, that although the subject had been already discussed in such a manner as to exhaust every topic of argument, he could not allow it to go to a division, without offering a few words to the House. And here, at the outset, he could not avoid joining his noble friend in his complaint, that an attempt had been made to take advantage of their feelings, by the introduction of topics partly of a private, partly of a political, and partly of a constitutional nature. There could be no doubt but that the tendency, if not the desire, with which these topics were introduced, was to prevent the members of that House from performing the paramount duty which they owed to the people. He was unwilling to utter any expression which could be interpreted into a censure of one whose loss he greatly deplored. As much did he feel unwilling to censure a noble lord, who was prevented by calamity from defending his own conduct; or another noble lord who was alive but called to another place, and whose policy for the last four or five years had his decided approbation. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the slips and inadvertencies of public men, but they were slips and inadvertencies through which the public had become losers. Should it be considered as a loan? He was afraid it partook more of the nature of a gift. He did not approve of all the words of his hon. friend's motion; but so far as they went to denounce the appli-
1500
l.
l.
l.
1501
After a short reply, the House divided. For the Motion 102; For the previous Question 181; Majority against Mr. M. A. Taylor's motion 79.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 24.
EMIGRATION.]
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he rose pursuant to notice, to submit to the House a motion, connected with the subject of Emigration. His resolution was:—"That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into consideration the expediency of adopting such measures, whether of Emigration upon an extended scale, or otherwise, as may appear to be most calculated to relieve the pauperism of Ireland, and to prevent the injurious effects arising there from upon the condition of the labouring classes of this country. "Now his first duty was, to prove that a pauper-population did exist in Ireland, and that this country was called upon, by selfish motives, not to mention any other, to remove the injurious consequences which that population must produce upon the community at large. Now, he would establish the fact of the existence of extensive pauperism in Ireland, upon the evidence of Dr. Doyle, the catholic bishop, and of the bishop of Limerick. The bishop of Limerick was examined before the emigration committee, in 1826, and on
1502
1503
1504
1505
l.
1506
1507
l.
l.
1508
1509
Mr. James Grattan
observed, that the right hon. gentleman was anxious that the Irish landlord should contribute towards the support and improvement of the poor. He fully concurred in this opinion: let the landlord but commence an improvement—let the tenant but follow his example—and the system of emigration now proposed by the right hon. gentleman would be found unnecessary. The question of emigration had been so often discussed in that House, that he did not feel warranted to enter into details upon it. There was hardly a gentleman in Ireland who did not yearly lose a number of persons off his land in this way. This was all well enough; but the right hon. gentleman was anxious to introduce an organized system of emigration—the very thing which he was anxious to avoid. Much might be effected by the Irish land-
1510
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that if the subjects of the present motion were, unhappily, by circumstances degraded, it had been acknowledged that that degradation was not a degradation of character, but of condition. They were on all hands allowed to be laborious, moral, and honest. He would never consent to any arrangement, which should limit the free intercourse between the two countries. All attempts to introduce the Poor-laws into Ireland would be found to be futile. To talk of forcing one class of persons to provide for the well-being of another, in a country divided as Ireland was now, was an absolute de-
1511
Colonel Trench
thought, that emigration might be applied to Ireland in its present state, as blood-letting was to plethoric patients; but not upon any systematic plan, the effect of which would be to tempt the very cream and essence of the population to leave the country. He alluded to the industrious and enterprising class, who possessed small capital. He was far from imputing to the landlords of Ireland a want of feeling; but he would say that they were deeply responsible for the miseries of Ireland. He concurred in opinion with lady Glengall, that they were so accustomed to the sight of wretchedness, that the best-natured among them had ceased to regard it with that disgust which it was naturally calculated to produce. But while he opposed the application of any fund to the encouragement of emigration, he thought that one fourth of the money might be beneficially employed in encouraging industry at home. If he were asked, what, in his opinion, parliament ought to do for Ireland, he would say, let England, instead of looking to Poland and Canada for supplies of corn, encourage agriculture in Ireland, by securing to her a fair price for that commodity. Encouragement would produce industry; industry would produce tranquillity; and that quick intelligent people would soon acquire all the advantages of civi-
1512
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
said, that his right hon. friend had been hardly dealt with. The hon. member for Wicklow had sneered at him, as if he were the author of a new scheme. But emigration was assuredly no new scheme. It had been going on, in all countries, greatly to their benefit, and especially in Scotland and Ireland. His hon. friends were mistaken in supposing, that it was meant to encourage the emigration of persons of small capital. On the contrary, it was intended to give them every inducement to remain, by carrying off the pauper-population. It appeared, from the reports, that twenty-five thousand persons emigrated annually. These persons were the small capitalists; and it was impossible to put a stop to their emigration, except by supporting another system of emigration out of a distinct fund, which would keep down the pauper-population of those countries. Many Quakers had lately emigrated from the north of Ireland. They were of that valuable class of small and industrious capitalists; who had been actually squeezed out by the surplus portion to which he had alluded. His right hon. friend's proposition was not intended to aggravate that evil, but to remedy it. Nothing could be more unjust than to charge on the landlords of Ireland the state of the pauper-population. If his right hon. friend could shape his proposition into a practical measure, the landlords of Ireland would be most willing to assist in carrying it into effect. It was not intended as a system of compulsory transportation; but as a means of carrying into effect the natural tendency of a redundant population to emigrate. His hon. friends preferred a casual to a systematic emigration; but, did they know the obstacles which opposed a casual emigration? did they know the laws which had been passed in the United States to prevent it? He thought that government would do well to take up the subject of emigration, and come forward early in the next session with a plan to that effect.
Mr. Warburton
said, that in the premises on which this question rested, there
1513
Mr. Slaney
said, that if the right hon. gentleman succeeded in carrying his scheme of emigration into effect, the first result of it would be to elevate the remaining pauper-population of Ireland in the scale of comfort; the next would he to check the increasing population of that country, by doing away with that recklessness which led to so many early and improvident marriages. Another benefit of such a scheme would be, that it would tend collaterally to improve the condition of the poor in England. At present, the state of the English poor was rendered much worse than it otherwise would be, by the great influx of paupers from Ireland, who undersold the English labourers in every article of labour. Formerly, the
1514
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that no one could be less disposed than he was, to under-rate the importance of this subject, or the ability with which his right hon. friend had introduced it to the House, or the zeal with which he had persevered in it, under all the discouragements which had been thrown in his way. At the same time, he thought that his right hon. friend had submitted his present proposition to the House, more with a view of producing a discussion, than of taking the sense of the House upon it; because, independently of the substantial objections which existed against his right hon. friend's resolution, there were objections in point of parliamentary form, which he considered to be unanswerable. There might be circumstances, in which, with a view to allay prejudice or to remove irritation, it might be desirable for the House to pledge itself to the course which it would pursue in the next session; but such a proceeding could only by justified under particular circumstances of necessity, and therefore ought to be resorted to with caution and forbearance. His right hon. friend proposed, that the House should pledge itself to take into consideration, early next session, the propriety of adopting certain measures of emigration. Now, he should have objected to such a proposition had the measures to be adopted been definitely described; still more must he object to it, when those measures were vaguely and
1515
l.
l.
1516
l.
1517
in futuro
1518
l.
bona fide
r. Wilmot Horton
shortly replied, and consented to withdraw his motion.
EAST RETFORD.]
Mr. N. Calvert
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 26.
CORN BILL.]
The Puke of Wellington
1519
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he concurred in much, if not in all, that had fallen from the noble duke upon a former evening, with the exception of his recommendation of the measure as a permanent regulation. Independent of the various considerations connected with the state of the currency, which so materially affected this measure, it was apparent from the nature of the bill, and from circumstances which might arise, that it would be necessary hereafter to reconsider this measure. The protection afforded by this bill was, in his opinion, less than that afforded to the agriculturist by the bill of last year at that part of the scale at which the agriculturist stood most in need of protection. Greater protection was afforded by the bill of last year between 52
s.
s.
s.
s.
The Earl of Malmesbury
maintained, that the change of opinion in that House had not been effected by any feeling manifested out of doors. There was a strong feeling throughout the country upon the subject; but it was one of decided opposition to the present measure. The noble marquis regarded this measure as any thing but a permanent one. Now, though opposed to this bill, he above all things deprecated temporary legislation upon the subject. Even if the measure were bad, he would say, for God's sake let it be permanent. It was impossible for landlords and tenants to come to any arrangements, while the subject continued in an unsettled
1520
s
s.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that this equal annexation of the Isle of Man would take place as soon as the necessary arrangements could be effected. In the mean time, a plan of certificate had been provided by the officers of the Customs, which would prevent the perpetration of frauds and evasions. The noble marquis had assigned three reasons why this measure should not be deemed a permanent one. First, the state of the currency; and secondly, the situation of their foreign relations. Now, the latter reason, if applicable at all, would affect equally every other measure of general policy in which the country might be engaged: but he must say, that nothing was more unlikely than any occurrence in their foreign relations, which could affect the present arrangement. The third objection was against the descending scale of duties. This the noble lord defended, by a comparison of the provisions of the present bill with those of the bill of last year. The present bill went to supply the deficiency when the harvest was below the average; and as to its imputed want of permanency, what corn-bill could be called permanent, when the materials upon which the basis must rest were exposed to fluctuation, from a variety of uncontrollable causes.
The Earl of Darnley
approved of the bill because it relinquished the principle of prohibition, and substituted a graduated scale of duty. He doubted, however, whether the descending scale under 58
s.
The Earl of Rosslyn
condemned that
1521
s.
s.
s.
The Duke of Wellington
implicitly believed that this bill would put a stop to the impolitic speculations in foreign corn, which had so often taken place, and substitute in their room a dealing in British produce. The duty at 58
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
1522
Earl Stanhope
opposed the bill, though he thought it less objectionable than the bill of lust year, simply because it was not intended by government as a steppingstone to further spoliation. This, rather than any intrinsic merit in the measure, accounted for the diminished number of its opponents, which had excited the surprise of the noble marquis. He had opposed both, and could not be called on to explain the conduct of those who had supported this bill, after having opposed the former; but if he were to hazard an explanation, it would be that the government of last year was the object of general disgust and suspicion, and the government of the present day the object of general confidence and esteem. They ought however, if they passed this bill now, to accompany it with two other measures; one to change the value of the currency, and another to give to farmers throughout the country the option of cancelling their leases. He felt unbounded veneration for the government of the noble duke, and could not but contrast the state of things at present with that of last year; when the landed proprietors were made, in another place, the object of reproach, and their interests appeared to be devoted to spoliation.
Lord Goderich
observed, that the noble earl had said, that he placed confidence in the administration of the noble duke, and had gone on to draw a contrast between the present administration and its immediate predecessor, and the administration of lord Liverpool. But he begged to remind the noble earl, that the bill brought in last year, did not proceed from the administration preceding the noble duke's but from that of the earl of Liverpool, of which the noble duke was himself a member. As to the hostility to the agriculturists, said by the noble lord to be entertained by some persons, he appealed to their lordships whether he had ever betrayed such a feeling, and whether he did not rather, in bringing forward his bill last year, introduce it as a measure beneficial to all interests. He did not, on that occasion, make it a question of protection or no protection, but had argued it on the ground of its tendency to serve all classes
1523
Earl Stanhope
, in explanation, said, he was justified in his language, when he remembered that a distinguished political economist had said in another place, that the agricultural interest must be put down, and that he would sound the tocsin of alarm, whenever protection should be demanded. Was he not right in imputing wild theories to that administration, when there were in it Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Grant and a host of other political economists? He would not only repeat his observations but defend them.
Lord Goderich
declared, on his honour, that he not only had never heard any person use the words mentioned by the noble earl, but did not believe that any person was foolish enough to utter them.
Lord Redesdale
accounted for the bill having proceeded from lord Liverpool's administration, on the ground that that noble lord was under the influence of those members of his government who represented him in the House of Commons; but that bill was not the only unwise measure which lord Liverpool was obliged to sanction. There was, for instance, the Canada bill. They had lately heard much of the word "resign" and he remembered, in Mr. Pitt's time, the word was much used by a certain triumvirate, who had established an undue influence over that minister; that triumvirate grew afterward into a decemvirate, and was overturned; and then he was told that Mr. Pitt resigned —Resigned ! no such thing; he was dragged out. The noble baron then proceeded to show that if the comparative value of money were taken into the account, corn was dearer in the reign of Charles 2nd than it was at present; and that no corn law could be permanent, that was not founded on the principle of the corn-law of that reign. That law forbade the importation of corn, unless there was a strong probability of scarcity: and the consequence was, that the country had risen into a high state of cultivation, and had been found capable of supporting three times the number of inhabitants, which it had in the reign of Charles 2nd. The present bill
1524
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 26.
COMMISSION ON THE LAW OF REAL
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words. He confessed that he felt very great regret, in common with all those who took an earnest interest in improvements in the law, that the name of Mr. Humphreys did not appear in the Commission that had been appointed, to inquire into the law of real property. The merits of Mr. Humphreys were so great and so well known, that no name would have sooner occurred than his, to any person who was zealous for reform in this branch of the law. If there was a man who, to a profound knowledge of the principles of the law, joined an eminence for his skill in practice, he could not help considering it as a public misfortune, that Mr. Humphreys's name did not appear in the commission. In saying this, he did not mean to say any thing derogatory of the learned persons who formed that commission. Mr. Campbell, though he had hitherto applied his talents to a different part of the law, would, he was sure, execute his task with skill, integrity, and assiduity. So would Mr. Duckworth. Still, he regretted the absence of Mr. Humphreys's name in the commission; and he had the less hesitation in saying so, as those very persons had expressed their sor-
1525
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had been actuated by no personal feeling in the selection he had made. Nay, he had never even exchanged a word with any of the commissioners. Moreover, no one of the commissioners had made any application on the subject; they had each of them been invited to undertake the task; he believed that the proposal was totally unexpected by each of them; and it had been so made that they should consider themselves under obligation to no one for their appointment. As to Mr. Humphreys, the omission of that gentleman was, he would contend, perfectly consistent with the object of the commission. Mr. Humphreys had written a work which had provoked a controversy; and if Mr. Humphreys had been put upon the commission, so also must those who had engaged in the controversy against him. This would not have effected the object of the commission. It was much better that persons who had not committed themselves to any particular points should constitute the commission. If the commissioners thought proper to avail themselves of the services of Mr. Humphreys, they might do so.—They might receive both the evidence and the suggestions of Mr. Humphreys. It was thought that the commission should consist of no more than five; and that a common lawyer, two conveyancers, and two practitioners in a court of equity, were the most proper persons to make up that number.
Sir F. Burdett
could by no means agree in the rule, that persons who had showed a disposition to reform a part of the law, should be excluded from a commission appointed to inquire into that part of the law. Mr. Humphreys, a gentleman eminent in his profession, had performed the extraordinary task of producing a work on the subject of the law of real property, for the comprehension of which no technical knowledge was at all necessary. The omission of that gentleman's name in the
1526
Mr. Batley
thought, that if Mr. Humphreys had been appointed, so also must the learned gentleman who had opposed the doctrines laid down in his publication.
Mr. Brougham
was convinced that the undeviating honour and integrity which had characterized Mr. Humphreys, ought to have assured every body, that a more valuable gentleman could not have been placed upon the commission. He could not help thinking, that the omission would not only tend to diminish the confidence of the public in this commission, but to diminish the prospect of benefit which they had every right to expect from the inquiry. It was said, that Mr. Humphreys had carried reform too far, and that therefore, another gentleman, who differed totally from him, ought to be placed on the commission, if Mr. Humphreys was. Now, he would contend, that there was no sense in putting such extreme notions in such a situation. A learned person was reported to have said, that he would rather have his bowels torn out, than that the system of fines and recoveries should be abolished. Now, would it not be an absurdity, to place Mr. Humphreys and this learned person together on the commission?
Mr. Hume
said, there was a great difference between having the evidence of Mr. Humphreys, and his being on the commission, where he might originate improvements. It would seem, that any men of talent and information, who had ventured to give their opinions on subjects of importance, were less likely to be employed, than men whose minds were a blank sheet of paper.
BANKING SYSTEM—CURRENCY.]
Mr. Hume
said, that as he considered the question of the currency to be one of vital importance to the country, he must again impress upon ministers the necessity of altering their policy. In the speech of his majesty, in February, 1826, they were recommended to take such measures as
1527
1528
Mr. Hudson Gurney
opposed the motion. At that late period of the session, and on the eve of the operation now about to take place, of calling in the one-pound notes, no conjuncture could be conceived, in which this species of legislation could be more ill-timed. Indeed, the hon. member's own views seemed to be singularly confused. He had mixed up joint-stock banks, and chartered banks, and private banks, and banking in England, and banking in Scotland, and banking in France, and banking in Massachusetts, in a manner which could not practically bear upon the present state of monied transaction in this country, whether the existing system be a good or an erroneous one.—He, however, should, at the present moment, deprecate any legislative measure. It had been put forth, in 1825, that the insolvency of many of the country bankers arose from their having gone into the bubbles and speculations of the day. It was, however, found that the contrary was the fact; and, whatever failures had then taken place, had, for the most part, arisen from their having made imprudent advances to their immediate neighbourhoods. Now, as the legislature had determined, that the circulation of one-pound notes should cease in April next, the real danger to be guarded against was, lest the bankers, anticipating a greater demand on them than might probably take place, in consequence of that measure hanging over them, should be too hastily withdrawing their credits, and might thus bring on, during the winter months, a greater pressure than the country could conveniently bear. A run on the bankers was a great grievance to them; but the real pressure was from that which necessarily followed
1529
Sir C. Cole
supported the motion. He thought that the labouring classes had a right to ask, at the hands of the legislature, some security for the solvency of country banks, in which they must of necessity repose so much confidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
concurred fully in what had fallen from the hon. member for Newton, and felt, that after his observations upon the motion, it was unnecessary to enter into the wide field of discussion which the hon. mover had thought it necessary to take. The question really was, ought parliament to compel all bankers to render a public account of their issues? To accomplish this object, it seemed, the hon. mover had no hesitation in prying into and revealing the secrets of their business; secrets on which not only their welfare but their ruin might depend. Admitting that in the estimate he (the chancellor of the Exchequer) had made of the issues of country bank paper, there had been some inaccuracy, was that
1530
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 27.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Mr. N. Calvert
Lord Howick
said, that when the bill was brought into the House in its original shape, no individual felt more favourably towards its principle than he did; but it had since undergone very important changes, which had been produced by the hon. member for Hertford. That being the case, he felt it necessary either to oppose the measure altogether, or to suggest some third scheme which would meet the wishes of all parties. The line of argument adopted by many hon. members, but especially by the secretary for the Home Department, led them to oppose a transfer of the elective franchise to Birmingham; but the right hon. Secretary agreed in the propriety of disfranchising East Retford. The right hon. gentleman did not mean to give to East Retford the shadow of a right, while the substance was held. The right hon. gentleman's words were these—"We are only to consider, supposing the determination of the House to be that this borough shall be disfranchised, to what place it is fit and expedient to transfer the right." In this broad manner did the right hon. gentleman lay clown the principle by which the House ought to be guided; and he then proceeded to give his reasons why they ought rather to extend the franchise to the adjoining hundred than to bestow it on Birmingham, or on any other great and populous town. The right hon. gentleman's argument on that occasion was, that it would be improper to disturb the relations which at present existed between the agricultural and commercial interests in that House. By acting on this princi-
1531
Mr. Tennyson
, who had just entered the House, expressed a hope, that the few observations which he was about to make, would be patiently heard. He must say that he was placed in an extraordinary situation, in consequence of the course taken by the hon. member for Hertford. In the first place, it was not usual to bring on questions of this kind so early in the evening; and in the next, he had conceived that he was in possession of the subject to which the present measure related. On a former occasion he had stated, that he meant to submit a motion on this subject; and that if the House did not approve of it, he would leave the matter to the hon. member for Hertford. All he had since heard was, that the bill was to be recommitted; and before that step was taken, he wished to say a few words with reference to those proceedings. The Penryn
1532
1533
Mr. Stewart
seconded the amendment. He had always thought, that the evidence did not make out a sufficient case against the borough, and therefore he had voted against the original proposition. But now that it was proposed to extend the franchise to the hundreds, he should, though the greatest corruption might exist in the borough, certainly vote for the franchise remaining where it was, rather than throw it into the hands of the aristocracy.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was confident he had fully satisfied the House that he had not given the slightest indication of the course which he intended to pursue, in the event of one franchise only being placed at their disposal. He had acted on the case of Penryn, as on a good case, and never contemplated that the bill would have been thrown out in another place. The details into which he had entered on former occasions were sufficient to show, if his declaration were not sufficient, that it was impossible for him to have contemplated that the case now before them would arise. As to the charge that he was influenced by any party or personal considerations, and particularly as to the charge of his wishing to increase the influence of the aristocracy, he could only give a general and flat denial. He had no knowledge of the hundred. He did not give his vote with the view of supporting, either directly or indirectly, any persons or any parties. He had before
1534
1535
Lord John Russell
said, that if the
1536
Lord Normanby
said, that as he was convinced that by extending the franchise to the hundred, no public benefit would be effected, he should not support that proposition. He rested his opposition to this bill on the ground that the House ought to deal with such cases as these, not so much with reference to precedents,
1537
l
l
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that he should also vote against the re-commitment, as he could not consent to trust any bill connected with parliamentary reform in the hands of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. This proceeding had been altogether a most extraordinary one. Since the days in which a pair of gloves brought about the peace of Utrecht, and a crooked window caused the devastation of the Palatinate, such important effects had never proceeded from such slight causes. The first thing that the hon. member had done was to knock up the bill of his hon. friend. The next thing was to knock up the administration; and finally, very nearly to knock up the parliament. He really did not think that the very respectable member for Hertfordshire was by any means a good tactitian; and lest further mishaps should occur, the best thing would be, to dismiss the bill altogether.
Mr. Slaney
said, that every prepossession in his mind was in favour of the landed interest; but, with the best view that he was able to take of the course that would be beneficial to that interest, he was persuaded that it was highly desirable to transfer the elective franchise, in the present instance, to a great town. The prosperity of the landed interest was intimately connected with the prosperity of the commercial interest. The latter it was well known, was suffering great depression; and what better chance could be afforded to it of recovering from that depression, than by giving to the great commercial towns the means of being represented in that House?
1538
Lord Palmerston
expressed his wish, that the franchise should be extended to a great town, not because he was a friend to reform in principle, but because he was its decided enemy. To extend the franchise to large towns, on such occasions as the one in question, was the only mode by which the House could avoid the adoption, at some time or other, of a general plan of reform. It appeared to him very inconsistent in the enemies of reform to oppose the transfer of the franchise to a large town. When people saw such populous places as Leeds and Manchester unrepresented, whilst a green mound of earth returned two members, it naturally gave rise to complaint. The House ought, therefore, to take advantage of every case of delinquency, to apply a gradual remedy to the defective state of the representation.
Mr. Marshall
said, that if the franchise was not transferred to a great town, the measure would be valueless; but, as long as the right hon. Secretary was opposed to transferring the elective franchise, in such cases, to a great town, the attainment of such an object was scarcely to be hoped for.
Mr. Peel
observed, that his vote respecting Penryn was a proof that he was not opposed to the principle of transferring the elective franchise to a great town.
Mr. Lumley
observed, that by the constant delays which had occurred, the borough in question had been practically disfranchised. If no decisive step were taken that evening, he would on Monday move, that a new writ be issued.
Mr. Wynn
said, that although he was not disposed to get rid of this bill altogether, yet, as it was impossible to get through it in the present session, he thought a great advantage would result from suspending the proceedings upon it, and resuming them next session. Whenever any case of prominent corruption appeared, he should always recommend, that the opportunity should be taken of reforming the representation. Whenever the soil was bad, and there was no probability that the tree would bear good fruit, he would argue in favour of its being transplanted.
The House divided: For the recommitment 97; Against it 42. On the motion, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Lord Howick
1539
Mr. C. Wood
objected to the amendment. If they were to transfer the franchise to any place, he should prefer its being transferred to some place which already had the machinery of an election, instead of a place which had none.
Mr. Duncombe
felt it would be highly improper in him to consider himself returned to parliament in order to bind himself up with, or represent any particular interest there. He trusted the noble lord would also well consider his motion before he pressed the House to a division.
Lord J. Russell
Mr. Baring
objected to a proposition which must tend to increase the influence of the Crown.
Mr. F. Lewis
considered the House bound to take this duty on itself.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, there were so many obstacles thrown in the way of fixing on Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, or any other place, to which the franchise should be transferred, that he would move, as an amendment, that the Chairman do leave the chair. This he hoped would get rid of the bill altogether.
The committee divided: For the motion 18; Against it 89: Majority 71.
Lord John Russell
then moved an amendment for the purpose of absolutely disfranchising the Borough of East Retford.
Mr. Wynn
said, that if, in the case of East Retford, the elective franchise, instead of being transferred from the delinquent borough to some large unrepresented town, were transferred to the adjacent hundreds, it would have a strong tendency
1540
Sir J. Mackintosh
was not disposed to go quite so far as to say, that an Address to the Crown was a more constitutional proceeding than that by bill; for this simple reason, that they were very similar to each other, if indeed they were not fundamentally the same; as a bill originally was only a petition, which the consent of the king converted into a law. He did not think that to address the Crown, requesting the nomination of a town or borough to send members, in lieu of that which had been disfranchised, would at all embarrass ministers. There was no minister, who felt the moral responsibility of his situation, the value of his character, and the worth of the estimation of the people, who would not think it necessary to maintain all these, by giving the representation to one of the great populous towns. For this reason among others, that popular opinion, and the dictates of their own honour and reputation, would induce ministers to make a proper choice, he was in favour of the proposition to carry an Address to the Crown. Such a course would, besides, exhibit the Crown in a gracious and popular light, and was on that account to be preferred.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, it was clear that this measure would not pass
1541
Mr. Sugden
said, he should vote for the transfer of the franchise to the hundred; and chiefly because of the great benefit which had arisen from the adoption of that course. He alluded to the case of Shoreham, where the franchise was extended to the rape of Bramber, and where there was now as much independence and public spirit, as in any other town in the kingdom. He felt that he was not stepping out of the pale of the constitution by giving that vote notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. member for Knaresborough.
After a short conversation, the committee divided on Lord John Russell's motion: Ayes 43; Noes 108.
Mr. Tennyson
said, that, after the disposition which the (House had manifested, and especially after the division which had just taken place, it would be a waste of time to persist in pressing the measure. The conduct of his majesty's ministers on the occasion had been unfair, unjust, un-candid, base, and grossly unconstitutional. He would repeat, that ministers, in the whole of their proceedings in reference to
1542
Mr. Secretary Peel
.—Sir, it is not true, that, in giving my vote upon this bill, I have done so with a view to serve any particular interest. I say, it is not a fact, that his majesty's ministers have been influenced by any particular interest, or that they have adopted their present course with a view to 'any base purpose. The hon. gentleman's proposal was fully debated, and the sense of the House was fairly taken upon it: and he now attempts to compensate himself for his disappointment, by the use of language that is utterly unjustified by any conduct of mine, or of my colleagues, in reference to this bill.
Mr. Tennyson
said:—I made no personal allusion to the right hon. gentleman. I spoke of his majesty's ministers in the bulk. I said of their conduct that which it was impossible for me not to feel. With respect to the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, personally speaking, I was the only member, taking the view which I took of the subject, that relieved him from the charge of having given any special pledge on the question, beyond that which the right hon. gentleman has himself repeated this night. I have not imputed to the right hon. gentleman any immoral intention, nor have I described his conduct in the abusive language which has been applied to it by others. Although I do not think that the right hon. gentleman was specifically pledged to take any other course than that which he has adopted, the sentiments which I have expressed have been uttered deliberately, and to them I adhere.
Mr. Peel
.—The hon. gentleman has replied, that it was to the conduct of ministers generally that his language was applied, and he has described them as consulting upon this occasion the purposes of some particular interest. I meet at once such a general charge with a general denial; and I state to the House, upon my honour as a gentleman, that neither directly nor indirectly, have I had any communication with any person who could possibly have had any interest in this measure. I therefore deny that in my conduct in reference to this bill, I have been influenced by any particular interest, and I claim the exercise of my right as a member of parliament to give my vote upon a public question, unfettered by any pledge.
1543
Mr. Stanley
said, it was much to be lamented that this question should have been made, from the very beginning, a vehicle for the expression of party feeling. He regretted that his hon. friend near him should have been betrayed into any warm language, but he thought it was very much twisted from its original meaning, when it was said to be personally offensive to any of his majesty's ministers. Upon the general question, as to the expectations of the present ministry, he could only say that, looking to those who had seceded from the ministry, and to those who remained in it, his hopes of advantage to the country from the administration were very scanty; and if it were possible for any thing to diminish those hopes, it would be the language which he had heard within these walls. When he heard a Vice-president of the Board of Trade say, that upon the question of free trade his mind was a piece of blank paper—when he heard the landed interest declare that they at last looked with confidence to a ministry from which they expected a preference to their interests over those of the manufacturing and commercial classes—when he heard language like this, he owned it appeared to him very suspicious, and it led him to suppose, that a change of men did actually produce a change of measures. He would merely say that, after the vote o that night, he saw no use in giving any
1544
Mr. Tennyson
said, he should leave the House with regret if he thought the right hon. gentleman was under the impression, that he had made any personal allusion to the right hon. gentleman. He spoke of the government as a collective body, and in that capacity he thought it was often swayed by motives on which the individuals who composed it would refuse to act. The right hon. gentleman was one of the last men whom he would think of selecting for any improper accusation.
Mr. Peel
.—I have utterly forgotten every thing that has been said on the matter [Cheers].
Lord John Russell
said, it would be very satisfactory if they had the right hon. gentleman's pledge that the next forfeited franchise should be transferred to a great town.
Mr. Peel
said, that if such a case as that of Grampound were to occur again, he should have no objection to transfer the franchise to a great town; but it was no part of his duty to bind himself, in any event, to a particular line of conduct.
Mr. Littleton
did not think the answer of the right hon. gentleman by any means satisfactory. Suppose the next case which should arise were as strong as that
1545
Mr. Peel
said, he did not conceive his hon. friend had a right to put questions to him in this manner. It was not consistent with his duty as a minister of the Crown to answer a question, put in that manner, and of that nature. He would not bind himself by any pledge; but when the time arrived for the discussion of any case of this nature, he should dispose of it in a manner perfectly consistent with any pledges that he had made.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that the right hon. gentleman had explained himself in the fairest and most explicit way; but the manner in which question after question had been pressed upon him went beyond common decency and parliamentary custom [cheers].
The clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, June 30.
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.]
On the order of the day for going into a Committee of Supply,
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he wished to make a few observations upon a recent measure of his Majesty's government, which measure it was his wish to contemplate only so far as it affected an ancient friend, who was engaged in an arduous struggle to uphold that law and that liberty which had been conferred upon her by her lawful sovereign; He would not enter into any discussion of international law. He would not deny that, in cases of civil contests in a state foreign states might recognize either of the contending parties, as in possession of the sovereign authority, and treat with the actual possessors of that authority. Neither would he deny that a foreign state might not recognize in each party the possession of the ordinary belligerent rights, and treat both on equal terms as far as respected those rights. He would not dispute any of those points, nor would he have felt it necessary to call the attention of the House to the subject at all, but for the language used on a recent occasion by our government, which appeared as if it was intended to apply to one party in Portugal, though no doubt it was meant for both. He did not charge the government with any intentional partiality
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that in replying to the right hon. gentleman, he would endeavour to avoid any expression which could be construed to be inconsistent with his former declaration, that the highest disapprobation was felt by his majesty's government at the course which had been pursued by Don Miguel. He must, however, contend, that it was the policy of this country, in cases of this nature, not to seek out for exceptions to the great general principles, but to observe that course of conduct which we wished to be observed with respect to us, under similar circumstances, and that course, too, which was consistent with the doctrines which must be held as governing the practice under international law. It might be very unfortunate that certain inferences should be drawn from particular expressions. It might be, that the Portuguese multitude were so ignorant as to be liable to draw those inferences. It might be, that a correspondence had existed which had led to false expectations; but it was the duty of the English government, in determining the course they should pursue, with respect to the notification of an effective blockade, to put all such extrinsic circumstances out of view. Now, with respect to the correspondence to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded—before the notification to British merchants of the existence of the blockade, he, as the organ of the government in that House, had expressly declared, that lord Beresford, in whatever he had written, had no authority whatever to express the sentiments of any confidential adviser of the Crown. But when the right hon. gentleman put a construction upon the correspondence of lord Beresford, he begged the House to have some regard for the declaration of his lordship himself, and not to adopt the construction which was made by parties inter-
1553
1554
1555
1556
After a few words from Dr. Phillimore, the House went into the committee of Supply.
ADDITIONAL CHURCHES BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in moving the second reading of this bill, thought, after the objections which had been made to it, it would be better, at that late period of the Session, to postpone it. He was, however, anxious to go into a committee, to explain the nature and objects of its clauses.
Mr. Leycester
hoped the right hon. gentleman would give up the bill. It was highly objectionable. Amongst other things, it gave the churchwardens a right to tax the parishioners; which in itself was a flagrant violation of private property. All acts of this kind only proved how nugatory was the attempt to thrust religion down people's throats. To all such attempts he would answer, "
Quodcunque mihi sic ostendis, incredulus odi
Mr. J. Wood
opposed the second reading, and called on all who wished to support the respectability of the established church, to rescue it from the odium which its enemies were so eager to heap upon it.
Mr. Alderman Wood
wished the right hon. gentleman would decline the assistance of interested advisers. In many parishes one of the churchwardens was appointed by the rector, who was directly interested, and the other by the parishioners. There was no appeal from their decision. The state of things, in this respect, was deplorable in many parishes. He himself had sat for days, hearing the cases of more than two hundred people in one parish, who were told by the churchwardens, on being summoned for poor and church-rates, "The church-rates you must pay, at all events, whatever becomes of the poor-rates." He should oppose the bill in every stage.
Sir C. Cole
was favourable to the clause which prohibited burials in churches.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent to withdraw a measure so objectionable in its principle.
1557
Mr. Warburton
concurred in the same hope.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the bill instead of conferring new powers, went merely to give effect to those already recognized by parliament. It rather went to relieve the parishioners from unequal taxation, than to impose it upon them.
Mr. R. Gordon
condemned the clause, which went to enable churchwardens to levy monies for ecclesiastical purposes.
Dr. Phillimore
objected to the introduction of such a bill at so late a period of the session.
Dr. Lushington
, although he did not approve of the whole of the measure, should vote for going into the committee. He was convinced that were his hon. friends to inform themselves respecting the operation of the existing law, and contrast it with the provisions of the proposed bill, little opposition would be offered to the measure. With respect to patronage, he hoped he should never see the right of appointment placed in the hands of a body of parishioners, which would reduce a clergymen to the necessity of undertaking a very degrading species of canvass.
Mr. Hume
thought it a bad symptom, when clauses so open to abuse could be considered an amelioration. He regretted that the learned doctor had expressed himself unfavourable to the election of clergymen by their parishioners; but his chief objection to the bill was, that it alluded to so many acts of parliament instead of consolidating those acts, and thus complicated instead of simplifying the state of the law. He thought it would be better to postpone the bill, than pass it in so crude a state.
Mr. Sugden
supported the bill. He did not entirely approve of the clause which limited the recovery of compensation for private rights to five years. Ho agreed in the principle, that no time should run against the church; because it was not a privilege to the church but to the public. He thought, that the moment a church or chapel was built, it should be good for ever against all the world. But still he thought a provision should be made against taking any man's land improperly. He would not have a church or chapel, built for the benefit of the community and at their expense, seized and taken into the possession of the person to whom the land might belong; but he should be
1558
Sir F. Burdett
said, that the bill was brought in so imperfectly, that no two persons could agree upon any part of it. The learned gentleman who spoke last had given a very good reason why the bill should be postponed; for if there ought to be a clause to indemnify the owners of disputed land, they surely ought to give time for such an alteration. But his learned friend who had spoken before was quite enamoured with the bill. Still, however, he thought, with all due respect for his opinion, that at that late period of the session the measure should be permitted to drop for the present. The strongest objection to the bill was, that it did not consolidate the various laws which now existed on the subject: time should be given for that purpose, and the occasion was not so pressing as to call upon them to pass the bill "with all its imperfections on its head." With respect to the choice of clergymen by their congregations, he should only say, that the few things of that kind in his own gift he had always disposed of upon that principle, and he had always found it productive of the greatest harmony. There was certainly no objection to it upon principle, for it had been the original practice, and, as far as he could judge, that practice was likely to be attended with the best effects.
Lord W. Powlett
said, that to the principle of this bill he was entirely favourable; but as the right hon. gentleman would not yield to the wish of the House, and as it would be impossible to pass the bill in the present session, he should feel it his
1559
Mr. John Wood
said, that a few nights ago, he had heard the member for Wareham (Mr. Calcraft), whom he now heard crying "question!" boast, that, sit on which side of the House he might, he would still support the principles he had always advocated; yet now the right hon. gentleman was the first to cry "question !" when the rights of the people were at stake. If this was an omen of the change of principles that resulted from his change of seat, he wished the right hon. gentleman joy of it. He had risen to show, that the but was not only objectionable in principle, but amounted to a breach of faith. When a million of money was granted for the building new churches, it was stated that no additional expense should fall upon the parishes; but now after that million and an additional half million had been granted, this scandalous breach of faith was about to be committed. We had already a Church Establishment more overgrown than that of any other country in the world. This bill went to increase its patronage, to a monstrous and indefinite degree; and yet we were told, that if we allowed it to go quietly into the committee, we might there see it in a corrected state. He entreated the right hon. gentleman to postpone the further consideration of this measure till next session.
Sir J. Brydges
hoped that the right hon. gentleman would not postpone the consideration of this measure. Gentlemen had that evening evinced a disposition to pull down the Church Establishment of the country [loud cries of "hear"].
Mr. Spring Rice
protested against the speech of the hon. baronet. What right had the hon. baronet to attribute motives to gentlemen, which they were as incapable of feeling as the hon. baronet was of sympathizing with the motives which really actuated them? They disclaimed any wish to pull down the church property; on the contrary, they were the real friends of the church, and the best guardians of its property, who opposed measures which were calculated to produce discontent and irritation between the church and those who belonged to its communion. All that was asked for, was time to submit this bill to the examination of a committee above stairs.
Mr. O. Cave
said, he was sure the chancellor of the Exchequer, if he knew
1560
Sir R. Wilson
said, he had read the bill, and found it to be much worse than he had anticipated. He wished the right hon. gentleman would consent, in the first place, to modify it in the committee, and, in the next, to let the country have full time to consider its details.
Sir James Graham
objected to the bill entirely. In zeal towards the church, and in a determination to uphold it in all its just rights, he would not yield to any one; and it was with that feeling that he could not uphold any measure that the unwise friends of that church might bring forward, to enable it to grasp more power and greater revenues than it already enjoyed. Such appeared to him to be the character of the present measure, and on those grounds he should oppose it. The hon. member for Preston had appealed to the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Calcraft) in an angry tone; but he had so long entertained a friendship for that right hon. gentleman, that he was willing to give him credit for every pledge that he had entered into (notwithstanding his change of place in that House), till he saw that they were falsified; and it was on that ground that he should call on the right hon. gentleman to use his influence with the chancellor of the Exchequer to induce him to accede to the wish that had been expressed.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he felt much gratified at what had fallen from the hon. baronet with so much courtesy and kind feeling. His hon. friend had hoped that he would intreat the chancellor of the Exchequer, not only to delay, but to abandon the present measure: but he was sure that many hon. friends of his, would recollect, that he had been friendly to the original measure of building additional churches. It would therefore be seen, that he could not, consistently ask the chancellor of the Exchequer to arrest the progress of a measure, the effects of which would be to amend and improve a proposition to which he had given his support. All the objections now urged against this bill would be properly urged in the committee, because they only affected its clauses, and did not touch its principle; and it was to the committee that he would urge his right hon. friend to proceed with all the speed allowed by the forms of the House.
1561
Mr. George Lamb
wished to know what urgent necessity there was to press the bill through the House during the present session. The former grants had not been expended; the commissioners had yet 500,000
l
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, the chancellor of the Exchequer might assure himself that if this measure were persisted in, the question would not be decided at an early hour, either on that evening or on any other. The right hon. gentleman would surround himself with difficulties from which he could not extricate himself. Why should the bill be pressed through parliament at that late period of the session? Let time be afforded to the House and the country to become acquainted with its principle and details.
The House divided: For the Amendment 38; Against it 82; Majority 44.
Mr. Hume
said, he would move, that this debate should be adjourned until tomorrow, that he might have an opportunity of moving, that the 500,000
l
Sir W. W. Wynn
said, he thought it was extremely hard that a bill of this importance should be introduced at that late period of the session. He would oppose it now; but he would not thereby pledge himself to oppose it in a future session.
Lord Sandon
said, his impression had been in favour of the bill, but that impression had been much weakened, after the arguments he had heard. Under all the circumstances, he was of opinion that they should not now proceed further with the bill, than the reading of it a second time, and committing it
pro forma.
Mr. Monck
said, he entertained the strongest objections, not only to the principle but to the details of this measure. The church should not be maintained by the imposition of new taxes. It should
1562
Dr. Phillimore
expressed his approbation of the principle of the bill; at the same time it required deep consideration, and that a consolidation of the ecclesiastical acts on the subject should be effected.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said the bill had been characterized as imposing a tax; but the fact was, that it imposed no additional burthen. With respect to the clause authorizing money to be raised for ecclesiastical purposes, he denied that it gave more power than was previously in existence. He could not see why the bill should not be allowed to go into a committee, where he would have an opportunity of satisfying gentlemen as to its precise nature and objects.
Sir F. Burdett
said, there was not a. clause in the bill, except that which related to interment within a certain distance of the church, which he did not object to. With that exception he defied any gentleman to come at the true and accurate meaning of any one clause. Now, in his opinion, a bill in such an imperfect state, was not fit to go to a committee. The only mode of dealing with it would be to refer it to a committee up stairs, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent to adopt this course. The propriety of delay was shown by what had occurred since the House had been debating the measure. During the discussion a petition had arrived from Manchester against the bill, drawn up as if the petitioners had foreseen the reproaches that would be urged against those who opposed the bill. The petitioners objected to the bill on account of its tending to increase the church rates; which was not only unjust towards the rate-payers, but tended to diminish
1563
The House then divided: For Adjourning the Debate 42; Against it 73; Majority 31. Mr. Alderman Wood next moved, "That the House do now adjourn." Upon which the House, after a short conversation, divided: Ayes 41; Noes 64; Majority 23. The main question, that the House should go into the Committee on Thursday, was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 1.
CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE
Mr. Stanley
rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the petition of the Baron de Bode be referred to a committee. The petition was from the Baron de Bode, a British subject, stating that his property in Lower Alsace, had been confiscated by the French Government in 1793; that he had preferred his claim for compensation before the Commissioners of Claims, and now complained of the award made by those commissioners. It was to him an unpleasant task to submit any motion which would take a large sum of money from the pockets of the people, and also to have to complain of the conduct of public men in the award they had given. Yet he had one ground of encouragement. It was, that he pleaded the cause of moral and substantial justice, and that, without reference to forms, it would be decided by that House on principles of public honour and good faith. One of the great difficulties of the case was, that he had to show, not merely an error of judgment in the commissioners, but that they had opposed the claim of the petitioner by vexatious and frivolous delays.
1564
1565
1566
bona fide
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
Mr. Horace Twiss
said—The disadvantage, Sir, of rising after the hon. gentleman, is much increased by the appeal to the feelings of the House, which he has grounded on the desolate circumstances of the baron de Bode. But as he has admitted, that the question must be decided upon grounds, not of feeling, but of justice, to the justice of the case I will address myself; and of this I am sure, that if justice be really on the side of this claim, neither its magnitude, nor the fear lest others may enter at the same door, will have any operation with any members of his majesty's government. Sir, the claim which is the subject of this discussion is founded, in the first place, on the second article of the Commercial Treaty of 1786, by which England and France agreed, that in the event of a rupture between them, the subjects of each shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade without disturbance; and if the government should be obliged to order them to depart, twelve months should be allowed them to remove with their effects and property. In violation of this treaty, the government of France, at the beginning of the Revolutionary war, seized the property of various English subjects; and the indemnity of those subjects against the effects of that violation, was the object of the convention of 20th November, 1815. On these grounds, the baron de Dodo founds his demand for the loss of an estate at Alsace, which was seized by the Revolutionary government, and in which he claims an interest, either in possession or in reversion. The list of claimants was to shut, by the terms of the convention, on the 21st February, 1816; yet the baron's petition of claim was not sent in till the 9th, only twelve days before the close. The French minister considered that he was not a British subject within the meaning of the convention, and the register was closed without his name; but it being afterwards made to appear that he was really a natural born subject of England, the English commissioners pressed those of- France to admit his name.—The hon. gentleman having-argued that it was not by the French, but by the English authorities, that impediments were thrown in his way, I will read
1573
1574
ex gratia
1575
bona fide
1576
mala fides
1577
1578
instanter
1579
1580
Mr. Lockhart
said, the hon. and learned gentleman had deprecated their entering into any subject of a legal nature. To that, as a general principle, he was most ready to subscribe; but when he saw that the tribunal whose judgment was called in question was new—when that tribunal was invested with new and extraordinary powers—when it had the power of disposing of six millions of money—when he saw that tribunal vested with the right, not only of laying down the rules of evidence, but of pointing out what should be the nature of that evidence, he could not but think, that the principle stated by the hon. and learned gentleman was not applicable to the present case; and that the powers of that tribunal became, from the vast magnitude and novelty of the subject, deserving of inquiry, how they had been exercised, and how the funds, over which they exercised an unlimited control, had been disposed of. The only part of the case which the hon. and learned gentleman had endeavoured to explain was that which related to the conduct of the mixed commission that sat at Paris, which was unfavourable to the baron, and which he accused of misconception both of his motives and acts. It seemed that the baron had some grounds for conceiving that the commissioners were hostile to him; since even the hon. and learned gentleman had admitted that the conduct of the French Government was unfriendly to any of these claimants. But the part into which it most interested that. House to inquire was that which occurred since the mixed commission had been dissolved, and the business had been in the hands of the three commissioners appointed by this government. The hon. and learned gentleman had declared, that it would have been utterly useless for the Privy Council to have attempted to have gone into the case further them they did, because there was no evidence that the property seized was the property of a British subject. His opinion of the case was different; but it was not necessary for the House to come to a conclusion on that point, since it was part of the
1581
en toute proprieté
1582
1583
Mr. Robert Grant
said, that in opposing the motion, he admitted it was no sufficient answer to it, that the House knew nothing- of the case but from the baron's own statement. The grounds on which he should rest his opposition rendered no such argument necessary. He much regretted, knowing the commissioners personally, that such charges as had been advanced against them should have entered so deeply into the discussion of this question. On the other hand, it became him 10 state, that, for years, it had been his duty to be in conflict with the commissioners; and to the extent of his ability, he had fought them with various success, but, generally, unsuccessfully. He might be supposed, therefore, to bring f to the subject feelings wholly untinged
1584
1585
Dr. Phillimore
supported the motion. The fact was, that a sum of money had been given by the government of France to the government of England, for the repayment of the losses which British subjects had suffered under the spoliations which had taken place in France during the revolution. The baron de Bode was a British subject, and therefore clearly entitled to a share of the money so intrusted to the disposal of the British government. A large surplus was still in the hands of the commissioners, and he thought it particularly hard that the baron should be excluded from his share of it. The baron having been refused indemnification in this country, had applied to the French government, as a Frenchman, for indemnification out of the sums which had been set apart for the benefit of the emigrants. He was told, that, as a British subject, he had no right to present his claim as a French emigrant; but that that was a difficulty easily got over, he being known to have been the proprietor of the property for which he claimed, and that property being in the limits of France. But that a difficulty impossible to overcome was, that the baron having availed himself of his birth-right, and claimed indemnity as a British subject, under the convention of 1815, and having been acknowledged by the French commissioners at that time as a creditor of France, and
1586
Mr. Littleton
said, that after the part which he had taken upon this question on a former occasion, he could not give a silent vote at present, because he felt he should not be doing justice to the baron de Bode if he did not state, that all the impressions which he had formerly entertained respecting the justice of his claim, existed in his mind unchanged. In May, 1826, he had presented a petition to the House from the baron. The late Mr. Canning objected to any ulterior proceedings being founded upon the petition. In consequence of what transpired in the House of Commons upon that occasion, he advised the baron to present another memorial to the Treasury. Whilst that memorial was under consideration, he advised the baron to submit his case to some gentleman in the profession. The baron, in consequence, submitted it to Mr. Shad-well; who gave his opinion in these words:—"Though the evidence of the cession is not complete, I think the papers do satisfactorily make out, either that there was such a cession, or if there was not, then that the baron had such an interest in the property in 1793, that, if he had originally claimed in the alternative before the commissioners, his claim ought to have been allowed. And, in my opinion, although his case has miscarried before the commissioners and upon the appeal, the baron is entitled, in the view of moral justice, to indemnification for the loss of his property, out of the fund placed by the French government at the disposal of the English commissioners, under the convention of 1818." He thought that this opinion, given by a gentleman of Mr. Shadwell's character, who would not, for any consideration, upon earth, have gone one inch beyond the fair merits of the
1587
The Attorney-general
said, that if the baron de Bode had reason to complain of not having had able counsellors to state his ease elsewhere, he had at least had an able counsellor to state it in that House, for he would freely confess that he had never heard any case better put by any person than the case of the petitioner had been put by the hon. member for Preston. He had read the papers of the petitioner with the utmost attention, and he felt that the complaint which he made against the commissioners came from him with a very bad grace, considering that he had known, for four or five years, the course which they had publicly declared their intention of pursuing. They had given him all the time that was necessary to prepare his case; they had received all the evidence which the baron had offered, and which was legally admissible; and they had given him every opportunity that could be considered preliminary to a fair decision of his claims.—The hon. member for Preston had accused the commissioners of making a false statement, when they said, that the baron's name was not included in the first list of claimants admitted by the French government. He contended, that the commissioners were perfectly correct, and that the baron's name was no where to be found in that first list. He admitted that it would be a fraud to obtain a compensation from the French government on the footing of the baron's losses as a British subject, and then to turn round upon him and say, "You have not made out your losses, and we therefore will not admit your claim." But no such fraud could be charged in this case upon the British government; since the statement in the baron's petition that his name was in the first list of claimants was entirely without foundation. The petitioner said, he was entitled to claim for the confiscation of a property which he had acquired by cession from his father; and it was said that the opinion of Mr. Shadwell was in favour of that claim. Now, the opinion of Mr. Shadwell was given upon an alternative, that, if de Bode had not a claim by cession, he had, at all events, a claim by descent. Now it was not a little extraordinary, that all those who argued this case before the Privy Council made no allusion whatever to this alternative right; which seemed to
1588
protestatio contra factum.
After a short reply from Mr. Stanley, the House divided: For the motion 54; Against it 91; Majority 37.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.]
Sir F. Burdett
said, that in rising to introduce a motion on this subject, he was sure the right hon. Secretary would concur with him as to the great importance of the question, and the necessity which existed, considering the grievances suffered under the present system of supplying Water to the Metropolis, for the introduction of some measure to remedy the evil. As the right hon. gentleman was impressed with the
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
l
l
1594
Sir J. Yorke
complained, that the hon. baronet had kept out of sight all other water companies but the Grand Junction, and on that he had certainly laid a heavy hand. The hon. baronet appeared to him to have taken an exaggerated view of the case, which he entirely attributed to the pamphlet he had quoted from. Notwithstanding his authorities, he was of opinion, that the House ought not to interfere, particularly at so late a stage of the session.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he considered the great importance of the subject, as connected with the comfort, the feelings, and even the health, of the inhabitants of this metropolis. It was undoubtedly fit that the House should take cognizance of the manner in which the companies discharged the obligations they had taken on themselves under the authority of Parliament. He was not opposed to an inquiry being instituted for that purpose; but there was one point of the hon. baronet's speech from which he totally dissented.—He had said, that the remedy lay with government, and that it was for them to meet the complaints of the public. Had the hon. baronet reflected on the expense which would be incurred by a compliance
1595
l
1596
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he would not trouble the House with many remarks after the satisfactory speech of the right hon. gentleman. He had consented to grant even more than was asked for by his hon. colleague, by consenting to a committee with the fullest powers of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that if gross monopolies, the insalubriousness of the water, and other abuses were proved to exist, they should be corrected. Now, there was no doubt but that such abuses did exist to an alarming extent, and he hoped the committee about to be appointed would be effectual for the removal of them. His constituents loudly complained of the present state of the supply of water, and they had a right to have that complaint attended to and redressed.
Mr. Warburton
said, that his attention had been called to a plan for filtering the water of the Thames, in the same manner that water was supplied in Glasgow; he thought it deserving of attention: it might be found preferable to that of bringing water in its natural state, even from the high point of the river that had been mentioned.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that the right hon. gentleman had misunderstood him in supposing that he wished government to interfere on the question. All that he wished was, that the House of Commons should take it up; if this were done, there were many persons ready to advance mo-
1597
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 3, 1828.
SCOTCH SMALL NOTES BILL.]
The Duke of Wellington
1
l
1598
l
l
l
l
l
l
1599
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he had no doubt of the resources of the country being in the condition in which the noble duke had stated, but he wished they had been applied to a better purpose than carrying into effect the bill of 1826. The resources of the country were equal to the measure, he doubted not, but they would be exhausted by applying them to that purpose. After fifteen years peace, the country was more burthened with debt than at the termination of the war,
1600
cordon sanitaire
1601
1602
Lord Goderick
said, he had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble duke, not only for the grounds on which he had rested the policy of the measure, but on account of his declaration of the unequivocal adherence of government to those principles on which the measure of 1826 had been founded. The noble earl who had just sat down gave a decided preference to paper over a metallic currency, and he would not even have paper convertible into gold. The noble earl had stated, that the measure of 1826 had been adopted in a hurry, and without due caution. Now, he had never said, that the one-pound notes were the cause of the great convulsions which had then taken place; but the mischief was, that when convulsions did arise, the one-pound notes brought the great body of the public into jeopardy. The noble earl said, that they were a great convenience He knew they were, because they were the medium of the poor; but that was the very reason why they were the more dangerous. When panic arose, who were the crowd around the banker's door? Was it not composed of poor people, of agricultural labourers, and they it was who broke the banks. Thus, though the small notes were not the cause of the convulsion, yet, when it took place, they were the means of inflicting misery upon the poor. The measure bf 1826 was founded on a practical proof of the mischief. He therefore did not think that, in taking this course, they were acting under a delusion; neither did he believe that this country was in so crippled a condition, that if a foreign power threatened us, we should be obliged to bow our heads in shameful humility. From what he had seen of the resources of the country, he did not think there was a nation in the world whose power and means were less shaken than those of England. As to the bill itself, he thought it absolutely necessary; because he conceived it would be unfair if the English banker was not allowed to issue his notes, while, in his own immediate circle, he was met by the Scotch notes.
Lord Redesdale
defended the Bank restriction act of 1797, which was founded on the principle of retaining a supply of metallic currency within the country. It arose out of the most extraordinary event that ever occurred in the world. He meant the French Revolution. What was the effect of that revolution? It was, that the
1603
The Marquis of Bute
considered this measure as one that would inflict great distress on those whom it was intended to
1604
Lord Calthorpe
said, be could not but consider the bill as the inevitable result of that passed in 1826. In point of fact, the bill agreed to in that year implied that it would be followed by such an act as the present. If such a measure was necessary, that necessity arose from the fact of parliament having determined to apply to the banking establishments of Scotland a different rule to that which it had already applied to the banking establishments of England. While he admitted the necessity of the present measure, he could not admit of the necessity or expediency of keeping up that distinction between Scotland and this country, of which he had just spoken. The continuance of that distinction did not appear to have been contemplated by the administration of 1826; for it originally made no part of the bill passed at that period. They had intended by that bill to put a stop to the circulation of one-pound notes both in England and Scotland. Owing, however, to the opposition which was raised in Scotland, and by the Scotch representatives in parliament, against that portion of the bill which went to put an
1605
Earl Ferrers
wished to know by what mode the government proposed to pay a paper debt in a metallic currency?
The Duke of Wellington
said, he did not mean to be understood as expressing an unqualified approbation of the bill of 1826. A variety of reasons, and, in his opinion, good reasons, had influenced the decision that it should not extend to Scotland. As to the question of the noble earl, all he would reply was, that whether in specie or in paper, he hoped this country would perform all her engagements to the public creditor.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 3. 1828
UNION WITH IRELAND—CONDUCT
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice, for the production of the correspondence between the English and Irish governments at the time of the Union, on the Conduct of the Roman Catholics. He did not seek for the opportunity of making a long speech on the general question—that would be bad taste; but the serious motives which induced him to abstain from going into other parts of that subject, were, that a case involving the character and consistency of eminent men now no more, should be made the subject of a separate discussion, and not be mixed up with matters
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he should confine himself strictly to the question before the House; namely, whether the high official persons alluded to had given such a pledge to support the claims of the Catholics as must bind their successors to the adoption of the line of conduct to which they had so pledged themselves.— He should not deny that Mr. Pitt had been all along favourable to the claims of the Roman Catholics, but only with the proviso that such securities should be given, as would render the admission of their claims secure in the eyes of their Protestant fellow-citizens. It was clear that Mr. Pitt thought the admission of the Catholic claims would greatly tend to settle the Union, and facilitate the measures of government in that country. The question was, whether Mr.Pitt, or those in the administration of affairs under him, had given that sort of pledge which amounted to an understanding, that in the event of the Union with Ireland being carried, the claims of the Catholics to political power should be conceded. He would broadly deny that such a pledge had ever been given. And this he would do on the strength of documents which were accessible to all. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to the assurances of Mr. Pitt, lord Cornwallis, and lord Castlereagh, on whom he placed, it seemed, great reliance. It was clear that both the former were favourable, to Catholic emancipation. In consequence of being thwarted in this instance, Mr. Pitt evinced his sincerity by resigning. Of the then Viceroy of Ireland, the marquis Cornwallis, he had never ceased to admire the integrity, simplicity, and manliness of that nobleman, throughout this and other parts of his patriotic career. As to the conduct or professions of that nobleman, he would deny that he had ever been instrumental in creating the impression that such a pledge had been given by the members of the English or Irish governments. No persons could possibly give better authority or evidence on the subject than those who were the prominent political parties in the arrangement. Would it not be fair to infer, that had Mr. Pitt so far pledged himself to the Catholic body, he would, in his letter to the king in 1801, previously to his resignation, avowedly because he would not bring forward the question of emancipation with the authority of government, have said, "I feel obliged to resign my
1611
1612
1613
Mr. O'Brien
expressed his alarm at the
1614
Earl Jermyn
rose to support the motion. The question was whether any expectation had been held out to the Catholics at the time of the Union, and whether their conduct had been influenced by such expectation? He would say, that each of the three orders, the clergy, the nobility and gentry, and the lower classes had received inducements from Mr. Pitt to support the Union. He had held out to the higher ranks the prospect of getting into parliament, to the lower the idea of some effectual measure of relief, and to the clergy that of a competent provision, provided they would assist in carrying the measure.
Mr. Spring Rice
rejoiced that his right hon. friend had brought forward the motion, for he could not help thinking that he had obtained much from the right hon. Secretary, who, though he did not agree to the motion, had opposed it upon grounds which confirmed much of what his right hon. friend had stated. His right hon. friend had never said, that a direct pledge was given to the Catholics at the time of the Union. But he had said, and the point was conceded to him, that an expectation was held out from the highest quarter, that the question would be brought nearer to a favourable decision, if the Union was carried; and that the Catholics had supported it on that understanding. As for the allusion made to Mr. Grattan, he was the last man who could have had any cognizance of what passed between Mr. Pitt and the Roman Catholics. At the time, he was the avowed enemy of the
1615
The motion was withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 4. 1828
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Sir H. Hardinge
said, he rose for the purpose of moving the Ordnance Estimates, and, in doing so, he did not think it necessary for him to go into any lengthened explanation. The voluminous report of the Finance Committee was a sufficient explanation of the delay that had occurred; seeing that it was considered desirable to have that report on the table, in which the Ordnance department was examined, previous to bringing forward the Estimates. The expenditure of the Ordnance for the year 1828 amounted to 1,785,196
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1616
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1617
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1618
1619
1620
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that since it was intended to sustain the office of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, he should move as an amendment, that the salary be reduced from the proposed l,200
l.
l
1621
l.
Sir E. Owen
said, it had been assumed, that the Master-general was president of the Board. This was not the case. The Lieutenant-general presided, and was the organ of communication between the Board and the Master-general. In his opinion, it was impossible to dispense with the office of Lieutenant-general, without detriment to the public service.
General Gascoyne
said, that the amendment of the hon. baronet seemed to him to amount to this—that the Lieutenant-general might be got rid of, by appointing another general officer in his room. The hon. baronet, however, appeared to forget, that, by the rules of the army, no officer could undertake any of the duties to which he had alluded, without regularly receiving a staff appointment. He contended, that the office was useful, as a mark of distinction for past services, as well as an object of remuneration. It was on this principle that it had been held by Marl-borough, Argyle, Granby, and Wellington. Out of the whole staff appointments, the office in question was the most unfortunate selection the committee could have made. Why not reduce the staff in Ireland, where Lieutenants-general commanded only one thousand or two thousand men, whereas the Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance commanded nine thousand.
Mr. Bankes
said, he could not bring himself to sanction the continuance of the office, even upon the high military authority that had been brought forward in its support. How did it happen that the
1622
Sir George Clerk
said, that the whole objection to the office turned upon the single point, that the Master-general and the Lieutenant-general were not found acting together at the same time. Now, what was the fact?—Why, that ever since the duke of Wellington was appointed to the head of the department, not only was he unremitting in his own attention, but, under his direction, the Lieutenant-general was sedulously employed during the whole time, except for the short period when lord Beresford happened to be away.—When lord Beresford found that he could not return within the term of three months, he resigned; and the duties of the office were then discharged by his gallant friend near him. All questions respecting disputed points abroad must necessarily be laid before the Lieutenant-general. If the several circumstances of minute detail were to be brought under the consideration of the Master-general, it would be impossible he could attend to them all. The greatest inconvenience would arise if the office were done away with.
Mr. Maberly
said, that he, in common with the other members of the Finance Committee, found that very strong prejudices with regard to this establishment existed among military men. All, therefore, that the committee could do, was to deal with those prejudices, or prepossessions, for the best interests of the country. In recommending the abolition of this particular office, the committee acted with the strictest impartiality; and, upon the same principle, he should not hesitate to recommend the abolition of the office of Master-general, if he thought the public interest required it.
Sir J. Sebright
said, he did not think himself justified in voting for the abolition of the office. If the artillery was once
1623
Mr. Bernal
joined in all the praise which had been uttered on the artillery service. He considered, however, the deputy totally unnecessary, if the principal did his duty, and should, therefore, vote for the amendment.
Colonel Wood
supported the utility of the office, and said that it was impossible for the senior officers of the artillery to discharge its duties, from their advanced age, they being- seldom less than seventy,-when they reached the rank of general officers.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
referred to the evidence given by the duke of Wellington before the Committee of Finance, and said that, upon this evidence, he was entitled to say this office ought to be retained. It was no argument against the office, that the Lieutenant-general was allowed to absent himself and to do the duty by a deputy. He was sorry to vote against the recommendation of the Finance Committee; but he felt it right to support this office.
Mr. Baring
said, he thought in the Committee up strairs, and still thought, that this office might be got rid of. The discussion he had heard that night had confirmed him in his opinion. The artillery department was now said to be in an excellent condition, and it was urged as a reason for retaining this office; but he begged to remind hon. members, that, when the department was in quite an opposite state from the present, this same office of Lieutenant-general existed.— The hest evidence of its uselessness was the continual absence of the person who filled it. That fact was worth volumes of opinions of official persons, however respectable they might be. He should support the amendment.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he would not vote for the continuance of this office if he did not think its duties necessary, or if he thought the state of the finances such as could not allow of its existence. Those members of the House, who, like himself, were not members of the Finance Committee, and who were therefore ignorant of the Committee's motives for recom-
1624
l.
l.
Sir J. Graham
said, the right hon. gentleman had, early in the session, declared that he would not allow himself to be bound by the Finance Committee. Even so far back as 1824, the right hon. gentleman had commenced preparations for changing his side, by voting for the increase of the
1625
Sir G. Murray
said, that the hon. member for Dorsetshire seemed to think, that the duties of the office now under consideration had not been increased by the addition of the various departments which had been transferred to it. The duties both of the Master-general and the Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance had been considerably increased by the addition of those departments; but though there had been an increase of labour to them, the change had been attended with the greatest benefit to the public service. The gallant officer proceeded to argue, that it was highly necessary that a military officer of rank and ability should preside in the board, as military questions might frequently come before it. Allusion had been made to the absence of the Master-general and Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance; but he quite agreed with the Paymaster-general, that this was the exception and not the general rule. He thought too, it would be extremely wrong-that government should be debarred from having recourse to the services of an experienced and able officer, because he happened to be connected with the Ordnance.
1626
Mr. Stanley
said, he did not consider that the causes for the reduction of this office were most imperative and peremptory; but, looking to the state of the finances of the country, he conceived, that any reduction which could be conveniently and safely made in the public service should be effected. He therefore felt bound to give his vote now, as the Finance Committee had done, for the reduction of this office; not because its reduction was called for more imperatively than that of other offices, but because it could be conveniently dispensed with, and because the duties of the department could be as well performed by one officer as by two.
Lord Morpeth
said, that the chief, and indeed only, argument of the gentlemen opposite seemed to be, that there was sufficient business to occupy both the Master-general and Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance; but even if their statement had not been triumphantly met, there was one stubborn fact—the fact of the repeated absence of this "indispensable" officer, which could not be got over.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
maintained, that the loss to the public service by the removal of the Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance would more than counterbalance the good which would be derived from the saving of his salary. He quoted the authority of Mr. Canning, who, on a former occasion, when the subject was under discussion, maintained the necessity of the office in question. It was said, that in the absence of the Lieutenant-general, the duties were sufficiently well discharged by the Master-general. But, if the Master-general had to perform the duties of the Lieutenant-general as well as his own, a relaxation in the discharge of both duties must sooner or later follow, and be attended with a public injury.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that this was not a question of absence or not, but whether an office which might have been necessary in time of war, was so in the time of peace? In his opinion, nothing had been shown in favour of that continuation, and he should therefore vote against it.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the government had already made reductions to
1627
l.
l.
Mr. Brougham
said, he did not regard the question as one of overwhelming interest, but he thought it possessed interest sufficient to call for the serious attention of the House. It was the first occasion upon which the Finance Committee had called upon the House to say aye or no to one of its propositions. Was the House prepared to say no? Would the House of Commons be decided by authority alone, without going into the investigation of facts? It had been contended, that absence did not justify a forfeiture of the office; but was it not important evidence, that Lieutenants-general might be absent for a year or more, and was it too much to conclude from such evidence that the appointment might be dispensed with? As to the smallness of the saving, it had nothing to do with the question. Burthened as the country was at present, no sum could be too small to oppose, if it was unnecessary.
The Committee divided: For the Amendment 95; Against it 204; Majority 109.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 7. 1828
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Sir H. Hardinge moved, "that 18,900
l.
Mr. Hume
said, the gallant officer had declared, that the military part of the service was brought as low as the circumstances of the country admitted. There he was at issue with him. He would not dwell on the question, whether we ought to have
1628
After a short conversation, the resolution was agreed to.
Sir H. Hardinge
, next moved, "That 30,000
l.
l.
1629
l.
Mr. Stanley
complimented the gallant general on the ingenuity with which he had brought forward the measure. The vote was now for 30,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1630
l.
l.
Sir E. Owen
considered these fortification necessary to preserve the dépôts and communications between the different points of defence.
Mr. Maberly
said, the total amount to be expended upon these works, was three millions at least. But was this all? Certainly not; for it was manifest, from the estimate of the duke of Wellington, that they would require a large force for their defence. And then there was no certainty of our being able to hold Canada. When these works were established, the colonists might take it into their heads to say, "We are not satisfied with your government; we wish to govern ourselves." Thus the country would have had the expense of establishing the works to no purpose. But, he would ask, of what benefit was Canada to us, in a commercial point of view? He would say that, instead of a benefit, it was a disadvantage. We could procure timber better and cheaper from Norway.
Mr. Robinson
, hearing it admitted, that
1631
l.
Lord John Russell
said, it was hard that the House should be called upon to come to this vote at so late a period of the session; but part of the fault lay with the Finance Committee. Having examined the subject in all its bearings, they left it to the House to decide the question. If that was the result at which they, arrived, it should have been made known to the House some months earlier.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
complained of the practice of treating the question of the colonies as a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. If parliament was determined to have colonies, it was their duty to preserve them. Halifax was one of the finest harbours in the world, and as long as we held it, and had a canal to carry up stores into the interior, the Americans would never again venture to attack us upon Lake Ontario, or disturb that commerce which we carried on with the inhabitants of the distant settlements. Looking, therefore, at the importance of preserving-Canada, and the importance of being provided with a proper defence in the event of war, he felt bound to support the grant.
Mr. Labouchere
said, that no person was more certain than he was, that it was impossible to keep Canada without possessing the entire and cordial affections of the inhabitants; and while those affections were devoted to this country in the manner they had been, he would be the last man in that House to consent to abandon the country or the people. In the event of a war with America—which, though he did not think probable, he was bound to view as possible—it would be found that they had laid out the money now called for most economically. He wished this country to remain on friendly terms with the United States, and therefore he thought it unwise to hazard that friendship, by leaving Canada a tempting object for invasion. He should support not only the present, but all future votes, of the like nature. This country would not be acting fairly and justly to Canada, if protection were not extended to her; and when he spoke of protection, he meant effectual protection. When he said he would vote for the present and for future grants of the same nature, he gave that pledge with this condition.—that efforts should be made,
1632
Mr. Baring
was of opinion, that this was a very important question, not in a pecuniary point of view, but with reference to its consequences hereafter. He did not think that the right hon. gentleman had opened the case quite fairly. Some time ago it was decided by lord Liverpool's cabinet, that the whole extent of the object which government had in view, should be laid before parliament; but instead of coming down, and stating the full extent of what government intended to do, the right hon. gentleman had given a very contracted account of it. It was said 2,300,000
l.
1633
1634
Sir G. Murray
said, it had been objected, that this vote was brought on at a late period of the session; but what was the reason of it? It was wished that these estimates should be investigated by the Finance Committee; and the hon. member for Preston complained, at one and the same time; first, that the vote was brought on so late; and next, that it was not postponed until they had received the report of the committee who were inquiring into the state of Canada. He begged the House not to be misled by the supposition, that this was a system of fortification, and that if one part of the works must be performed, all must. The House was not called upon to pledge itself to any thing of the kind. Two of the works which it was now proposed to erect were necessary retreats of security and repair for our gallant navy, which might be injured in engagements or by tempests. It had been said, that we never could maintain our naval superiority on these stations; but certain it was, that we had done so during the last war. He thought that there were sufficient grounds to justify these two works. As to the Rideau Canal, an hon. friend had stated the importance of it in a commercial view; but it was more immediately required on military grounds. The conveyance on the St. Lawrence was difficult enough in time of peace, but almost impracticable in time of war. To give the House an idea of these difficulties, he would mention a few facts which occurred in the late war. The conveyance of a twenty-four pounder from Quebec to Kingston cost from 150
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. W. Horton
defended the Canadas from the imputations of disloyalty, and expressed a hope that the time was not distant when the question relative to them would be fully discussed. He begged to enter his protest against all that had been said in favour of abandoning these colo-
1635
Mr. Warburton
agreed with what had fallen from the hon. member for Calling-ton, and contended that his arguments had received no answer from the Secretary for the Colonies. He considered the proposed grant a prelude to the expenditure of 2,800,000
l.
Lord Howick
said, that the hon. member for Callington had most truly stated, that all our foreign colonies would in the lapse of time, become independent of the mother country. That such an event must happen there was no denying; and consequently this country ought in time to prepare for the separation, not by fortifying the Canadas, but by preparing them to become independent. With this view, instead of hurrying the present vote through the House, let ministers come down next session with a statement of such reasonable expenditure as would be required for the furtherance of a measure which sooner or later must take place.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that although the hon. member for Preston had more than once referred to him, he had refrained from rising, because he wished, before he decided upon the present vote, to hear it defended by some competent authority. He was happy to say, he had found the authority he sought in the speech of the Colonial Secretary, whose explanation had perfectly convinced him of the necessity for this vote. He could not agree that the United States were not ambitious of possessing new territories; and of all the British settlements, he felt assured that the Canadas formed the first object of their ambition. He believed that the ambition which prompted America, in 1812, was ready to be called into action, on the first occasion. The House should recollect, that but for the defenceless state of the Canadas in 1812, that aggression which cost this country so much of its best blood and treasure, would never have taken place. Were we not wise, therefore, to provide against a similar aggression, by adopting those precautions which sound policy dictated? When the enormous expense incurred
1636
1637
Mr. Hume
said, that the hon. member for Callington had not urged this country to abandon Canada, but had recommended that we should place that country in such
1638
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the hon. gentleman had argued the question, as if the House had only the choice of two alternatives, either to vote this sum for the defence of the Canadas, or to abandon them altogether. It was clear, that if the hon. gentleman was not prepared to abandon the Canadas, his whole argument was conclusive in favour of the vote. The hon. gentleman himself said, "Don't disregard the Americans: they are not inattentive to military science: they are training up their youth to arms, and they have an extended frontier for some thousands of miles adjoining these colonies." If that was true, was it not wise, in time of peace, to make preparation for an effectual defence? The hon. gentleman himself must admit, unless he was prepared to recommend the abandoning of the Canadas that the most economical mode was, to assist the physical strength of the population, by some system of fortification.— But, he would ask, could this country abandon its Colonies? This was not a question to be decided by considerations purely of a general nature. He must say, that while he admired the eloquence and feeling of the hon. member for St. Michael's, he was convinced, that the hon. gentleman's sentiments were perfectly consistent with the soundest policy. His advice was: —"Redress the grievances of the Colonies: attend to their just complaints: if there be defects in the Act of 1791, apply a remedy. But, as they have faithfully stood by you in the hour of danger, do not abandon them now." Though considerations of feeling were not alone to determine this question, they were not to be disregarded. He begged the House to consider what would be the effect produced on the other Colonies, if this country were to abandon the Canadas. If they saw the mighty power of this country shrinking into narrow dimensions, and exerted only for selfish purposes, what conclusion must they form? He had
1639
1640
The Committee then divided.—For the Amendment 51; Against it 126: Majority 75.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 8.
SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee, to which the Superannuation Allowances acts were referred,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should have felt more gratified if he had not been called upon to bring forward the present motion, until every member could have had a copy of the Report of the finance Committee on which it was founded. The House would learn from that Report the reasons which had led the Committee unanimously to recommend the measure with which he should conclude. The Bill would relate solely to civil superannuations, and to the retiring pensions of foreign ministers. In the course of the inquiries of the Finance Committee, they could not fail to be struck with the large proportion of the expense of the inefficient part of the public service to that of the effective part. The whole expense of the effective part of the public service was twenty-one millions; while the ineffective part, or, to speak more accurately, the remuneration for past services, imposed on
1641
l
l
l
1642
l
l
l
Mr. Hume
said, that the right hon. gentleman had fairly stated the sentiments of the Finance Committee, which in this instance had been unanimous. He confessed he was sorry to find that government had departed from the prudent arrangement which it had come to, after a minute investigation of the subject, some years ago. He complained of the system by which he found clerks in different departments, whose duties were almost the same, rewarded by a different scale of remuneration. He thought that the heads of the departments ought to settle these irregularities of salary. All the departments had exceeded the scale at which individuals paid their clerks; but, in our large establishments, we could only perform a task of reduction in these matters by degrees; and therefore it was that he concurred in the resolution of the Finance Committee, though they had not made a reduction equal to that which he had anticipated.
Sir H. Hardinge
contended, that the Commander-in-Chief had done all in his power to keep down the dead-weight of the army; that was to say, the half-pay. As a proof of it he would state, that since 1820, one-fifth of that dead-weight had been absorbed. With respect to the clerks of the public offices, he thought that they could not be fairly compared with the clerks in banking-houses, or merchants' counting-houses. The latter had
1643
Mr. Monck
thought that public clerks were well enough paid. As to the advantages which had been described as belonging to private clerks, it was well known that these advantages rarely occurred.
Mr. W. Smith
said, it was well known, that the clerks in public offices regarded themselves in a superior situation; and that they would be very unwilling to change places with private clerks.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that when hon. members looked at the situation which the clerks in these public offices held, he was sure they would agree with him that; the spirit of a gentleman ought to pervade those who held them. They should feel that they had a character to lose. He was sure that the clerks themselves were animated by that feeling, and that it was owing to the prevalence of that feeling, that the subordinate stations in the public offices in this country were filled by a class of individuals in whom could be placed higher confidence than in the employes of the same grade in other countries. It was; evident that a great degree of confidence must be placed in these clerks. A clerk in the foreign offices, for instance, must often be in possession of the most important secrets. He ought, then, to have a salary sufficient to maintain him in his rank as a gentleman; especially as he was cut off from all other profitable employment.—What he had said was not in consistent with the support which he intended to give this bill.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
CORPORATE FUNDS BILL.]
Mr. Spring Rice brought up the Report of this Bill.
Mr. Fyler
considered the bill an unjustifiable interference with vested rights. Corporations were meant to possess political influence, and that influence ought to be maintained by the legislature. Lord Ellenborough had said, that as the funds of corporations had been purchased by: their members, or had been granted by the Crown without any definite restriction, he did not see why a corporate body had not as much right to appropriate its funds as it pleased, as any individual. The right had never been shewn to be abused. In the case of Northampton, the sum had not been appropriated to election purposes
1644
Colonel Sibthorpe
thought the bill an extremely harsh, ungenerous, and illiberal measure. It conveyed an imputation upon all corporations.
Mr. Spring Rice
defended the bill, and contended that its only object was to prevent interference with the freedom of election.
Mr. Ross
said, that the bill did not go on a general principle, but was intended for a particular purpose. He could not help thinking it very remarkable, that the former bill was brought in by the hon. member for Northampton, and the present bill by the hon. member for Leicester. In 1761, the Irish House of Commons decided, that the Corporation Funds of the city of Dublin ought to be applied to the repairing and making of roads: and instances were numerous of a similar application of Corporate Funds.
Mr. Maberly
defended his hon. relative from the attack which had been made upon him by the hon. member opposite (Mr. Ross), and charged in turn that hon. gentleman with participating himself in the Corporate Funds of Northampton. He hurled back upon the hon. gentleman, with the strongest feelings of contempt, those insinuations in which he had indulged at the expense of his hon. relative.
Mr. Ross
put it to the House whether such language was at all sanctioned by parliamentary usage.
Mr. Maberly
owned he had been betrayed too far by his feelings, and retracted the expression.
Mr. D. Gilbert
thought it would be a great improvement if corporate bodies were obliged, at stated periods, to publish their accounts. But, at the same time, he thought it would be wrong if the King's-bench, or any other court, should be suffered to control the funds of corporate bodies. He supported the bill, on the ground that corporations were trustees, and that, to employ Corporate Funds for election purposes, was a misapplication of the money committed to their hands.
Mr. G. Bankes
was adverse to the principle and to the details of the bill, more especially to the clause subjecting any member of a corporation, who proposed a grant of money for election purposes, to
1645
l
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, it seemed to him that the hon. member who spoke last but one, had put the question on its true grounds. He thought that no funds could find their way to corporations, but as the public property, and as such they ought to be protected. He was friendly to corporations, thinking them, as he did, the best system of government for large places; but unwatched and unchecked, they would be sorry trustees of public property. He would support the public, though he could have wished to have seen it in a more perfect shape. He trusted that the House of Lords would make such improvements in it as it required.
Mr. Trant
could not consent to the establishing of a new law on this subject, unless it went a great deal further, and declared it illegal not only for corporations, but for all combinations to supply money to procure the return of members. Was the hon. member for Limerick prepared to say, that the Catholic rent ought not to be applied to electioneering purposes? He conceived that corporations had just as much right to assist candidates in becoming members of parliament, as any other persons.
The House divided: For the Amendment 11: Against it 30: Majority 19.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 10.
MILITARY AND NAVAL PENSIONS—DEAD WEIGHT.]
The House resolved itself into a committee on the Military and Naval Pensions Act.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he rose to propose a resolution for the repeal of what was called the Dead Weight Act. The measure which he now proposed to repeal, had been under discussion before the Finance Committee, and the result was, that, in the opinion of that committee, the arrangement under that act should not be continued. In 1821, the great pressure on the finances of the country made the government anxious to find out any means to relieve it. It was accordingly proposed
1646
Mr. Hume
was glad that this mischievous act was to be repealed. If suffered to continue, the public would be losers to the extent of four millions by it. As it was, it had occasioned the loss of one million to the public; notwithstanding which the individual who introduced the measure had been since rewarded with a pension and a peerage.
Mr. Maberly
said, that a more injurious measure than this act had never passed that House. It was a downright fraud; and had entailed a heavy expense upon the country. Not one of the members of the Finance Committee had defended it.
Mr. Leycester
said, that a worse measure than that which was about to be repealed, it had never entered into the head of man to propose.
The resolution was agreed to.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.]
The report being brought up,
Mr. F. Lewis
said, that the danger which might result from the sudden withdrawal of the money invested by the Savings Banks, in time of war or of panic, must be apparent. He should therefore propose this clause,—"that whenever the sum borrowed from the Savings Banks amounted to 20,000,000
l
l
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, the danger mentioned by the right hon. gentleman seemed to him very great; seeing that all those who had money in Savings Banks
1647
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no great objection to the proposal of his right hon. friend, though he saw no necessity for it. He did not think that any danger was to be apprehended from the withdrawal of this money; because the depositors were so numerous, that it would require the concurrence of half a million of people before much harm could be done. It would be easy to alter the bill, if it should be found to be dangerous.
Mr. F. Lewis
said, he would withdraw the clauses, and leave to ministers the responsibility of guarding the country against the danger which he anticipated.
CORPORATE FUNDS BILL.]
Mr. Otway Cave
Colonel Wilson
opposed the measure, because he was convinced, if it were passed, that no man's freehold would be safe. He should move "That the bill be read a third time this day three months."
Lord Lowther
seconded the amendment. He would contend, that all corporations had a right to use their own property in any way that to them seemed good, provided such property were not specifically destined to the support of charitable foundations; and in this he was backed by the opinions of three chancellors. He could see no more impropriety in a corporation expending part of its funds to return a townsman, who was acquainted with the interests of a borough, to parliament, than there was in the voting of swords and snuff-boxes to gallant officers by the city of London.
Mr. Capel
described the tyrannical conduct of the mayor of Queenborough, who had ruined the poor fishermen of that place, because they would not vote as he pleased; and contended, that, with such a case of the misappropriation of Corporate Funds before them, they were bound to adopt the present measure.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he should not follow the hon. gentleman who immediately preceded him into any discussion of the merits or demerits of the right worshipful the mayor of Queensborough; but should directly address himself to the arguments of the noble lord (Lowther)—backed, as the noble lord asserted himself to be, by the opinions of three Chancellors; but which very remarkable opinions he could not but think must, of necessity,
1648
1649
1650
Mr. Gurney
said, that the effect of this assumed power of recurring to corporate funds in contested elections, on the freedom of the representation, was with him
1651
1652
Mr. Ross
would vote against the bill, which he conceived to be perfectly uncalled for.
Mr. Batley
conceived that it was no part of the duty of corporate bodies to support the return of members of parliament. He should therefore support the bill.
The House divided: for the third reading 35; against it 10; majority 25. Colonel Sibthorpe again divided the House, on the question that the bill be now read a third time; for the motion 35; against it 4; majority 31; The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, July 11.
THE BUDGET.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose. He said that the period was at length arrived, when the supplies being closed, it became his duty to submit to the House a statement of the finances of the country for the current year. In so doing, he was not insensible to the difficulties of the task, at all times arduous, but particularly so in a first statement; neither did he overlook the peculiar disadvantages under which he laboured. The House could not forget, that the last financial statement was made by a right hon. gentleman, unfortunately now no more, to whose great talents and public services they had more than once borne ample testimony during the present session: they could not forget, that whatever subject that right hon. gentleman undertook, he was enabled to adorn in a manner not to be surpassed. He felt no
1653
1654
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1655
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1656
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1657
l
l
l
l
1658
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1659
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1660
1661
1662
l
l
1663
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1664
l
Mr. Maberley
said, that the right hon. gentleman had dealt with the whole subject fully and fairly. The amount of surplus upon which the right hon. gentleman had calculated in 1828, was at the outside 2,000,000
l
l
l
l
l
1665
l
l
l
l
l
l
s
d
l
s
d
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1666
l
l
1667
Mr. Leycester
was delighted to find that that glorious piece of nonsense, the Sinking fund was about to be extinguished. The evil of our system was, that we had too much capital and too little income. The Sinking-fund operated like a sumptuary law, crippling trade and limiting commercial speculation.
Mr. Hume
said, he was happy to address the House that evening on this subject under an altered state of things. How often, within the last five years, had they heard within those walls the sentiments which had now come from the mouth of the chancellor of the Exchequer reprobated and denied, when issuing from his (Mr. H. 's) lips? The right hon. gentleman had admitted, that the established system was erroneous, and the Finance Committee had censured it as too bad to be continued any longer. He should not now go into an examination of Mr. Pitt's system of finance. He contended, that no government could benefit by trafficking in its own securities. There had been no budget presented for many years, without his making this statement. But how had it been met by government? By nothing but a mere denial. He had flattered himself, that in the Finance Committee the Treasury would allow it to be ascertained, how far his allegation of loss to the public was correct. He had made up an account of the surplus revenue which we had had since 1816; thinking that that account would lead to the simplest mode of ascertaining the loss which we had sustained. He had laid that account before the committee, and had called upon the government, if it were incorrect, to point out where the incorrectness lay. He would now state to the House what had been the loss by the Sinking-fund since the year 1816, from which year we had had a surplus revenue. From 1816 to 1828, there was a surplus revenue of 35,000,000
l
l
1668
l
l
l
l
l
s
d
l
l
l
s
d
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s
l
s
d
l
s
l
s
1669
l
l
l
l
l
1670
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Monck
contended, that every reduction of debt ought to be accompanied by a suitable reduction of taxation. It was quite plain that by paying at the rate of eighty-eight and ninety, a debt, the greater portion of which had been contracted at the rate of sixty-two, a deal of
1671
Mr. Ward
said, he was desirous to express his opinion with regard to one point; namely, the promise invariably held out to the holders of funded property relative to the maintenance of the Sinking-fund. He would recur to the words of lord Liverpool, relative to this fund, and would then leave the House to judge, whether the fundholder should be left without the protection of the Sinking-fund, when the landed interest had obtained a Corn-bill. The words of lord Liverpool were—"So much profit will accrue from the remission of taxes—but, at what loss? No less than the abandonment of the Sinking-fund, which I maintain is the great support of public credit, whatever may be its amount." In a subsequent paragraph his lordship stated: "The next object to which government has directed its attention, is the maintenance of a Sinking-fund of five millions; and it is my sincere hope and belief, that we shall have a surplus revenue sufficient to accomplish that desirable object." He did not read these extracts with a view to embarrass government: but he felt it his duty to ask, on behalf of the fundholder, that the House should declare what he was to expect.
Mr. Herries
, after defending the late Mr. Canning from the charge brought against him by the hon. member for Aberdeen, of inaccuracy, in the budget which he had introduced last year, observed, that the hon. member had alluded to the Dead Weight act. Now, he would distinctly say, that the members of government, who belonged to the Finance Committee, had gone as far as any others to put an end to that system. With respect to the Sinking-fund, no one could have been more anxious than he was, to arrive at the true principle of that fund divested of all the intricacy which had been interwoven with the subject. When the subject came before the Finance Committee, opinions were divided on the subject, and he believed he might venture to state that the proposition for the abolition of the present Sinking-fund proceeded from one of the members of his majesty's government. At the same time, while he expressed these sentiments, he was anxious to discounte-
1672
l
1673
1674
l
l
l
Sir Henry Parnell
said, he did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, on which he founded the ways and means of his budget: it appeared to him to be a perfectly fair statement, and that he might have even gone further in estimating the probable revenue for this year. The same fairness had marked the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, and the Master of the Mint, in the Finance Committee, and had very much contributed to save the time of the committee, and to advance the objects for which it had been appointed.—The first observations he had to make on the subject under debate, he should apply to the new plan of a Sinking-fund: he thought the chancellor of the Exchequer had not correctly or sufficiently explained: this plan to the House, at least the plan I recommended by the Committee of Fi-
1675
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1676
l
l
1677
l
l
1678
l
l
l
l
s
l
s
l
s
d
1679
l
l
l
1680
l
l
l
l
l
l
1681
l
l
l
1682
l.
After a few words from Mr. P. Thompson, the resolutions were agreed to.
EAST RETFORD.]
On the motion of Mr. N. Calvert, the further consideration of the report of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, was deferred to the 22nd instant, and the East Retford Freeman Bill, was ordered to be committed on that day three months.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 14, 1828.
SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Hudson Gurney
rose to present a petition, which had, he said, been put into his hands, signed by upwards of five hundred clerks, in the various public offices, which he begged, previously to the right hon. gentleman's motion, for the second reading of the bill, to recommend to the attention of the House. The allegations of the petitioners were; first, that the measure would be a breach of compact; secondly, that it went to charge on a smaller number now employed, the Superannuations of a greater number of persons, who had been discharged on the reduction of the scale of the establishments; thirdly, that the labour of the reduced establishments, so far from admitting a diminution of their salaries, was now so very great, as rather to give them an equit-
1683
Mr. Gurney
said, he understood there was one office, where there was an establishment of a hundred and sixty clerks, of whom only seventy-six were now retained: and that seventy-six would, under this bill, be charged their proportion for the superannuation allowances of those who had been dismissed. Under these circumstances, he trusted the right hon. gentleman might be induced to postpone the measure to another session for further inquiry, as it must be quite evident, emanating as it did, from a report of the Finance Committee, only that day put into the hands of the members, that it could not by possibility have received the consideration which a measure, pressing so hard on so large and meritorious a class of public servants, unquestionably merited. Indeed, he could not but greatly regret, in as far as he had yet seen, that the reports of the Finance Committee had gone to the reduction of the fair and reasonable remuneration of those public officers who performed efficient and heavy labour; many of them already with inadequate salaries, instead of having, on a more enlarged view of the financial state of the country, proposed the origination of any measure which had been likely to give any effectual relief. He had been one who had voted in the majority on the question of the Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, on the statement of those who might be considered best able to judge of the necessity, of the continuance of the office; but
1684
Mr. Gurney
said, that in moving that the petition be read, he should wish it to be read at length, and presumed to request the attention of gentlemen to the statement of the parties immediately interested, as that statement would be found much more clear as well as more forcible than any thing that he could offer in its support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
having withdrawn the motion for the second reading of the bill, the said petition, and also one presented by sir H. Hardinge from the clerks in the Ordnance Department, and one presented by Mr. F. Buxton, from the Clerks in the Excise, were brought up. On the motion, that the bill be read a second time,
Colonel Sibthorp
called the attention of the House to a respectable body of individuals connected with the Hackney-coach-office. Many of them had been upwards of twenty years in that office, and their interests would be materially affected by the operation of this bill.
Mr. Trant
was of opinion, that the measure would inflict great hardship on many deserving individuals.
Mr. H. Davis
expressed himself hostile to the measure. He thought the opinion of Mr. Burke a very just one; namely, that "parsimony was not economy, and that a good servant well paid was the most valuable and the cheapest." He regretted that the Finance Committee should at so late a period of the session have recommended a measure which, if carried, would be injurious to the character of parliament, seeing that the principle was founded in injustice. Every man entered office under an implied contract, that after the lapse of
1685
ex post facto
Sir R. Wilson
said, that to the operation of the principle prospectively, he had no objection, but he felt a very strong repugnance to its retrospective effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was anxious to state to the House his opinions with reference to this question. He felt that he was placed in a very painful situation, but still he would not shrink from the performance of his duty. The House had appointed a committee for the purpose of revising the expenditure of the country; and that committee had almost unanimously declared, that such a measure as that which he had introduced ought to be carried into effect. Standing in the situation which he had the honour to fill, he should have been charged with a high degree of cowardice, if, after such a recommendation, he had refused to bring the measure before the House. On that account he was prepared to vindicate the bill, and to state the reasons on which the committee had come to their decision. The whole expenditure for the service of the country the committee found to amount to twenty-one millions, and of this five millions were appropriated to the ineffective service, including superannuation, pension, and retired allowances. The committee was anxious not to deprive the country of the active services of those who were engaged in the public departments, and they therefore turned their attention, to consider if it were possible, without any deviation from just principle, prospectively to diminish the expenditure for services that were passed. Of the five millions which the ineffective service of: the country cost, the committee found that nearly half a million was appropriated to the payment of the civil pensions, and this sum had been increased within a few years from 330,000
l.
l.
1686
Mr. C. Grant
said, he disliked the bill on account of its retrospective operation, and was still mere opposed to it, because it would bring into action a principle never heard of before; namely, that those who spent their lives in public offices should provide for the wants of their old age out of the salaries which were granted to them as a remuneration for their present labours. It had always been a principle, recognized by the House and by the country, that those who had served the public well should not be deserted by the public in old age, in sickness, or distress. This was a wise, a politic, and a generous principle; and he must say that he did not like the words of the report of this most respectable committee, when they called money applied in accordance to this principle, a loss to the public. Public servants paid a large and usurious interest for the money thus bestowed upon them. With respect to military services, this principle was instantly admitted, and the money was cheerfully applied. And why not with respect to civil services, where there was not only the absence of that fame, and splendor, and renown, which in themselves constituted recompense for military
1687
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had stated accurately the course of reasoning followed by the Committee of Finance. They found that the charge for superannuation allowances had increased from 94,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
1688
ex parte
1689
l.
l.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, there appeared to be two very different views of the question, one of which had been painted by his hon. friend who spoke last, on the side of saving; and the other by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Grant), on the side of justice; and certainly the term justice might be applied to a case in which no less than three thousand persons were so deeply interested, and whose comfort and respectability depended so much on the turn this measure might take. It was very necessary that this comfort and respectability should be kept up, for it added, in no small degree, to the public welfare; and it was a remarkable thing, that every foreigner who had inquired into the subject had borne testimony to the fact, that there was less divulging of the secrets of office among the public servants of England than in any other state in Europe; and it was equally true, that within the last century there had been much less of fraud and peculation among the officers of the public than in any other kingdom.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
thought that, if there was an intention to do justice to the public clerks, it would be necessary to examine into particular cases; some of which stood on very different grounds from others; and this was one of the reasons why he thought it right for the House to pause before they came to any decision; but at the same time he would take upon himself to say, that a most disagreeable task had been imposed upon the Finance Committee, and it by no means followed that they had been wrong in their execution of it. As far as the measure was prospective, whatever the legislature should resolve upon, would, perhaps, be fair; but it should be remembered, that this bill was also retrogressive in its enactments; besides which it was founded on the bill of 1822, which had been repealed by parliament in 1824. According to his view the proposed measure was neither more
1690
Mr. Robinson
likewise supported the postponement of the measure.
Mr. Courtenay
thought that the Finance Committee had not had time to look into the merits of the subject. He had commenced life as a clerk in a public office, and in that situation he had had opportunities of seeing how business was done. He could not but say that, in some offices, there were some idle men. He considered, that the House ought not to fix the salaries at the
minimum
The chancellor of the Exchequer then withdrew the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 15, 1828.
GAME BILL.]
Lord Wharncliffe,
before he moved the second reading of the Game-bill, wished to allude to the way in which the powers of that House had been curtailed by the other House of parliament. Their lordships, early in the session, had passed a bill on this subject, that went to the House of Commons. When it arrived there, that House discovered, that the bill levied a tax upon the subject. On that ground they thought fit to throw it out, and bring in another, which was the bill under their lordships' consideration. Now he must say that in their notion of what was levying a tax on the subject, the ideas of the House of Commons were somewhat strained, when they maintained that the House of Lords must not pass a bill containing a pecuniary penalty, or repeal a bill containing one. If that really was their claim, it was time that it should be understood; for if such were the case, their lordships were there merely to register the bills of the House of Commons. This, he contended, would be an encroachment on their lordships' privileges; and it was the opinion of many that this claim of the Commons ought not to be admitted, and that some understanding should be come to on the subject. He trusted, whatever decision their lordships
1691
The Earl of Westmorland
said, he was opposed to the principle of the bill, because he believed it would be most oppressive in its operation. It was an invasion of the rights of others, and would have a tendency to encourage poaching. It also tended to change the character of landowners to that of huxters and poulterers. On these grounds, he should move as an amendment, that it be read a second time that clay six months.
The Earl of Falmouth
said, that the bill was supported on the ground, that it would tend to diminish poaching. It would not, he contended, have that effect. The evidence taken before the committee did not justify the opinions of those who supported it. Most of the persons examined stated, that it was doubtful whether legalizing the sale of game would diminish poaching, and the case of Scotland was adduced, where the sale of game was permitted, and where it was proved that the number of poachers had recently increased. As an experiment, he would have no objection to the bill; neither would he object to an alteration of the laws with respect to qualification, some of which were absurd. But this bill went further than he was disposed to go. It allowed persons holding copyhold lands to qualify others; and whether such land was twenty-five acres or one hundred acres, it was the same thing to him, it was to the principle that he objected; which, instead of considering the value of
1692
The Marquis of Salisbury
observed, that his noble friend had said, that he was ready to give his support to a bill which should legalize the sale of game. Now this bill went very little further. Besides, I his noble friend had only been able to find one objectionable clause in the bill. He had therefore a right to calculate on the support of his noble friend in other parts of the bill. For the objection able clause, his noble friend might urge his arguments against it when the bill was committed. He put it to their lordships, whether they would now act in contradiction to what they had themselves resolved upon, and sent down for the consent of another branch of the legislature.
The Earl of Carnarvon
, while he supported the present bill, was ready to admit that he did not suppose it would put a stop to poaching altogether. He doubted whether any bill would have such an effect. What he wished to put a stop to was, that permitting the poacher to have an exclusive monopoly of the sale of game. All the poulterers had declared, that they could procure a sufficient supply of game to answer the present demand, or any demand which was likely to arise. This they could now only procure through those who were guilty of crimes against the law. If they passed the present bill, a supply could be procured through a legal channel; but what was of much greater importance, they would give a better character to the laws of the country.
Lord Wharncliffe
said, that one of the objects of the bill, was to bring gentlemen into the market, in order to drive out the poacher. This experiment had never yet been made; and he was satisfied, that, if made, the result would be much better than the present state of things. With respect to the mode of qualification in the bill, he would only observe, that that qualification had been brought as near as possible to the law of Scotland. If their lordships threw out the bill, what would be the effect of such a course upon the country, after a committee had proved that, in spite of the laws, game was supplied to the public; that from the highest to the lowest, their tables were supplied with game by poaching? In all the great markets of the metropolis, game was sold; and, would their lordships say, that they would not make that legal, which, in spite of all
1693
Their lordships divided upon the motion, "that the bill be now read a second time." Content—Present 37; Proxies 27–64. Not-Content—Present 36; Proxies 58–94. Majority against the second reading 30.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 15, 1828.
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES.]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose to move, that an Address be presented to His Majesty representing, "That this House has observed with great satisfaction, that the original Natives of South Africa have always been recognized by the British government as a free people, having a lawful abode in the Colony; and that the British government has promised to protect their persons, property, and possessions, the same as those of other free people:—That this House humbly solicits His Majesty to cause such instructions to be sent to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, as shall most effectually secure to all the Natives of South Africa, the same freedom and protection as are enjoyed by other free people of that Colony,
1694
"Researches in Southern Africa;" a work which contained more information on the subject, than any book he had ever read.
Sir G. Murray
said, he concurred generally in the views of the hon. member.: He had nothing more at heart than to make all classes in the colonies sensible, that his majesty was desirous to extend to them protection equal to that enjoyed by his subjects in any other part of his dominions.—The motion was agreed to.
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY—CONDUCT OF SIR JOHN NICHOLL.]
Mr. Hume
said, he was compelled to postpone presenting a petition complaining of proceedings in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and of the conduct of sir John Nicholl, of which he had given notice. Having been absent from town, he had not had time to see that the allegations in the petition were confirmed by affidavits. It was, therefore, his intention to postpone his motion till to-morrow.
1695
Sir J. Nicholl
said, he was quite ready to meet any charge which might be preferred against him, and thought it rather hard that the hon. member should decline proceeding with his accusation that day, after having published a notice to that effect all over the kingdom. He could justify his conduct, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the House. Under the impression that the petition would have been that day presented, he had disposed of all the business of his court, and made arrangements to leave town with his family to-morrow. He should certainly expect the hon. gentleman to proceed according to his notice. He was ready to assume that the statements of the petition were confirmed by affidavit.
The Attorney-General
said, that the hon. member should have ascertained whether there were grounds for the complaint before he had given notice of presenting such a petition.
Sir J. Nicholl
said, the hon. member had given notice of a motion for that night, directed against him; and here he was in his place to meet the charge. But the hon. gentleman had postponed his motion, on the ground of his not being prepared with affidavits to substantiate his statements. He could not help thinking it hard that he and his family should be obliged to remain in town, in order to meet the convenience of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member ought to have satisfied himself, that the allegations contained in the petition were well founded, before he came forward to impugn the character of a gentleman who had filled a high judicial situation for twenty years, without the slightest imputation upon that character. Every one knew how painful such a charge was however triumphant might ultimately be the answer to it; for there were always to be found persons ready to believe that there existed some foundation for it. It was a grievous thing that there should exist in this country a lion's mouth, into which all sorts of vague accusations might be cast, and from which charges could proceed without the slightest foundation. If the hon. member did not bring forward his charge that night, he should not consider it necessary to remain in town, but should leave the matter in the hands of his hon. friends [cheers].
Mr. Hume
said, he had read the petition, and believed the allegations which it contained; but, because he thought it
1696
Dr. Lushington
said, that if the hon. member had no other evidence respecting the transactions which formed the subject of the petition, than statements derived from the person who signed it, or from his solicitor, he was conversant with every part of the case which related to the right hon. judge, and he pledged his character to the fact, that there never had been a charge brought before the House, more totally destitute of truth. He should not do justice to the right hon. judge, in whose court he had practised for twenty years, if he did not avail himself of that opportunity, not only of bearing testimony to the assiduity, ability, and impartiality with which he had presided in that court, but also of stating that the petition in question came before the House under the name of an individual who was not its author. It came, in reality, from a pettifogging attorney, who had been guilty of perjury, and had attempted extortion.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that nothing could be more unjust than the course which the hon. gentleman had pursued. This was another abuse of the privileges of the House. After giving notice of a charge against the right hon. gentleman, was it fair in the hon. member to say he had been out of town, and was unable to make himself master of the accusation? The character of the right hon. judge was a sufficient protection against vague and groundless accusations: but such might not be the case in every instance.
Dr. Phillimore
said, it was an extreme grievance that a notice, like the one in question, should have been circulated all over the country. The right hon. judge had presided over his court for twenty years, and it was universally admitted, that in no court was justice more expeditiously or impartially administered. When this right hon. judge came down to meet a charge of which notice had been publicly given, the hon. member said he would put it off. If the hon. member did not bring it forward now, he was bound not to do so after the right hon. gentleman had left town.
Mr. Hume
said, that if the right hon. gentleman thought it worth while to vindicate his character, he would remain in town twenty-four hours for that purpose. He would present the petition on Tours-
1697
BRITISH MERCHANTS' CLAIMS ON
Sir James Mackintosh
rose to call the attention of the Mouse to a case of no ordinary importance, as affecting the interests of a variety of British Merchants trading to, resident in, or connected with, Spain. He was charged with presenting in behalf of those persons a petition, enumerating the harassing delays and disappointments they had experienced in their attempts to recover their property, or a compensation for its loss, under a convention concluded between his majesty's government and the king of Spain in the spring of 1823. He believed there was not on record a more manifest, obstinate, and inflexible, instance of denial of justice than this, on the part of the king of Spain towards British subjects. Their losses amounted to above 3,000,000
l
1698
l
l
1699
l
l
l
1700
l
l
l
maximum
1701
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that men of higher honour than the petitioners were not to be found in the city of London. He felt bound to support their claims with all the energy of which he was capable. Many of those persons had been reduced from affluence to a state of abject poverty. One of them had been living on the bounty of his friends, expecting daily an adjudication in his favour; but having sunk under his misfortunes, he was now the inmate of a public hospital. If that unhappy situation was the result of any fault of his own, his case might not call for the interposition of
1702
Mr. Fergusson
said, he would confine himself to the single point of the imperative duty which had devolved upon government to see the convention fulfilled. Here was a case in which a regular arrangement had been made between a person in the confidence of the Spanish court. It was not denied that the agents of the court of Madrid had acted with full powers; but it was alleged that they had exceeded their instructions. Now, suppose the British claimants had agreed to accept 500,000
l
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was quite impossible to deny the undoubted justice of the claims of the petitioners—claims recognised and ratified by a solemn convention, and the right hon. gentleman had borne testimony to the exertions of those who had attempted to give effect to that convention. He knew that Mr. Canning, and after him lord Dudley, had given their utmost attention to those claims. His noble friend, who at present presided over the Foreign Department, had been so much occupied, since his entrance into office, that he had not been able to attend to that particular subject. He nevertheless believed, that nothing was more on his noble friend's mind, than to obtain justice for the petitioners. If, having said thus much, he should offer any opposition to the motion, he trusted it would not be attributed to any intention to oppose claims, the justice of which he had already proclaimed. He thought the right hon. gentleman himself must see, that the manifestation of the opinion of the House would be sufficient for his object. He thought also that to pledge the House to
1703
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the discussion had offered the best answer to the calumnies which had been circulated in another place, that the new South American States had so misconducted themselves, since their independence had been established, that the best thing that could be done would be to replace them under the dominion of the parent state. Now, it had been proved, in the case before the House, that the conduct of that parent state had been of a much more flagrant nature, than either Europe or America had furnished an lexample of. He feared, from what had already occurred, that the present government of this country was not disposed to press the claims of the petitioners on Spain, as vigorously as their predecessors had done, in the time of the Cortes; and he saw no reason why the present Spanish government should be treated with more indulgence than the government of the Cortes.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he trusted that the period was near at hand, when the claimants would obtain that fair compromise which, under all the circumstances, could be accepted by them; always providing that such compromise was binding on the king of Spain, and to be forthwith
bona fide
1704
Sir J. Mackintosh
observed, that the claimants had so often expressed themselves willing to accept of a fair compromise, that he could not think of urging them to adopt a course, towards which they were so perfectly disposed already.—He could not help thinking, however, that the declaration of the right hon. gentleman as to the anxiety with which this government had urged the claim of common honesty upon the government of Spain, and, as the result had proved, with so little success, afforded no great prospect of a satisfactory arrangement.—In conclusion, he took it to be the understanding of the House, as much so as if they had expressed it by resolution, that he now abstained from urging the claim, from the conviction that government would take the most effectual means in their power to procure compensation for the petitioners.
Ordered to lie on the table.
NATIONAL DEBT BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Huskisson
said, that in the general view which the chancellor of the Exchequer had taken of our finances, he for the most part cordially concurred: but there was no opinion of his right hon. friend in which he more cordially concurred, than that in which he declared, that we ought to have no Sinking-fund save that which was produced by the surplus of our revenue above our expenditure. Though he was not prepared to quarrel with the proposed reduction in the Sinking-fund, he was disposed to lament that that fund would not he larger in amount. A Sinking-fund of 3,000,000
l
1705
l
l
l
l
1706
l
1707
l
1708
Mr. Maberley
was aware of the great inconvenience of the present state of the Unfunded Debt. In 1825, the Bank could scarcely have gone on two hours without a Restriction act. He thought the present system of the deficiency-bills was dangerous. The Bank, by the government anticipating its quarter's revenue, might be in a situation to say, if they did not grant them a Restriction act, that they would not make advances to pay the dividends. The Bank ought never to have had a Restriction act without paying for it to the country. It ought to reduce its rate of discount, and the Sinking-fund should be spent in reducing the Unfunded Debt; for, by purchasing in the 3½ per cents, instead of the Unfunded Debt, the country would lose 200,000
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he entirely concurred in the general principles which his right hon. friend had laid down. With regard to the Bank, he would observe, that the directors were the best judges of its proper management, and that the government had nothing more to do than to watch their proceedings, if their transactions appeared to interfere with the concerns of the country. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, he must beg it to be distinctly understood, that he had given no pledge that the surplus revenue should be applied solely to the reduction of the Unfunded Debt. While the government diligently attended to the pecuniary concerns of the country, they would not fail to avail themselves of any circumstances which might appear advantageous for the reduction of the Debt, whether funded or unfunded. But he could not think that it would be at all beneficial to accede to limit the power of the commissioners to the purchase of one particular fund. He did not pledge himself to any particular course of conduct: he only asked, on behalf of the government, that they should be left free and unrestricted, but responsible for their conduct, if they should be found to abuse the powers placed in their hand by parliament.
1709
Mr. Hume
said, that ministers ought to be compelled to apply the surplus according to some settled principle, and to redeem some particular Stock. He could not approve of the principle of the bill; because it obliged the government to appropriate three millions to the redemption of the Debt, until parliament again met; and if the consolidated fund did not yield this sum, it was only establishing a Sinking-fund with two millions less. The bill was inconsistent with the resolution of the Finance Committee, and therefore he objected to it.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, July 16, 1828.
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE COUNTRY—TURKEY—GREECE—PORTUGAL.]
Lord Holland
rose and said:—My lords, the information, to obtain which I rise to move an Address to the Crown, relates to two important branches of our foreign affairs; I mean those connected, first, with the Treaty of Triple Alliance, and the situation of Greece, and Turkey, and Russia; and secondly, with our ancient Ally, the kingdom of Portugal. These are both subjects of great interest; and the attention of parliament was directly called to them by the Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the session, and expectations were raised, that the results would be made known to your lordships on both these subjects; but, during the whole session, no further information has been laid before your lordships. My chief motive for submitting that motion to your lordships, with which I shall conclude, is, to protest against the appearance of indifference, which, if real, is a great calamity to the country, and must lead to the loss of that character of importance which this country has so long maintained. My motion, my lords, will be simply a motion for information. At the same time, I should be acting disingenuously, in submitting this motion for information, were I to say, that I see nothing peculiar in the situation of the country—no changes which have taken place within the last few months, in the general situation of affairs, which persuade me that we ought to congratulate ourselves on that confidence in his majesty's government, which is quite unparalleled in the history of parliament, and which may
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
My lords, I have done with the first division of my subject. I now enter upon a portion of it, which I confess I approach with considerable difficulty, and with some feelings of regret. I have always maintained, that the existence of a firm, friendly, and cordial alliance between Great Britain and Portugal, is of infinitely more importance to the interests of this country, than an alliance with all the other powers in the world put together. Splendid as have been the achievements of the noble duke in the profession which he adorns, no benefit that he has ever conferred on his country or on posterity has equalled in value the exercise of those powers of mind,
1718
1719
1720
1721
Then comes the blockade of Oporto.—The annunciation of that blockade by our government was certainly not accurately worded; for it gave Don Miguel a title which he had forfeited. As to the principle of the blockade, it was one, the justice of which I not only acknowledge, but am prepared to contend for; for it was the principle of protecting the weak against the strong. I cannot, however, but remark on the breathless haste with which this principle was acknowledged, when it was in favour of Don Miguel's cause; and the absence of breathless haste in acknowledging it, when it was in favour of a people contending against tyranny. Besides, the blockade scarcely-amounted to a real one; which is evident from the fact of the ease with which ships
1722
I think I have laid sufficient grounds for asking for information, looking to the
1723
1724
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that with respect to the documents for which the noble lord had moved, some of them were not in existence, others had appeared in the newspapers, and others were of such a nature, that it would be inexpedient to produce them, whilst transactions so delicate as those to which they referred were pending. If he declined, therefore, acceding to the motion, it was upon these grounds. But the noble lord had dwelt upon two main points, and he felt it necessary to notice the observations which the noble lord had made respecting them. Of these points, he should deal with the last first. In the expressions of regret to which the noble lord had given utterance, at the events which had recently taken place in Portugal, the noble lord must have expected complete concurrence, on the part of the government and of the House.—They were unquestionably subjects of regret; and every one must feel them to be so. Here, then, there was no charge against the government; but it was his wish to see the particular points on which the noble lord rested his charge or suspicion against government. For one of those there could not be the slightest foundation. The noble lord had said, that the professed principle on which we had acted with respect to Portugal was that of strict neutrality, and in this the noble lord was perfectly correct; but the noble lord had complained, that there were appearances which justified the suspicion that that principle had not been observed; and in support of this position the noble lord had mentioned the rapid acknowledgement, on our part, of the blockade of Oporto, and the title which we had given to the person who caused that blockade, in our notification of it. The latter complaint was a strange one indeed; for, whatever might be the title of Don Miguel now, the title given him, in the notification of the blockade, was certainly his title at the time that notifica
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
Viscount Goderich
said, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the motion on the same grounds as those which had been taken by his noble friend; but, at the same time, he must say, that he was not at all surprised at the motion which the noble lord had submitted to their lordships; because he agreed with the noble lord, that it would have a very bad effect, if it were supposed that the British parliament was ignorant of the march of public affairs amongst foreign states, or that it did not feel a deep interest in their proceedings. But, while he concurred with the noble Secretary in the propriety of not producing the documents which had been called for, his noble friend would excuse him if he said that their lordships had not derived from his explanation any precise information on the subject to which the attention of the House had been called. Now, listening as he had done, with great attention, to the speech of the noble mover, it was, he thought, quite impossi
1730
1731
1732
1733
The Duke of Wellington
said, that although he was perfectly satisfied with the answer given to the noble lord by the noble Secretary for the Foreign Department, and by the noble viscount, he could not allow the question to be put without troubling their lordships with a few observations. He did not blame the noble lord for bringing forward this motion; but he could not suffer his majesty's government to undergo censure, because they had not given occasion for a similar discussion. Ministers could only have given rise to such a discussion in two ways—either by coming down to parliament for a vote of credit, or by making a communication to parliament, if any particular event occurred which would oblige them to apply to the legislature to grant their aid, in support of the measures which it might be the policy of his majesty to adopt. But they had no occasion to take either the one step or the other. The noble lord had, he admitted, shown a sound discretion in refraining from bringing this subject before parliament at an earlier period; and he conceived that ministers had also manifested a sound discretion in not introducing the question, as they conceived it to be quite unnecessary to take such a
1734
1735
1736
1737
Lisbon Gazette
1738
The Earl of Dudley
said, that having lately filled the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he was desirous to state his sentiments on this subject. He would say, that he was entirely satisfied with the grounds upon which his noble friend had resisted the production of the papers asked for. Some of the documents to which the motion referred were already before the public, and others related to transactions at present in progress, and the production of which would be improper, at the present moment. There was one single point in the speech of the noble mover, upon which he wished to offer a remark. His noble friend did not appear to be altogether satisfied with what had been done by government, towards the preservation of the constitution in Portugal. He believed the opinion of his noble friend would be much altered, whenever the documents could be produced, which had reference to that transaction. He would then see, that every thing had been done which could be effected by the moral and political influence of this country, towards the maintenance of the constitution in Portugal. It was under the influence and advice of this country, that Don Miguel was induced to enter into those engagements which he had made, and which had been proposed by the government of this country, with the expectation and the hope that, as a prince and a gentleman, he would have felt himself bound to adhere to them. That attempt had been made in vain; but its failure was solely attributable to the conduct of Don Miguel, who had violated all the engagements which he had promised to observe when he arrived, in.
1739
The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, he felt himself bound to thank his noble friend for having brought the subject before their lordships, because it had drawn forth declarations which shewed that the government felt no indifference on the important topics referred to, and that they deemed it their duty to give the explanations required, as soon as they could be given consistently with prudence and expediency. After that declaration of the king's advisers, he thought it was not necessary for his noble friend to press his motion. The noble marquis then recapitulated the various points dwelt upon in the debate, contending, that the change in the situation of Europe effected by the conflict in which Russia had engaged with Turkey, was one which might by possibility demand the interference of this country.—With respect to Portugal, the separation of that country from the empire of the Brazils had been with the concurrence of Great Britain, and under circumstances which procured to this country the ascendancy which she had beneficially exercised, in Portugal for so many years. He agreed with his noble friend, that; the principle on
1740
Viscount Strangford
said, that two or three times during the session the noble mover had done him the honour of repeating an opinion of his, regarding the fidelity of the Turks, and the sincerity evinced by the Turkish government in keeping their verbal promises. He was not surprised that he had been misunderstood, in this instance, by the noble baron; indeed, he should have been more surprised if any thing that had fallen from so humble an individual should have been accurately recollected by that noble lord. He had never said or asserted that there existed any verbal treaty, or any other engagement which was considered as stronger than a written one, between this country and Turkey. What he said was this—that promises made three hundred years ago by the Turks, and which were now mere traditions, had been as faithfully observed by them as the most binding obligations of a written treaty. He had known other governments, who did not adhere half so faithfully to solemn, recent, and written treaties; and he trusted that the day would soon come when this House and the country would be taught by experience to entertain a similar opinion with him of those calumniated Turks, upon whom it pleased the noble lord to pour the vials of his wrath. The noble lord had alluded to an anecdote, as to a transaction which had taken place between M. Minziacki and the Reis Effendi. He knew nothing of that transaction, as he was not present when it was said to have occurred; but it would be most gratifying to him, if every document illustrative of his diplomatic intercourse with the Reis Effendi were laid on the table of that House. He felt no fear or shame, as to any thing that
1741
Lord Holland
said, that as the noble duke considered it his duty to resist his motion, he felt it necessary to persist in it; as he thought it would have a bad appearance in the eyes of the public and the world, if that House seemed indifferent on the subject of the great events which were passing on the theatre of Europe.
The motion was put, and negatived.
PROTESTS CONCERNING GREECE AND
The following Protests were entered on the Journal by lord Holland.:
"Dissentient;—1. Because—When the national faith is engaged in the prosecution of so important an object as the pacification of a Christian and European country, it is not usual to withhold from parliament for any long space of time, all communication of the issue or progress of his majesty's efforts to attain that object, without some explanation of the circumstances which retard such communication, or render it unseasonable and impolitic.
2. "Because —The governments of Russia and France have explained to their subjects and Europe, not only their views of the obligations contracted, and the objects proposed by the treaty of the 6th of July, 1827, but the degree, extent, and manner in which such views have been affected by the new situation, in which subsequent events, and a change in their relations to one another, or to the Ottoman Porte, have placed them respectively. And it seems to me that a public avowal of a corresponding feeling in his majesty's government is required, if not to maintain the honour of his crown, and to preserve entire the confidence of his allies, at least to promote the just and benevolent design announced in the Protocol and Treaty of rescuing the Greeks from the consequences of a protracted and barbarous warfare, by permanently separating them from the Turks, and securing to them, though tributary to the Ottoman Porte, the nomination of their own rulers, the administration of their internal affairs, and the full enjoyment of freedom of trade and liberty of conscience.
3. "Because—As the neglect on the part of Great Britain of the obligations contracted by the Treaty of the 6th of July 1827, would be equally derogatory to the honour, and injurious to the interests
1742
"Dissentient;—1. Because—The late revolution in Portugal, so inauspicious to the maintenance of our ancient relations and close connection with that country, appears to have been begun in the presence, and effected on the removal, of his majesty's military forces. And that just and natural interest which the parliament of Great Britain has ever taken in the safety, independence, and welfare of his majesty's oldest ally, seems to entitle this House to some information respecting the nature of the obligations which subsisted between his majesty and the persons who have assumed the regal authority in that kingdom; as well as of such claims or remonstrances as the emperor of the Brazils, or his daughter the queen Maria da Gloria, may have communicated to his majesty in consequence of the recent usurpation of their title or authority in Portugal.
2. "Because—the rejection of a motion for information respecting Portugal in the present circumstances of that kingdom, implies an indifference in parliament to the state of our relations with foreign powers, and such indifference appears to me at all times as little calculated to avert the necessity of war, as it is obviously ill suited to maintain the national dignity, or to raise the honour of his majesty's Crown during peace. V. HOLLAND."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, July 16,1828.
CUSTOMS BILL.]
On the order of the day, for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. P. Thompson
said, he should move the same amendment which he had twice brought under the consideration of the Committee; namely, that the Duty on all Silk Goods imported into this country from India, after October 10, might not exceed thirty per cent.
Mr. Lester
opposed the third reading of
1743
Mr. Hume
supported the amendment, and insisted on the pledge already given by government to the same effect.
Mr. Hobhouse
was anxious that the amendment should be carried, and thought that ministers ought to be still more so, for the sake of their own consistency;—as they had sanctioned the principle.
Mr. Maberly
said, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade had certainly led the House to understand, that he would continue in the steps of his predecessor. If his meaning had been mistaken, he should be glad if the right hon. gentleman would explain what his principles were.
Mr. Fergusson
adverted to the injury which the East-India trade would sustain from this measure; the principle of which no member of the government had attempted to justify. The House had received a distinct pledge, when the former act was passed, that it was of a temporary nature, and would be suffered to expire. The hon. gentleman dwelt on the injury which the manufacturing interest in India would sustain, if the present system should be persevered in, and urged the expediency of acceding to the amendment.
Mr. Wynn
said, he had not heard a single argument against the amendment. Such an alteration in the bill was called for by the interests of the country.
Mr. C. Grant
said, he should vote with ministers on this question, as they had made a concession to him, which would considerably shorten the duration of the higher duty.
The House divided on Mr. P. Thompson's amendment: Ayes 31; Noes 48. The bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 17,1828.
CORPORATE FUNDS BILL.]
Lord Goderich,
before he proposed the second reading of this bill, thought it right to explain the objects of the bill, and the grounds on which he conceived it ought to be read a second time. The different Corporations of the country were in possession of Funds, which were applicable to some specific purposes; some of those purposes were charitable, and others related to the police and local administration of the town. But besides the property which was so appropriated, cor
1744
l.
1745
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had looked at the bill, and felt it his duty to oppose the second reading. He must express his surprise that his noble friend should have moved it, for when a bill of a similar character was brought in last session, which he also thought it his duty to oppose, he thought it had been opposed by his noble friend. He had opposed that bill, as a member of his majesty's government, and had thought it his duty to do so. His noble friend had not, in supporting the bill, fallen into the mistake of those who had supported it in another place, who seemed to suppose that corporations held their property differently from individuals. Corporations were situated precisely the same as individuals: they held some property in trust, as individuals held property in trust and if
1746
1747
l.
l.
The Earl of Rosslyn
thought the learned lord bad mistaken the use of the word influence. No one had contended, that the corporation should not exert an influence in the elections, arising from their authority, in the place where they resided: but to employ their funds for the purposes of an election, did not seem to him to be proper. If a corporation might expend 27,000
l.
Lord Eldon
said, he did not mean to vote against this bill because he had voted against the bill of last year, but because he thought it was against the principles of the constitution. No man could doubt, at least no lawyer could doubt, what the law was on the subject. The right of corporations to property which they did not hold in trust, was the same as the right of individuals to private property. He knew this was law in Westminster Hall forty years ago, and he believed it was so to this day. Corporations had a right to dispose of the property they held, not in trust, to any purposes that were legal and not corrupt. The present bill, like the bill of last year, did not purpose to put a
1748
Lord Calthorpe
said, that the learned lords who had just addressed the House had not made a proper distinction between the acts of an individual and those of a corporate body. It was well known, that a corporate body in which there was a divided responsibility, would do many acts, on which no individual among them would venture, if left to act by himself. If the principle laid down, of allowing corporations to dispose of their funds, for a purpose not having immediate reference to their charter were acceded to, it would be difficult to know where to draw the line. Their lordships had abundant evidence to prove the disposition to abuse, and they would not, in his opinion, be justified in rejecting this bill.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that the question was, whether such an application of Corporate funds as was here mentioned was contemplated by the donors of corporate property. If it was, then their lordships were right in rejecting this bill; but if they considered such an application an abuse, they were bound to pass it. The learned lord had said, that an abuse by one corporation was not a justification of such a measure as this bill; but if one corporation did abuse its trust, it would be a good ground for passing a measure which would prevent similar abuses in other corporations. He was therefore in favour of the bill; and for this additional reason,—that if some such measure did not pass, it would, where there happened to be divided interests in the corporation, give to one party, the majority, by a power of diverting to extraneous purposes, funds which were intended for the benefit of all. The mayor of all boroughs was the returning officer at elections. He was bound by his oath to strict impartiality between the candidates; and yet, by that rule, he might give his casting vote for the application of the funds of the corporation, in aid of the interests of the one can.
1749
Lord Goderich
wished to correct a mistake into which the lord Chancellor had fallen with respect to Mr. Otway Cave. That gentleman had made no agreement with the corporation of Leicester, or with any party, to pay part of the expenses. An arrangement was made by others, which was to be kept from the two candidates, and that gentleman had heard nothing of it, nor did he suspect it until that corporation made a demand on him for several thousand pounds, which he very properly resisted.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had not meant to cast any imputation on Mr. Otway Cave.
Their lordships then divided on the amendment; Content 41; Not Content 10; Majority against the bill 31.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, July 17.
PREROGATIVE COURT OFCANTERBU BY —CONDUCT OF SIR JOHN NICHOLL.]
Mr. Hume,
in presenting the petition relative to the proceedings in the Prerogative Court and the conduct of sir John Nicholl, observed, that in order to the better understanding of the complaint, he should state shortly the outlines of the transactions that had given rise to it. In 1821, a person of the name of Evans died possessed of property to the value of 1,700
l
l
l
l
l
1750
l
l
l
l
l
1751
l
l
l
l
l
1752
dictum
1753
ex-parte
ex-parte
1754
Dr. Lushington
said, he was confident the House would extend its indulgence to him, when it recollected, that to him was committed the justification of a learned judge not present, who had long been a member of that House, had belonged to the profession of which he was an ornament for between forty and fifty years, and after filling the office of king's advocate, had, for nearly twenty years, been judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. In the first place, he wished to be permitted to account for the absence of the distinguished individual, at whose conduct the petition chiefly aimed. To the astonishment of that right hon. judge, he first saw in the notices of Friday last, a notice for the Tuesday following, in which he was denounced by name as a public delinquent. For what reason all fairness and delicacy of feeling had been disregarded in this case, he was at a loss to know. To the liberality of the hon. member for Montrose, the right hon. judge certainly owed nothing; but above all, it was extraordinary that the hon. member I should so denounce a party, hitherto with-
1755
1756
l
Dux facti
1757
1758
l
1759
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, it was not his intention to touch upon that part of the petition which complained of the conduct of sir John Nicholl; for, in his opinion, there was not the shadow of a foundation for the complaint. He had this reason for saying so—the decision of sir John Nicholl had been appealed from, and the tribunal to which the appeal was made did not consist of a single individual belonging to the court in which the right hon. Judge presided. Three common-law judges were called in to decide the appeal, and the result was a confirmation of the judgment of sir John Nicholl. There was, however, another branch of the case, to which the attention of the House had been very properly called, for the reason assigned incidentally by the learned doctor —namely, that at present there was no redress for the injury of which the petitioner complained. Of what was it that the petitioner complained? That being a litigant in one of the ecclesiastical courts in a suit by which he endeavoured to establish his claim to a property not exceeding 1,700
l
l
l
1760
The Attorney-general
perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Colchester, that there was not the slightest reason for
1761
Dr. Phillimore
said, that this was not the place to remedy any grievance of which the petitioner might have to complain. The courts of law were open to him if he required redress. After many years' experience he would assert, that there was no court in the country in which justice was executed in a more satisfactory manner, and with less expense, than in the Prerogative Court. He had known the learned judge of that court for thirty years, and could bear testimony to his purity and integrity. The charges brought against him were utterly unfounded.
Mr. H. Davis
strongly condemned the conduct of the hon. member for Aberdeen, in thus bringing forward charges, and keeping them suspended over the heads of individuals; whilst there were other steps, by which an aggrieved party could seek his remedy. He had known the right
1762
The petition was brought up and read. —On the motion, that it do lie on the table,
Mr. Hume
denied that he had ever been in the habit of bringing forward charges against individuals upon slight grounds, or of allowing them to remain over longer than was necessary. He denied that the present petition was any libel against sir John Nicholl, and contended, that the principle of the allegations it contained had not been refuted.
The Attorney-general
submitted, whether it was fair that a petition of this kind, containing such strong criminatory charges against a learned judge—charges, too, which were utterly unsupported—should be laid upon the table of the House.
The question, "that the Petition do lie on the Table," was then put, and negatived.
CORPORATION OF LEICESTER.]
Mr. Otway Cave,
in rising to move that the petition of the inhabitants of Leicester, which he had yesterday presented to the House, regarding the conduct of the Corporation of that borough, should be referred to a Select Committee, begged to state, that the returns, which had been ordered some time since by the House, from that Corporation, in reference to the building of a new gaol and house of correction in Leicester, had, after a great delay, been laid upon the table of the House, but in such an utterly imperfect form that the inhabitants had been unable to take any steps upon them, in order to show that a new gaol was not necessary, and that, therefore, they should not be burdened with an additional impost for its erection and support.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was hardly to be expected, that the House should occupy itself with the election disputes of the borough of Leicester. It appeared to him, that the hon. member had been put forward by a party in that place, to bring before the House all their local contests. If he saw any intention to conceal any thing from the House; if he saw on the returns any evasions; if the returns had been false; or if he had seen any of the privileges of the House evaded—he should have been ready to accede to the motion. But he saw no grounds for instituting that formal kind of inquiry proposed by the
1763
Mr. H. Gurney
said, he did not rise to induce the right hon. gentleman to consent to the motion, but to observe, that as the law now stood, and the bill which had been sent up from that House had been lost in the other House, corporations might make any use they pleased of the corporation funds. As the principle was now avowed, he should expect to see corporations employing all their resources, at another election, in bringing up out-voters. He hoped, however, that another bill would be brought into that House more complete than the last; and he would suggest it as a subject well worthy the right hon. gentleman's attention.
Mr. O. Cave
explained. In the course of his explanation, he observed, that he had not brought forward the motion because it originated with the party in the borough of Leicester which had sent him to the House. It had been signed by almost all the inhabitants. His election had no more to do with the petition than had the election for East Retford. If he had come down to the House with solemn plausibility, ingenious candour, and well-balanced cadence, and on that Election bill had declared he knew nothing of the dukery, and that that borough was under the influence of the duke of Newcastle, he should deserve as much to be believed as those were, who falsely imputed personal motives to him for the motion he had submitted. He would accept the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and propose to-morrow an amended motion.
Mr. Maberly
said, that as the other House would not concur with them in measures for restraining the power of corporations, it was due to the dignity of that House, that they should pass a resolution, declaring it to be a breach of their privi-
1764
Mr. Peel
said, that an expression used by the hon. member for Leicester called for some remark from him. He was willing to assume, that the hon. member harboured no intention to give him personal offence; but he was quite sure that the hon. member would excuse him, when he said, that the word "falsely" was improperly used: and he now asked the hon. member whether he meant to apply that term to him?
Mr. O. Cave
said, he understood the right hon. gentleman to state, that his motion originated in party feeling, growing-out of the Leicester election. If that were the case, he could not retract what he had said; because he was actuated by no such feeling. It was unfair, in the first place, to make such a charge; and, in the second, he conceived it to be falsely advanced.
The Speaker
said, he solemnly assured the House, that if he conceived it possible, when the hon. gentleman used the expressions adverted to, that he meant to direct them against any individual, he should certainly have interfered. He never was more astonished than when he heard the explanation which the hon. member had given of his own words.
Mr. O. Cave
trusted he had never shown any disposition to act in a manner personally offensive to any member. He had no intention, in the present instance, to excite unpleasant feelings. Should the right hon. gentleman say, that he did not use those expressions in a personal sense, then he would make such a reply as would, he hoped, be satisfactory to the House.
The Speaker
said, the hon. gentleman ought to express, that the words used by him were not intended as matter of personal offence to the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. O. Cave
said, he was ready to ask pardon of the House; but he spoke in the belief, that an attack had been made personally on him. He therefore must say, that he made the observations which had been adverted to in the same sense, whatever it might be, as that in which the remarks directed to him were uttered.
The Speaker.
The hon. member knows, that the rules of this House are not to be trifled with, and that no language can be allowed here which is personally offensive.
1765
Mr. O. Cave
said, that no person could be more unwilling than he was to offend the House; but he would ask, did not the right hon. gentleman make an allusion that was personally offensive to him? It was only because he understood that the right hon. gentleman made such an allusion that he had used the words which gave rise to this discussion. There was no one whom he respected more than he respected the right hon. gentleman; but he owed it to his own honour, not to suffer unworthy motives to be imputed to him without repelling the charge. He bowed with submission to the forms of the House, and he had not the slightest hesitation in apologizing to the House and to the chair.
The Speaker
said, that the hon. member did not appear to understand what the feeling of the House was. It was his duty to tell the hon. member, that the House called upon him for explanation and apology. This was the first time he had seen any gentleman display apprehension lest his honour should be injured by obeying the call of the House. He would tell the hon. member, that after what had passed, he would best consult his own honour by making the reparation which was now demanded of him. The Speaker then called twice upon Mr. O. Cave before the hon. member rose.
Mr. O. Cave
could only repeat, that if he had said or done any thing that was contrary to the usages of the House,—if he had said or done any thing that was disrespectful to the House or to the chair, he was perfectly willing to apologize. The hon. member was then about to leave the House amidst loud cries of "order," but on being called upon by the Speaker he resumed his seat.
The Speaker
said, that the hon. member should not be permitted to add further insult to the House. The hon. member must know that he had made use of personal language, which was not only offensive to the right hon. member against whom it was directed, but also to the House, whose forms and usages tolerated no such expressions. He really could not understand upon what principle it was,
1766
Mr. O. Cave
trusted, that he had never shown any disrespect to the chair or to the House; but he did not see how it could be fairly imputed to him, that he had drawn any distinction, when he had said that he apologized to the House. As to saying any thing further,—if any hon. member thought himself aggrieved by any thing that had fallen from him, let that hon. member get up and say that he had meant nothing personal to him, and he would say the same to that hon. member. But he did trust that there were no rules of that House which would deprive him of the vindication of his own honour, and of the maintenance of his personal character.
The Speaker
said, it must be clear that the hon. member's apology was only a partial apology. The hon. member had spoken of his personal honour. The hon. member must know that it was the duty of the chair to take care that no gentleman's personal honour should be hurt; and he must repeat, that the surest way in which the hon. member could preserve his honour was, to comply strictly and cheerfully with the demand which had been made upon him. He again called on Mr. O. Cave. After a short pause,
Mr. S. Rice
trusted that his hon. friend would receive the advice of a friend. He was a calmer witness than his hon. friend, and he did not understand any of the expressions of the right hon. gentleman to be personally directed against his hon. friend.
Mr. R. Colborne
thought there could be no doubt as to the course which the hon. member should pursue. The mind of that man must be strangely constituted who did not think that the courage of avowing a fault was courage of the most manly character.
Mr. O. Cave
said, that after what had fallen from his hon. friends, it would seem most impertinent in him to resist their advice. "I beg leave, Sir," continued the hon. member, "to make the apology in the sense in which you wish it to be made."
Mr. Peel
said, the House must see that he could not have preceded the hon. member in concession. He knew that he had
1767
Mr. O. Cave
then withdrew his motion.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND—CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Appropriation Act,
Mr. Spring Rice
rose, to claim from the chancellor of the Exchequer the fulfilment of his engagement, by the introduction of a clause permitting the lord lieutenant of Ireland to exercise an entire control over the sums voted for Education in Ireland. The pledge given was, that lord Anglesey should be enabled by parliament to issue the sums voted, either in the whole or in part, subject to such conditions as should appear expedient, or should be allowed to transfer them altogether to other establishments, should he consider such to be more deserving of parliamentary support. Under the authority of such an enactment, the government of Ireland might introduce more liberal and rational principles into existing schools, or, if that were impossible, might in new establishments try the experiment recommended by the report of the Select Committee of which he was chairman. He would avail himself of the present opportunity of making a communication to the House, which would have come from his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchdsea, who was prevented by indisposition and professional engagements from attending. It related to the subject of Education, and he felt confident that it would be gratifying both to the House and to the public Gentlemen would not have forgotten the laborious and interesting inquiries concerning schools commenced at the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend, several years back. The reports of the committees on Education and the digested returns prepared at that period, had given to the public the first accurate knowledge of the
1768
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, July 18, 1828.
AMERICAN TARIFFS.]
Mr. Huskisson
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
Mr. Hume
thought it would be much better, that government should not pay the least attention to the weak and ungenerous policy adopted, in this instance, by the United States, but leave it to fall by its own weakness. It was only a few years ago that we acted upon the same principle ourselves. One tiling rankled strongly in the breast of the Americans; and that was, our policy of excluding her staple trade, corn, from the ports of this country. He agreed in thinking, that for every pound which this country would lose by the operation of the tariff, America herself would lose five. If America persisted in her foolish plan, no doubt this country would soon find other connexions; and he was glad to hear an allusion made to the commerce of the Asiatic seas, which it would be so much the interest of Great Britain to cultivate. He differed, however, in thinking, that if the resolution to adopt retaliatory measures were once taken, it should be persisted in. The question would still arise, whether it would be to our advantage to adopt such a course.—For his own part, he was the enemy of all monopolies and restrictions.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had not the least objection to the motion of his right hon. friend, as the production of the papers would tend to elucidate the question with which they were connected. The hon. gentleman who had just sat down had attempted to defend the last tariff, as a measure of retaliation. But it would be a most extraordinary proceeding indeed, if America should think fit to adopt measures of retaliation, at the very moment when we had relaxed the severity of our Corn-laws. Those documents appeared to him the most conclusive proofs of the impolicy of the tariff; and he was disposed to expect, from the good sense of America, that she would regard it in the same light. The right hon. gentleman had suggested that they should look out for new sources of commerce; but in doing so, it might be necessary to hold out new inducements to the countries with which that commerce was sought to be established. This would render the retracing their steps the more difficult at a future period; and therefore it should render them the more slow in resorting to such a step. His right hon.
1776
After a few words from Mr. Trant, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Attwood, and Mr. C. Grant, the motion was agreed to.
CORPORATE FUNDS.]
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that if the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department did not, early next session, bring forward some measure to prevent the misapplication of Corporate Funds, he should himself feel it his duty to do so. If nothing was done to check the growing evil, the House would have petitions sent up from every great town in the kingdom, in such language as would make them be heard.—The hon. gentleman afterwards gave notice, that he would next session move for leave to bring in a bill "for more effectually to prevent the misapplication of Corporate Funds to Election purposes in such Cities and Boroughs as return Members to Parliament, where the Right of Election is in freemen, freeholders or inhabitants."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 21.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table acquainted the House, that he had received a Letter from Mr. Speaker, which he read to the House as followeth:—
New Palace Yard, 21st July 1828.
"Sir—I request you will acquaint the House with the great concern I feel at not being able to attend their service this day, in consequence of the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who died this morning at eleven o'clock. I am, Sir, very faithfully yours, C. MANNERS SUTTON.
"John Henry Ley, Esq.
Clerk of the House of Commons."
Whereupon it having been moved, That the House do adjourn till to-morrow;
1777
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 24.
NATIONAL DEBT BILL.]
On the order of the day, for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Bexley
said, it was intended by the bill before the House, to limit the issues to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to 3,000,000
l
1778
The Duke of Wellington
merely rose to thank the noble lord for his statement. There was no doubt that that report of the Finance Committee contained more information than any that had ever been laid before parliament, and he hoped their lordships would see in that report, an ample proof of the extent and solidity of the resources of the country, and of the benefit which had resulted to the country from a perseverance, as long as it was possible, in the plan adopted by Mr. Pitt for the redemption of the debt. In drawing the attention of their lordships to this subject, he could not but particularly notice the vast resources which, by the ability of his noble friend and the disposition of parliament, were provided to support the great exertions made during the last war; and he begged their lordships to advert to the facility with which those resources were provided, in consequence of the existence of that Sinking-fund, to which his noble friend had alluded. He would not in so thin a House, point out in what manner that Sinking-fund had worked; but there was one obvious remark which he begged leave to make;—namely, that the interest paid upon all the sums borrowed,
1779
l
The bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, July 25.
SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
presented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Charlton, Glocestershire, praying for the Abolition of Slavery. He would take that opportunity of giving notice, that unless government should, without delay, take means for carrying into effect the resolutions which the House had passed in 1823, the friends of this cause would themselves propose specific measures of colonial reformation, early next session. It was much to be desired, that the colonial legislatures might have the wisdom to render such interference unnecessary; as their own free acquiescence was infinitely the most convenient mode of adjusting the question. He was happy to say that his hon. and learned friend the member for Winchelsea had undertaken to bring this subject again under the consideration of parliament.
Sir G. Murray
said, that he could not suffer the opportunity to pass, without stating explicitly that it was not the intention of the present government to depart from the principle of the resolutions passed in 1823—resolutions which did equal credit to the feelings of the House, and the liberality of the administration. It was the desire of government to introduce a system which would be beneficial to the slaves, without infringing on the rights of private property.
1780
Mr. F. Buxton
said, he had heard with great satisfaction the declaration of the right hon. gentleman; and the more especially as words of a different import had been attributed to a noble member of his majesty's government in the other House. He was glad that the pledge given in 1823 was not to dwindle down to a mere recommendation to the colonial legislatures.
Mr. W. Horton
said, that under the circumstances, he did not deem it necessary to submit the resolutions of which he had given notice. He could not but express his pleasure at the gratifying intimation of the right hon. Secretary.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 28.
THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE CLOSE
After the royal assent had been given, by commission, to several bills, the following Speech of the Lords Commissioners was delivered to both Houses by the lord Chancellor:
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"We are commanded by his Majesty to acquaint you, that the business of the Session having been brought to a close, his Majesty is enabled to release you from your attendance in Parliament.
"His Majesty commands us at the same time to return to you his warm acknowledgments for the zeal and diligence with which you have applied yourselves to the consideration of many subjects of great importance to the public welfare.
"The provisions which you have made for the regulation of the import of Corn, combining adequate protection for domestic agriculture with due precaution against the consequences of a deficient harvest, will, in the confident expectation of his Majesty, promote the inseparable interests of all classes of his subjects.
"We are commanded by his Majesty to acquaint you, that his Majesty continues to receive from his Allies, and from all Foreign Powers, assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country.
"The endeavours of his Majesty to
1781
"His Imperial Majesty has found himself under the necessity of declaring War against the Ottoman Porte, upon grounds concerning exclusively the interests of his own Dominions, and unconnected with the Stipulations of the Treaty of the 6th July 1827.
"His Majesty deeply laments the occurrence of these hostilities, and will omit no effort of friendly interposition to restore peace.
"The determination of the Powers, parties to the Treaty of the 6th July, to effect the objects of that Treaty, remains unchanged.
"His Imperial Majesty has consented to waive the exercise, in the Mediterranean Sea, of any rights appertaining to his Imperial Majesty in the character of a belligerent Power, and to recall the separate instructions which had been given to the Commander of his Naval Forces in that Sea, directing hostile operations against the Ottoman Porte.
"His Majesty will therefore continue to combine his efforts with those of the King of France and his Imperial Majesty, for the purpose of carrying into complete execution the stipulation of the Treaty of London.
"His Majesty commands us to acquaint you, that his Majesty had every reason to hope, when he last addressed you, that the arrangements which had been made for administering the Government of Portugal, until the period at which the Emperor of Brazil should have completed his abdication of the Throne of Portugal, would have secured the Peace and promoted the happiness of a Country in the welfare of which His Majesty has ever taken the deepest interest.
"The just expectations of his Majesty have been disappointed; and measures
1782
"His Majesty relies upon the wisdom of the august Sovereign, the Head of the House of Braganza, to take the course which shall be best calculated to maintain the interests and honour of that illustrious Family, and to secure the peace and happiness of the Dominions over which it reigns.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"We are commanded by his Majesty to thank you for the Supplies which you have granted to him for the service of the present year; his Majesty will apply them with the utmost regard to economy, and will continue a deliberate revision of the several public establishments, with a view to any further reduction which may be compatible with the dignity of the Crown, and with the permanent interests of the country.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"His Majesty, commands us to congratulate you upon the general prosperity of the country, and upon the satisfactory state of the Public Revenue.
"His Majesty contemplates the increase of our Financial Resources with peculiar gratification, on account of the decisive proof which it exhibits, that the condition of his Subjects is one of progressive improvement.
"His Majesty commands us, in conclusion, to assure you that his unabated exertions will be directed to inculcate among Foreign Powers a spirit of mutual goodwill; and to encourage the Industry, to extend the Commerce, and advance the general Welfare of his own Dominions."
After which, the Parliament was prorogued until the 28th of August next.
1783
ADDENDA.
The following
of
and
on the Scotch Small Notes Bill, were accidentally omitted at p. 1065, immediately following the Speech of Sir John Wrottesley and preceding that of Mr. Secretary Peel.
Mr. Ward
congratulated the right hon. gentleman, and the hon. baronet who moved the amendment, on the tone in which this discussion had been conducted. It was one of the most interesting subjects that could engage the attention of an English House of Commons. It was so far new to him, that he should be backward in expressing any decided opinion upon it; he wished rather to know what was the intention of the House than to pretend to lead them to any particular decision. He looked upon the question of the coinage as the peculiar prerogative of the Crown. The Bank had a right granted to them in an especial manner to issue paper; but they were bound to make that paper convertible into gold, so long as it was the pleasure of his majesty that gold should be the standard currency of the country. The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the amount of gold in circulation in the country, and his statement had been supposed to be overcharged. On that subject he would give the House as much information as he had been able to obtain from the facilities afforded him as a bank director. The Bank had the same right as other bodies to transact their affairs in their own way; but his knowledge of their affairs enabled him to give the House some information. That information related principally to the sum issued in the shape of specie, and tended to show, that the right hon. gentleman's statement had been very little, if any, overcharged. From January 1821, to: July 1824, 17,373,000
l
l
l
l
1784
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1785
s
d
s
d
l
s
d
l
s
1786
1787
Sir H. Parnell
said, he had heard with great pleasure the observations of the hon. member for London upon the silver currency. He hoped the House would bestow on them the attention they deserved, from the high authority of the hon. member on subjects of this kind. The hon. member for Callington (Mr. Baring) had endeavoured to persuade the House to believe that it was right to alter the present plan of the silver coin; but, in doing so, he showed that he was not so well informed upon the subject as many might be disposed to believe he was. When he proposed this alteration in 1826, he (sir H. Parnell) opposed it; and every thing he had learned since made him feel he was right, and that he was supported by the best authorities on the question, out of this House. The fact was, that the last settlement of the coinage of this country, both of gold and silver, was perhaps the only instance in which the attempt to use both for coin had completely succeeded; the effects of all other countries had failed; there was, therefore, no doubt of the inexpediency of making: any experiment founded on the theories of the hon. member for Callington. In this instance, all the facts of the case were against his project.
1788
l
1789
1790
1791
l
l
l
1792
APPENDIX.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY, 1828,
CLASS.
I. PUBLIC INCOME.
II. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
III. CONSOLIDATED FUND.
IV. PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
V. UNFUNDED DEBT.
VI. DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
VII. ARREARS AND BALANCES.
VIII. TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. I.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, IRELAND, for the Year
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments. Allowances Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c.
Ordinary Resource.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Customs
21,009,052
10
4¼
1,069,659
14
6¼
19,939,392
15
10
Excise
22,224,443
15
8¼
2,231,217
7
10
19,993,226
15
10¼
Stamps
7,275,552
16
4¾
255,046
13
4¼
7,020,506
4
0¼
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
5,092,078
9
5¼
8,363
18
5
5,083,714
11
0¼
Post Office
2,278,412
14
7¼
88,055
10
9¼
2,190,357
3
10
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
63,842
11
7¾
-
-
-
63,842
11
7¾
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
72,254
14
11
-
-
-
72,254
14
11
Crown Lands
317,027
0
7
-
-
-
317,172
0
7
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
9,172
11
7
-
-
-
9,172
11
7
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,995
14
0¼
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
9,896
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues
58,417,729
7
2¾
3,652,343
3
11
54,765,386
3
3¼
Other Resources.
Money received from the East-India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the
Employment of the Poor
272,877
0
10
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions
4,245,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
From several County Treasurers, and others in Ireland, on account of Advances made by the
Treasury, for improving Post Roads, for build in Gaols, for the Police, for Public Works,
Employment of the Poor, &c
172,983
17
9
-
-
-
172,983
17
9½
Imprest Monies, repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the
Public
378,788
13
7¼
-
-
-
378,788
13
7¼
Money brought from the Civil List on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
Repayment on account of Money advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, in the year 1825, for
Silver Coinage
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
19,634
5
2
From the Bank of England, on account of Unclaimed Dividends
19,158
13
8
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
TOTALS of the Public Income of the United Kingdom
63,768,671
18
3½
3,652,343
3
11
60,116,323
14
4½
Whitehall, Treasury chambers, 6th March, 1828.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and ended 5th January, 1828.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES butstanding 5th Jan. 1827.
Charges of collection and other Payments out of the Income, in
its progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1828.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate percent for which the Gross Receipt was collected.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
20,519,778
11
7⅞
2,225,620
1
6¼
17,894,405
4
1
399,753
6
0⅜
20,519,778
11
7⅞
7
1
10¼
20,995,324
11
8⅛
1,513,780
17
1⅝
18,438,707
4
7¼
1,042,836
9
11¼
20,995,324
11
8⅛
5
11
3½
7,298,894
17
0
191,557
14
11½
6,811,226
8
0
296,110
14
0½
7,298,894
17
0
2
12
8
5,186,874
14
10¼
315,850
1
7¾
4,768,273
6
3
102,751
6
11½
5,186,874
14
10¼
5
16
6½
2,384,138
6
1
742,404
8
5½
1,463,000
0
0
178,733
17
7½
2,384,138
6
1
30
8
11
66,960
4
10¾
1,447
9
9
62,409
9
10¾
3,103
5
3
66,960
4
10¾
2
5
4
72,631
12
11
9,765
2
6
62,689
0
0
177
10
5
72,631
12
11
13
10
3½
341,803
14
9¾
264,846
11
9¼
-
-
-
76,957
3
0½
341,803
14
9¾
14
3
8¼
12,973
1
9¾
3,214
2
10
4,973
7
11
4,785
11
0¾
12,973
1
9¾
13
4
8½
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,995
14
0¼
—
9,895
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
—
56,955,271
17
8¾
5,268,486
10
6⅞
49,581,576
2
9¼
2,105,209
4
4⅜
56,955,271
17
8¾
6
15
9½
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
—
272,877
0
10
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
—
4,245,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
—
172,983
17
9½
-
-
-
172,983
17
9½
-
-
-
172,933
17
9½
—
378,788
13
7¼
-
-
-
378,788
13
7¼
-
-
-
378,788
13
7¼
—
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
—
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
199,634
5
2
—
19,158
13
8
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
—
62,306,214
8
9½
5,268,486
10
6⅞
54,932,518
13
10
2,105,209
4
4⅜
62,306,214
8
9½
—
GEO. R. DAWSON.
No. II.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and
EXTRAORDINARY the Year ended
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS,&C.
Ordinary Revenues.
£.
s.
d.
?.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Customs
19,003,994
14
0½
1,041,100
5
5
17,962,894
8
7½
Excise
20,447,775
18
14
2,208,765
3
9½
18,239,010
14
3½
Stamps
6,793,898
12
8
244,149
15
6
6,549,748
17
2
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
5 092,078
9
5¼
8,363
18
5
5,083,714
11
0¼
Post Office
2,062,179
15
8¼
69,730
8
7¾
1,992,449
7
0½
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four
Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
63,842
11
7¾
-
-
-
63,842
11
7¾
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
72,254
14
11
-
-
-
72,154
14
11
Crown Lauds
317 027
0
7
-
-
-
317,027
0
7
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
9,172
11
7
-
-
-
9,172
11
7
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,995
14
0¼
TOTAIS of Ordinary Revenues
53,928,220
2
8
3,572,109
11
9¼
10,356,110
10
10¾
Other Resources.
Money received from the East India Company on Account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of
his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per act 4 Geo 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
10
From the Commissioners fur the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo 3, c. 34, for the
Employ
272,877
0
10
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions
4,245,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
365,120
17
2¼
-
-
-
365,120
17
2¼
Money brought from the Civil List on account of he Clerk of the Hanaper
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
Repayment on Account of Money advanced o the Consolidated Fund in the year 1825, for Silver
Coinage
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
199,634
5
2
From the Bank of England on Account of Unclaimed Dividends
19,158
13
8
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
TOTALS of the Public Income of Great Britain
59,092,510
19
6¼
3,572,109
11
9¼
55,520,401
7
9
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 9th March, 1827.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
RESOURCES constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of GREAT BRITAIN, for
5th January, 1828.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1827.
Charge of Collection and other Payments out of the Income, in its
progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1828.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent or which the Cross Receipt was collected.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
18,495,609
0
3¾
1,751,661
17
3¼
16,391,839
1
5
352,103
1
7½
18,495,609
0
3¾
6
2
0
19,145,179
13
8½
1,176,181
2
1
16,969,565
12
2¼
999,429
19
5¼
19,145,179
13
8½
4
17
8½
6,817,106
16
1¼
157,974
1
7¼
6,375,140
15
0
283,991
19
5½
6,817,106
16
1¼
2
6
6
5,186,874
14
10¼
315,850
1
7¾
4,768,273
6
3
102,751
6
11½
5,186,874
14
10¼
5
16
6½
2,138,829
15
4½
625,595
11
1½
1,385,000
0
0
128,234
4
3
2,138,829
15
4½
28
17
2¾
66,960
4
10¾
1,447
9
9
62,409
9
10¾
3,108
5
3
66,960
4
10¾
2
5
4
72,631
12
11
9,765
2
6
62,689
0
0
177
10
5
72,631
12
11
13
10
3½
341,803
14
9¾
264,846
11
9¼
-
-
-
76,957
3
0½
341,803
14
9¾
14
3
8½
12,973
1
9¾
3,214
2
10
4,973
7
11
4,785
11
0½
12,973
1
9¾
13
4
9
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,993
14
0¼
—
52,343,964
8
9¾
4,306,539
0
7½
46,085,886
6
8¼
1,951,539
1
6
52,343,964
8
9¾
6
1
1½
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
—
272,877
0
10
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
—
4,245,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
—
365,120
17
2¼
-
-
-
365,120
17
2¼
-
-
-
365,120
17
2¼
—
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
—
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
199,634
5
2
—
19,158
13
8
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
—
57,508,253
5
8
4,306,539
0
7½
51,250,177
3
6½
1,951,539
1
6
57,508,255
5
8
—
No. II.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and
EXTRAORDINARY ended 5th
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Drawbacks, Discounts, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS,
&c.
Ordinary Revenue.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Customs
2,005,057
16
3¾
28,559
9
1¼
1,976,498
7
2½
Excise
1,776,667
17
7¼
22,452
4
0½
1,754,215
13
6¾
Stamps
481,654
3
8¾
10,896
16
10½
470,757
6
10¼
Post Office
216,252
18
11
18,325
2
1½
197,907
16
9½
Poundage Pees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees and Hospital Fees
9,896
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues
4,489,509
4
6¾
80,233
12
1¾
4,409,275
12
5
Other Resources.
From the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, on Account of
Advances made by the Treasury for completing the North Square of the said College, per Act 54
Geo, c. 67
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
From the Board of Health, on Account of Advances for preventing
Contagion, per Act 58 Geo. 5,n. 47
867
19
3½
-
-
-
867
19
3½
From several Country Treasures, and others:
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for improving Post Roads in Ireland, under Act
45 Geo.3, c. 43
6,549
5
11¼
-
-
-
6,549
5
11¼
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for building Goals, under Act 50 Geo. 3,
c.103
27,623
5
6¼
-
-
-
27,623
5
6¼
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for police in proclaimed Districts, under Acts
54 Geo. 3, c. 131 and 180, and 3 Geo. 4,c. 108
105,752
6
0
-
-
-
105,752
6
0
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for Public Works and Employment of the Poor,
under Acts 57 Geo. 4, c.112, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 84.
29,788
4
9½
-
-
-
29,788
4
9½
Repayment on Account of Advances made for Remuneration to Commissioners of Tithes, per Act 4
Geo. 4, c. 99
1,295
2
5
-
-
-
1,295
2
5
Imprest monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the public
13,667
16
5
-
-
-
13,667
16
5
TOTALS of the Public Income of Ireland
4,676,160
18
9¼
80,233
12
1¾
4,595,927
6
7½
Whitchall, Treasury Chambers, 6th March, 1828.
CLASS I. PUBLIC INCOME.
RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of IRELAND, for the Year January, 1828.
TOTAL INCOME including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1827.
Charges of Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in
its Progress to the Exchequer
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1828.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate percent for which the Grow Receipt was collected.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
2,024,169
11
4⅛
473,958
4
3
l,502,566
9
8
47,645
4
5⅛
2,024,169
11
4⅛
16
10
0¼
1,850,144
17
11⅝
337,596
15
0⅝
1,469,141
12
5
43,406
10
6
1,850,144
17
11⅝
13
7
6¼
481,788
0
10¾
33,583
13
3¾
436,085
13
0
12,118
14
7
481,788
0
10¾
6
19
5¼
245,308
10
8½
116,808
17
4
78,000
0
0
50,499
13
4½
245,308
10
8½
45
11
2
9,896
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
—
4,611,307
8
11
961,947
9
11⅜
3,495,689
16
1
153,670
2
10⅝
4,611,807
8
11
15
12
1¼
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
—
867
19
3½
-
-
-
867
19
3½
-
-
-
867
19
31½
—
6,549
5
11¼
-
-
-
6,549
5
11¼
-
-
-
6,549
5
11¼
—
27,623
5
6¼
-
-
-
27,623
5
6¼
-
-
-
27,623
5
6¼
—
105,752
6
0
-
-
-
105,752
6
0
-
-
-
105,752
6
0
—
29,788
4
9½
-
-
-
29,788
4
9½
-
-
-
29,788
4
9½
—
1,295
2
5
-
-
-
1,295
2
5
-
-
-
1,295
2
5
—
13,667
16
5
-
-
-
13,667
16
5
-
-
-
13,667
16
5
—
4,797,959
3
1½
961,947
9
11⅜
3,682,341
10
3½
153,670
2
10⅝
4,797,959
3
1½
—
GEO. R. DAWSON.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. I.—AN ACCOUNT of the TOTAL INCOME of the REVENUE of
GREAT BRI Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the nature DITURE of the
United Kingdom, exclusive of the Sums ap
HEADS OF REVENUE.
NETT RECEIPT as stated in Account of Public Income.
——
ORDINARY REVENUES.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January 1827
-
-
-
2,189,885
14
5
Customs
19,939,392
15
10
Excise
19,993,226
7
10¼
Stamps
7,020,506
4
0¼
Taxes
5,083,714
11
0¼
Post Office
2,190,357
3
10
One Shilling and Sixpenny Duty on Pensions and Salaries, and Salaries, and Four Shillings in
the Pound on Pensions
63,842
11
7¾
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlers
72,254
14
11
Crown Lands
317,027
0
7
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
9,172
11
7
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
65,995
14
0¼
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
9,869
8
0
54,765,386
3
3¾
56,955,271
17
8¾
Deduct Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January 1828
-
-
-
2,105,209
4
4⅝
TOTAL Ordinary Revenues
-
-
-
54,850,062
13
4⅛
OTHER RESOURCES.
Money received from the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of
his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4 c. 71
60,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for
employment of the poor
272,877
0
10
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions.
4,245,000
0
0
Money received in Ireland on account of Advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various
Acts for Public Improvement
172,983
17
9½
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
378,788
13
7½
Money brought from the Civil List, on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
2,500
0
0
Repayment on account of Money advanced out of the Consolidate Fund, in the year 1825, for
Silver Coinage
199,634
5
2
From the Back of England, on account of Unclaimed Dividends.
19,158
13
8
5,350,942
11
0¾
60,201,005
4
4⅞
Balances in the hands of Receivers, &c. on 5th January 1827
2,189,885
14
5
Ditto on 5th January 1828
2,105,209
4
4⅝
Balances less in 1828 than in 1827
84,676
10
0⅜
Surplus Income paid into Exchequer over Expenditure thereout
1,132,226
14
2½
Actual Excess of Income over Expenditure
1,047,550
4
2⅛
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 6th March, 1828.
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
TAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January 1828, after
deducting the of Drawbacks; together with an Account of the PUBLIC EXPEN-plied to the Reduction
of the National Debt within the same Period.
EXPENDITURE.
——
——
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE INCOME
in its progress to the Exchequer:
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Charges of Collection
3,966,456
13
5¾
Other Payments
1,302,029
17
1⅛
TOTAL Payments out of the Income, prior to the Payments into the Excheqer
-
-
-
5,268,486
10
6⅞
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE EXCHEQUER:
Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four Quarters to 10th October
1827, exclusive of 5,104,706
l.
s.
d.
27,366,601
7
0
Interest on Exchequer Bills
873,246
12
3
28,239,847
19
3
Issued to the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Issued to the Bank of England, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
Civil List
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament on Consolidated Fund, four Quarters to 10th October
1827
365,908
15
1½
Salaries and Allowances
80,896
1
5¼
Courts of Justice
148,047
8
7¼
Mint
14,750
0
0
Bounties
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous
245,459
9
11
Miscellaneous Ireland
303,199
19
0
2,218,218
7
9
For the purchase of the Duke of Athol's Interest in the Public Revenues of the Isle of
Man
134,200
0
0
Towards rebuilding London Bridge, per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 40
120,000
0
0
254,200
0
0
Army
7,876,682
8
2½
Navy
6,414,727
4
0
Ordnance
1,914,403
0
0
Miscellaneous
2,863,247
19
5
19,009,060
11
7½
Lottery Prizes
193,044
0
0
Bank of England, for Discount and Management in the Funding8,000,000
l.
36,267
1
3
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 86, for the
Employment of the Poor
551,900
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
437,753
19
9
1,218,965
1
0
TOTAL
59,068,778
10
2⅜
Surplus of Income paid into Exchequer, over Expenditure issued thereout
1,132,226
14
2½
60,201,005
4
4⅞
GEO. R. DAWSON.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. II.—An Account of the Nett PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of the Expenditure thereout, defrayed by the several Revenue Depart-exclusive of the Sums applied to the Redemption
INCOME.
Applicable to the Consolidated fund.
Applicable to other Public Services.
Income paid into the Exchequer.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Cutoms
15,255,613
0
8
2 638 793
3
5
17,894,405
4
1
Excise
18,438,707
4
7¼
-
-
-
18,438,707
4
7¼
Stamps
6,811,226
8
0
-
-
-
6 811 226
8
0
Taxes under the management of the Commissioners of Taxes, including Arrears of Property Tax
4,768,273
6
3
-
-
-
4,768,273
6
3
Post Office
1,463,000
0
0
-
-
-
1,463,000
0
0
One Shilling and Sixpence Duty on Pensions and Salaries; find Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
62,409
9
10¾
-
-
-
62,409
9
10¾
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
62,689
0
0
-
-
-
62,689
0
0
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenues
4,973
7
11
-
-
-
4,978
7
11
Surplus Fees of regulated Public Offices
65,995
14
0¼
-
-
-
65,995
14
0¼
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees in Ireland
9,896
8
0
-
-
-
9,896
8
0
TOTAL Ordinary Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
49,581,576
2
9¼
Mint repayments on account of Silver Coin
199,634
5
2
-
-
-
199,634
5
2
Brought from Civil List, on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
2,500
0
0
-
-
-
2,500
0
0
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
372,629
5
2¾
5,959
8
4½
378,788
13
7¼
By the East India Company, on account of retired Pay. Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in India, per Act 4 Geo. 4,c 71
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
60,000
0
0
By the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, &c.
-
-
-
4,245,000
0
0
4,245,000
0
0
Money paid by the Bank of England, on account of Unclaimed Dividends, &c
-
-
-
19,158
13
8
19,158
13
8
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for Public Works
-
-
-
272,877
0
10
272,877
0
10
Money repaid in Ireland, on account of advances from the Consolidated Fund,
under various Acts for Public Improvements
172,983
17
9½
-
-
-
172,983
17
9½
47,690,730
7
6½
7,241,788
6
3½
54,932,518
13
10
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 20th February, 1828.
CLASSII.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1828, after abating ments, and of the Actual Issues or Payments within the same period, of Funded Debt, or for paying off Unfunded Debt.
EXPENDITURE.
Nett Expenditure.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four quarters to 10th October 1827, exclusive of 5,704,706
l.
s.
d.
27,365,601
7
0
Interest on Exchequer Bills
873,246
12
3
28,239,847
19
3
Issued to the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Issued to the Bank of England per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
Civil List, four quarters to 5th January 1828
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament, on Cousolidated Fund, four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
365,908
15
1½
Salaries and Allowances four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
80,896
1
5¼
Courts of Justice four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
148,047
8
7¼
Mint four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
14,750
0
0
Bounties four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
245,459
9
11
Miscellaneous Ireland four quarters to 10th Oct. 1827.
303,199
19
0
For the Purchase of the Duke of Athol's Interests in the Public Revenues of the Isle of Man
134,200
0
0
Advanced towards rebuilding London Bridge, per Act 7 Geo. 4,c. 40
120,000
0
0
2,472,418
7
9
Army
7,876,682
8
2½
Navy
6 414,727
4
0
Ordnauce
1,914,403
0
0
Miscellaneous
2,863,247
19
5
19,069,060
11
7½
TOTAL
-
-
-
52,581,272
18
7½
Lottery Prizes
193,044
0
0
Bank of England, for Discount and Management in the Funding8,000,000
l.
36,267
1
3
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act3 Geo. 4, c. 86, for the Employment of the Poor
551,900
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
437,753
19
9
989,653
19
9
TOTAL
53,800,291
19
7½
Surplus of Income over Expenditure thereout
1,132,226
14
2½
54,932,518
13
10
GEO. R. DAWSON.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. III.—An Account of the BALANCE of PUBLIC MONEY remaining in the to the FUNDED or UNFUNDED DEBT, in the Year ended 5th January, or paying off the Unfunded Debt, within the same period; and
£.
s.
d.
Balances in the Exchequer on 5th January 1827
5,119,555
3
9¼
Contributions towards funding 8,000,000
l.
168,878
5
0
MONEY RAISED
In the Year ended 5th January 1828, by the creation of Unfunded Debt:
£.
s.
d.
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 7 Geo. 4, c 50
4,333,200
0
0
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 7Geo.4, c. 2
10,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 7&8 4, c. 41
13,117,500
0
0
Exchequer raised on the credit of Sugar Duties, &c 7&8 Geo.4, c.7.
3,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Poor Bills credit of sugar Duties &c. 3 Geo. 4. c 86
551,900
0
0
Exchequer Church Bills credit of 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, & 5 Geo. 4, c. 103
182,300
0
0
31,184,900
0
0
TOTAL
36,473,333
8
9¼
Surplus of Income over Expenditure thereout
1,132,226
14
2½
37,605,560
2
11¾
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 20th February, 1828.
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
EXCHEQUER on the 5th January, 1827; the amount of Money raised by aditidons 1828; the Money applied towards the Redemption of the Funded, the Money remaining in the Exchequer on the 5th January, 1828.
APPLIED BY
£.
s.
d.
The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in the Redemption of Funded Debt.
£.
s.
d.
Sinking Fund, Unredeemed Funded Debt
5,000,000
0
0
Interest on Redeemed Funded Debt
704,706
13
10
5,704,706
13
10
UNFUNDED DEBT.
Issued to the Paymasters of Exchequer Bills, to pay off Unfunded Debt
27,672,100
0
0
33,376,806
13
10
Balances in the Exchequer at 5th January 1828
4,228,753
9
1¾
37,605,560
2
11¾
N. B.—The Sum of £.5,704,706 13
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
By Purchase of Stock
4,727,345
15
10
By cancelling Exchequer Bills issued to pay £4 per cent Dissentients
383,800
0
0
By interest on Exchequer Bills charged on Sinking Fund
2,759
0
4
By Life Annuities
590,447
4
9
By fractional differences on the conversion of Irish Stock into British Currency, per 6 Geo 4, c,79
354
12
11
5,704,706
13
10
GEO. R. DAWSON.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. I.—An Account of the Income of the CONSOLIDATED FUND arising in the 1828; and also of the Actual Payments on account
£
s.
d.
The Total Income applicable to the Consolidated Fund
47,690,730
7
6½
47,690,730
7
6½
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 20th February, 1828.
No. II.—An Account of the MONEY applicable to the Payment of the CHARGE of the 1828, and of the several CHARGES which have become due thereon, charged upon the said Fund, at the commence
£
s.
d.
Income arising in Great Britain
44,008,388
17
3
£.
s.
d.
Income arising in Ireland
3,682,341
10
3½
Add the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund, towards the Supplies, in the Quarter ended 5th January 1827
246,417
10
4
3,928,759
0
7½
£.
s.
d.
Deduct the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund, towards the Supplies, in the Quarter ended 5th day of January1828
252,759
3
4¾
252,759
3
4¾
3,675,999
17
2¾
Total Sum applicable to the Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended 5th day of January 1828
47,684,388
14
5¾
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Payment of the Charge, to 5th day of January 1828
6,617,800
17
10¾
54,302,189
12
4½
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 20th February, 1828.
CLASS III.—CONDOLIDATED FUND.
United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, of the CONSOLIDATED FUND within the same period.
HEADS OF PAYMENT.
£.
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
33,071,308
0
10
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the credit of the Consolidated Fund
71,060
7
4
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Bank of England and Military pensions, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January 1828
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
365,908
15
1½
Salaries and Allowances by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
80,896
1
5¼
Officers of Courts of Justice by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
148,047
8
7¼
Expenses of the Mint by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
14,750
0
0
Bounties by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
499,659
9
11
Miscellaneous Ireland by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1827
303,199
18
11¾
Advances out of the Consolidated Fond in Ireland, for Public Works
437,753
19
9
38,852,540
15
7 ¾
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
8,838,189
11
10¾
47,690,730
7
6½
CONSOLIDATED FUND of the United Kingdom, in the Year ended 5th January, in the same year, including the Amount of EXCHEQUER BILLS ment and at the termination of the Year.
HEADS OF CHARGE.
£.
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
33,071,054
16
4½
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the credit of the Consolidated Fund
72,510
2
1½
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,860
0
0
Bank of England and Military Pensions, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
373,018
15
4¾
Salaries and Allowances by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
83,497
15
10
Officers of Courts of Justice by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
147,791
3
7¼
Expenses of the Mint by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
14,750
0
0
Bounties by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
473,966
5
2
Miscellaneous. Ireland by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1828
305,245
6
6¾
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
437,753
19
9
38,839,544
18
5 ¾
Exchequer Bills issued to make good the charge of the Consolidated Fund, to 5th January, 1827
5,703,718
11
0¾
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
9,758,926
2
11
54,302,189
12
4½
GEO. R. DAWSON.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
An Account of the State of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBTS of GREAT BRITAIN the Debt incurred by
DEBT.
——
1. CAPITALS.
2. CAPITALS redeemed and transferred to the commissioners.
3. CAPITALS UNREDEEMED.
GREAT BRITAIN.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Debt due to the South Sea Company at £3. percent
3,662,784
8
6½
-
-
-
3,662,784
8
6½
Old South Sea Annuities at £3. percent
4,574,870
2
7
701,000
0
0
3,873,870
2
7
New South Sea Annuities at £3. percent
3,128,330
2
10
374,500
0
0
2,753,830
2
10
South Sea Annuities, 1751 at £3. percent
707,600
0
0
58,500
0
0
649,100
0
0
Debt due to the Bank of England at £3. percent
14,686,800
0
0
-
-
-
14,686,800
0
0
Bank Annuities, created in 1726 at £ 3. percent
1,000,000
0
0
434
1
0
999,565
19
0
Consolidated Annuities at £3. percent
369,138,418
13
5¾
11,893,258
15
6
357,245,159
17
11¾
Reduced Annuities at £3. percent
133,254,182
5
6
6,366,989
3
3
126,887,193
2
3
TOTAL at £.3 per cent
530,152,985
12
10¼
19,394,681
19
9
510,758,303
13
1¼
Annuities at 3½ per cent
15,062,449
13
9
773,438
0
0
14,289,011
13
9
Reduced Annuities at 3 ½ per cent
73,373,495
19
0
5,854,256
16
9
67,519,239
2
3
New 4 per cent Annuities
145,696,842
11
3
137 030
2
2
145,559,812
9
1
Annuities created 1826, at 4 per cent
8,560,000
0
0
-
-
-
8,560,000
0
0
Great Britain
772,845,773
16
10¼
26,159,406
18
8
746,686,366
18
2¼
In IRELAND.
Irish Consolidated of £.3 per cent Annuities
2,209,276
17
7
11
17
10
2,209,264
19
9
Irish Reduced £3 per cent Annuities
418,338
11
7
2
10
0
418,336
1
7
£.3½ per cent Debentures and Stock
14,393,426
5
10
898,794
17
6
13,494,631
8
4
Reduced of. £3½ per cent Annuities
1,958,025
11
7
366,957
1
11
1,591,068
9
8
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland at £4 per cent
1,615,384
12
4
-
-
-
1,615,384
12
4
New £4 per cent Annuities
10,446,659
18
6
205
0
3
10,446,454
18
3
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland at £5 per cent
1,015,384
12
4
-
-
-
1,015,384
12
4
Ireland
32,056,496
9
9
1,265,971
7
6
30,790,525
2
3
TOTAL United Kingdom
804,902,270
6
7¼
27,425,378
6
2
77,476,892
0
5¼
——
STOCK.
£
s.
d.
Note.
484,597,951
11
10
CLASS IV.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
and IRELAND, and of the CHARGE thereupon at the 5th January, 1828, including 7,500,000
l.
CHARGE.
—
IN GREAT BRITAIN.
IN IRELAND.
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Sinking Fund
The Annual Sum of 5,000,000
l.,
4,840,000
0
0
160,000
0
0
Annual Interest on Stock standing in the names of the Commissioners
809,865
0
10½
44,309
18
11¾
Long Annuities on Stock standing in the names of the Commissioners
9,193
4
8½
—
5,659,058
5
7
204,309
18
11¾
Due to the Public Creditor.
Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt
24,350,830
7
8½
1,140,070
6
10¼
Long Annuities, expire 1860
1,331,458
14
0
—
Life Annuities payable at the Exchequer, English
25,203
19
2½
—
Exchequer. Irish
35,746
18
7
7,038
0
9
25,742,969
19
6
1,147,108
7
7¾
Annual Interest on Stock transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, towards the Redemption of Land Tax under Schedules C. D. 1 & D. 2, 53 Geo. 3, c. 123
9,425
18
9
—
Management
277,991
19
4¾
796
8
1 ¾
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
—
TOTAL CHARGE, including Sinking Fund and Pensions
34,489,446
3
2¾
1,352,214
14
8¾
35,841,660
17
10
ABSTRACT.
—
CAPITALS.
CAPITALS. transferred to the commissioners.
CAPITALS unredeemed.
ANNUAL CHARGE.
Due to the Public Creditor.
MANAGEMENT.
SINKING FUND.
TOTAL.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Great Britain
772,845,773
16
10¾
26,159,406
18
8
746,686,366
18
2¾
25,752,495
18
3
277,991
19
4¼
5,659,058
5
7
(
a
Ireland
32,056,496
9
9
1,265,971
7
6
30,790,525
2
3
1,147,108
7
7¼
796
8
1¾
204,309
18
11¼
—
804,902,270
6
7¾
27,425,378
6
2
777,476,892
0
5¾
26,899,504
5
10¼
278,788
7
6
5,863,568
4
6¼
—
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
—
—
—
29,699,504
5
10¼
278,788
7
6
5,863,368
4
6¼
35,841,660
17
10½
Purchased with the Sinking Fund (including £.6,149,245. 17
s.
d.
23,572,428
5
10
Transferred for Life Annuities
2,949,436
0
0
Stock unclaimed, 10 years and upwards
220,816
1
7
Purchased with Unclaimed Dividends
568,500
0
0
Transferred for Redemption of Land Tax, under Schedules C. D. 1, and D. 2
314,197
18
9
TOTAL transferred to the Commissioners, as above
27,425,378
6
2
(
a
s.
d.
Also with the Payment of £.125,445 17
s.
d.
s.
d.
National Debt Office, 9th February, 1826.
S.
HIGHAM,
CLASS V.—UNFUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, and of the Demands outstanding on 5th January, 1828.
——
PROVIDED.
UNPROVIDED.
TOTAL.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Exchequer Bills, exclusive of,£.75,200 issued for paying off £.4 per cents, the payment of which is charged on the Sinking Fund
3,012,650
0
0
24,534,200
0
0
27,546,850
0
0
Sums remaining unpaid, charged upon aids granted by Parliament
2,467,836
17
81¾
-
-
-
2,467,836
17
8¾
Advances made out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards the Supplies which are to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund, out of the Ways and Means in Great Britain
252,759
3
4¾
-
-
-
252,759
3
4¾
TOTAL Unfunded Debt, and Demands outstanding
5,733,246
1
1½
24,534,200
0
0
30,267,446
1
1½
Ways and Means
6,085,296
9
9
—
—
SURPLUS Ways and Means
352,050
8
7½
—
—
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Charge upon the Consolidated Fund
-
-
-
6,617,800
17
10¾
6,617,800
17
10¾
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 20th February, 1828.
Geo. R. DAVISON
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
An Account showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1827, have been disposed of; distinguished under their several Heads; to 5th January, 1828.
SERVICES.
SUMS
SUMS
Voted or Granted.
Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
NAVY
6,125,850
0
7
5,790,791
18
0
ORDNANCE
1,649,972
0
0
1,420,000
0
0
FORCES
8,153,228
19
4½
6,996,906
13
3¼
Royal Military College
13,229
3
47
33,000
0
0
Royal Military Asylum
28,046
17
0
16,451
1
3
Civil Contingencies, for the year 1827
290,000
0
0
273,957
1
8
Works and Repairs of Public Buildings
27,000
0
0
15,768
7
3
Works executing at the Royal Harbour of George the Fourth, at Kingstown (formerly Dunleary)
20,000
0
0
—
Works for the accommodation of the two Houses of Parliament
23,160
0
0
19,083
9
3
To complete the Expense of erecting the new Courts of Justice at Westminister
18,612
0
0
7,290
13
11
Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
Expense of the Houses of Lords and Commons
16,000
0
0
16,000
0
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Department of the Treasury, Secretaries of State, Privy Council, and Committee of Privy Council for Trade
101,182
0
0
69,258
8
3
Contingent Expenses and Messengers Bills in the Departments of the Treasury, Secretaries of Stale, Privy Council, and Committee of Privy Council for Trade
75,823
0
0
72,122
0
0
Salaries of certain Officers, and the Expenses of the Court and Receipt of Exchequer
5,700
0
0
5,700
0
0
Salaries or Allowances granted to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, for reading Courses of Lectures
958
5
0
958
5
0
Salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court, of their Clerks, and the Contingent Expenses of their Office; and also the Expenses attendant upon the Circuits
14,540
0
0
7,524
19
6
Salaries of the Officers, and the Contingent Expenses of the Office for the Superintendence of Aliens, and also the Superannuations or Retired Allowances to Officers formerly employed in this service
4,939
0
0
4,932
0
0
To pay the usual Allowances to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England, poor French Protestant Refugee Clergy, poor French Protestant Refugee Laity, and sundry small Charitable and other Allowances to the Poor of St. Martin's in the Fields, and others
5,912
7
10
2,687
13
6
Expense of priming Acts of Parliament, and Bills, Reports and other Papers for the two Houses of Parliament
80,000
0
0
26,806
7
2
Expense of printing under the direction of the Commissioners of Public Records
7,500
0
0
2,088
0
0
To defray the probable Expense of providing Stationary, Printing, and Binding for the several Public Departments of Government, including the stationary office
95,990
0
0
80,000
0
0
Extraordinary Expense of the Mint, in the Cold Coinage
50,000
0
0
50,000
0
0
Loss and Expense in the Re-coinage of the Irish Silver Tokens, and the Irish Copper Coin
20,343
0
0
20,343
0
0
Extraordinary Expense that may be incurred for Prosecutions, &c.
5,000
0
0
—
Extraordinary Expense in the Department of the Lord Chamberlain, for Fillings and Furniture to the two Houses of Parliament
19,628
0
0
17,429
9
9½
CLASS VI.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Expense of Law Charges
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
To pay Bills drawn from abroad by his Majesty's Governors and others, for the Expenses incurred under the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade; and in conformity to certain Orders in Council for the Support of Captured Negroes, Free American Settlers, &c
30,000
0
0
12,500
0
0
To defray the Amount of Bills drawn or to be drawn from NewSouth Wales
120,000
0
0
120,000
0
0
To indemnify certain Proprietors of Slaves in the United States of America, under the Treaty concluded at Ghent, and the Convention signed at St. Petersburgh and London
50,000
0
0
45,379
9
4
The following SERVICES are directed to be paid without any Fee or other Deduction whatsoever:
For defraying the CHARGE of the CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS under-mentioned, for the year 1827; viz.
Of the Bahama Islands
3,040
0
0
3,040
0
0
Of Nova Scotia
10,645
0
0
10,654
0
0
Of New Brunswick in America
5,100
0
0
2,500
0
0
Of the Island of Bermuda in America
4,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
Of prince Edward Island in America
2,820
0
0
1,300
0
0
Of the Island of Newfoundland
12,461
0
0
7,000
0
0
Of Sierra Leone
13,874
1
8
1,537
15
0
Of the Civil and Military Establishments of the Settlements on the Gold Coast
34,800
15
8
11,000
0
0
Expense of the British Museum
12,877
0
0
12,877
0
0
Expense of Works executing at Port Patrick Harbour
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Expense of Works executing at Donaghadee Harbour
8,000
0
0
8,000
0
0
Expense of Buildings at the British Museum
12,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Expense of Buildings at the Offices of the Privy Council, and of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade
26,250
0
0
18,269
3
7
Expense of Repairs and Works to be executed at Windsor Castle
100,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
In aid of the Expense of erecting Churches, and providing Residence for Bishops in the West Indies
8,000
0
0
—
Expense of the Commissioners for the Harbours and Roads of Howath and Holyhead
17,979
0
0
—
To make Compensation to the Commissioners appointed by several Acts for inquiring into the Collection of the Revenue in Ireland and into certain Revenue Departments in Great Britain, for their assiduity, care, and pains in the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
To make Compensation to the Commissioners appointed by his Majesty for inquiring into the nature and extent of the Instruction afforded by the several Institutions in Ireland established for the purpose of Education, for their assiduity, care, and pains in the execution of the Trust reposed in them
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Expense of the Establishment of the Penitentiary House at Milbank, from 24th of June 1827 to 24th of June 1828
20,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Charge of Retired Allowances or Superannuations to Persons formerly in Public Offices or Departments, or in the Public Service
17,250
12
6
1,112
2
3
To enable his Majesty to grant Relief to Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, Dutch Naval Officers, St. Domingo Sufferers, and others who have heretofore received Allowances from his Majesty, and who from Services performed or Losses sustained in the British Service have special claims upon his Majesty's Justice and Liberality
14,970
0
0
8,260
0
0
Expense of the National Vaccine Establishment
3,000
0
0
8,260
0
0
For the Support of the Institution called "The Refuge for the Destitute"
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
For the Relief of the American Loyalists
5,200
0
0
3,000
0
0
Expense of confining and maintaining Criminal Lunatics
3,422
4
0
3,422
4
0
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
For his Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services
53,000
0
0
46,000
0
0
Expense attending the confining, maintaining, and employing Convicts at Home and at Bermuda
112,746
0
0
94,600
0
0
Salaries and Incidental Expenses of the Commissioners appointed on the part of his Majesty under the Treaties with
Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands, for preventing the illegal Traffic in Slaves
18,000
0
0
—
Expense of the Missions and Special Commissions to the New States of America
50,000
0
0
17,025
9
11¼
Salaries of Consuls General, and Consuls, their Contingent Expenses, and Superannuation Allowances to retired
Consuls
100,870
0
0
45,522
6
5½
Expense of Emigration from the United Kingdom
20,480
0
0
20,480
0
0
Expense of certain Colonial Services (formerly paid out of the Extraordinaries of the Army)
2,442
10
0
2,442
10
0
Expense of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in certain of his Majesty's Colonies
16,182
0
0
16,019
10
0
Expense in the year 1827 of improving the Water Communication between Montreal and the Ottawa, and from the
Ottawa to Kingston
56,000
0
0
—
Charge of providing Stores for the Engineer Department in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, Bedding and
Clothing, for the Convicts, Clothing and Tools for the liberated Africans at Sierra Leone, and Indian Presents for Canada
49,000
0
0
49,000
0
0
For defraying the CHARGE of the following Services in IRELAND, for the year 1827; which are directed
to be paid Nett in British Currency
Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland
18,500
0
0
18,500
0
0
Association for Discountenancing Vice
9,000
0
0
6,668
9
3
Society for the Education of the Poor
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
Foundling Hospital
34,000
0
0
34,000
0
0
House of Industry
23,000
0
0
15,000
0
0
Richmond Lunatic Asylum
6,900
0
0
6,900
0
0
Hibernian Society for Soldiers' Children
7,500
0
0
7,500
0
0
Hibernian Marine Society
1,800
0
0
1,800
0
0
Female Orphan House
1,831
0
0
1,831
0
0
Westmorland Lock Hospital
3,500
0
0
3,500
0
0
Lying-in Hospital
2,770
0
0
2,770
0
0
Doctor Stevens's Hospital
1,700
0
0
1,700
0
0
Fever Hospital, Cork Street, Dublin
4,210
0
0
4,210
0
0
Hospital for Incurables
465
0
0
465
0
0
Roman Catholic Seminary at Maynooth
8,928
0
0
6,696
0
0
Royal Cork Institution
1,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
Royal Dublin Society
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Royal Irish Academy
300
0
0
300
0
0
Board of Charitable Bequests
700
0
0
700
0
0
Linen Board
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Board of Works
16,810
0
0
6,711
5
3
Printing, Stationary, and other Disbursements of the Chief and Under Secretaries Offices and Apartments, and other
Public Offices in Dublin Castle
15,886
0
0
11,446
16
4
Publishing Proclamations and other Matters of a Public nature
5,800
0
0
4,193
11
2
Printing Statutes
3,500
0
0
—
Criminal Prosecutions
33,579
0
0
33,579
0
0
Nonconforming, Seceding and Protestant Dissenting Ministers
14,360
6
0
9,865
2
11
Salaries to Lottery Officers
944
0
3
931
8
4½
Inland Navigations
4,748
0
0
4,748
0
0
Police and Watch Establishments of the City of Dublin
24,300
0
0
24,300
0
0
Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry
7,324
0
0
5,510
4
3
Record Commission
3,487
0
0
2,000
11
2
Public Works in Ireland
20,000
0
0
17,000
0
0
18,245,360
3
5½
15,951,361
6
1
CLASS VI.DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS raid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
To enable his Majesty to provide for any additional Expense which may arise on account of his Majesty's Forces in Portugal
500,000
0
0
—
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, and that the same be issued and applied towards paying off and discharging any Exchequer Bills charged on the Aids or Supplies of the years1826 and 1827, now remaining unpaid or unprovided for
23,200,000
0
0
20,900,700
0
0
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, issued pursuant to several Acts for carrying on Public Works and Fisheries, and for building additional Churches, outstanding and unprovided for
593,200
0
0
42,538,560
3
5½
36,852,061
6
1
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES,
Not being part of the Supplies granted for the Service of the Year.
——
Sums Paid to 5th January 1848.
Estimated further Payments.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Grosvenor Charles Bedford, Esq. on his Salary, for additional trouble in preparing Exchequer Bills, pursuant to Act 48 Geo. 3,c. 1
150
0
0
50
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, pursuant to Acts 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 86
2,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Collection and Management of the Revenue
2,000
0
0
Expenses incurred in the passing of the Act 5 Geo. 4, c 90, for building additional Churches in Scotland
1,155
12
1
By Interest on Exchequer Bills; viz. £.20,000,000 per Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 2, charged on Supplies, 1826
42,651
15
9
10,500,000 per Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 70 charged on Supplies, 1826
50,000
0
0
10,000,000 per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 2 charged on Supplies, 1827
253,734
15
3
13,000,000 per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 50 charged on Supplies, 1827
353,000
0
0
701,692
3
1
50
0
0
701,692
3
1
TOTAL Payments for Services not voted
701,742
3
1
Amount of Sums voted
42,538,560
3
5½
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
43,240,302
6
6½
WAYS AND MEANS
for answering the foregoing Services:
£.
s.
d.
Trustees for the Payment of Naval and Military Pensions, and Civil Superannuations, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
4,155,000
0
0
East India Company, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
Money remaining in the Exchequer on the 5th day of January 1827, charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for Services, and which could not be claimed
354
0
8
Money remaining in the Exchequer, which had been directed to be issued to sundry Persons prior to the 5th day of January 1820, and which not having been paid, remains as Out Cash in the Chests of the four Tellers of the Exchequer
5,924
13
0
Sum to be brought from the Consolidated Fund, per Act 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 42
11,600,000
0
0
Interest on Land Tax redeemed by Money
12
18
0¼
Duty on Sugar, Pensions and Personal Estates, per Act 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 7
3,000,000
0
0
Surplus Ways and Means, per Act 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 7
81,754
1
0
Unclaimed Dividends, & c. after deducting Repayments to the Bank of England, for deficiencies of Balance in their hands
22,993
2
1
Repayments on account of Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to two Acts of the 57th year of his late Majesty, for carrying on Public Works and Fisheries in the United Kingdom
242,877
0
10
19,168,915
15
7½
Exchequer Bills; viz. 7 Geo. 4, c. 2
£.10,000,000
0
0
7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 41
13,800,000
0
0
7 & 8 Geo. 4, c.70, Vote of Credit
500,000
0
0
24,300,000
0
0
TOTAL Ways and Means
43,468,915
15
7½
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
43,240,502
6
6½
SURPLUS Ways and Weans
228,613
9
1
Whitehall, Treasury chambers, 20th February 1828.
GEO. R. DAWSON.
CLASSVIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
CLASS VII.—ARREARS AND BALANCES.
[This Head, which occupies 108 folio Pages in the Finance Accounts, is here omitted, as not being of general utility.]
TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from, the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January, 1828 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade between Great Britain and Ireland reciprocally).
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS into the United Kingdom, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FORM THE UNITED KINGDOM, calculated at the official Rates of valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported therefrom according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1826
44,208,807
6
5
47,150,689
12
11
9,169,494
8
3
56,320,184
1
2
38,870,945
11
11
1827
37,686,113
11
7
40,965,735
19
9
10,076,286
11
5
51,042,022
11
2
31,536,723
5
2
1828
44,887,774
19
2
52,219,280
8
0
9,830,728
2
11
62,050,008
10
11
37,182,857
3
2
FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
An Account of the VALUE, as calculated at the Official Rates, of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from, GREAT BRITAIN, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January, 1828; showing the Trade with Foreign Parts separately from the Trade with Ireland; and distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—Also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from GREAT BRITAIN, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH FOREING PARTS:
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS into calculated at the official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN, calculated at the official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from Great Britain, and Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
1826
42,660,954
8
4
46,453,021
17
1
9,155,305
5
0
55,608,327
2
1
38,077,330
9
0
1827
36,038,951
8
1
40,332,854
0
6
10,066,502
12
11
50,399,356
13
5
30,847,528
1
7
1828
43,467,747
7
7
51,276,448
4
8
9,806,247
10
11
61,082,695
15
7
36,396,339
6
8
Inspector General?s office custom House, London, 24th March, 1828.
WILLIAM IRVING
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
TRADE OF IRELAND.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from, IRELAND; during each of the Three Years ending 5th January 1827 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—also stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from IRELAND, according to the Real or Declared Value thereof.
——
VALUE of imports into IRELAND, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM IRELAND, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom, Exported from Ireland, according to the Real or Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufacture of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
YEARS ENDING
£.
s
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s
d.
VALUE exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN.
5th January 1826
1,547,852
18
1½
697,667
15
10
14,189
3
3
711,856
19
1
793,615
2
11½
—1827
1,647,162
3
6
632,881
19
3
9,783
18
6
642,665
17
9
689,195
3
7½
—1828
1,420,020
11
7
942,832
3
4
24,480
12
0
967,312
15
4
786,517
16
6
Inspector General?s Office, Custom House, London, 24th March, 1828.
WILLIAM IRVING,
NAVIGATION QV THE UNITED KINGDOM.
NEW VESSELS BUILT.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the
Amount of the TONNAGE, that were built and registered in the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, in the Years ending
the 5th January 1826, 1827, and 1828, respectively.
—
In the Years ending the 5lh January.
1826.
1827.
1828.
vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
United Kingdom
975
122,479
1,115
118,363
804
93,144
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
28
1,550
24
2,171
17
1,894
British Plantations
536
80,895
580
86,554
374
50,771
TOTAL
1,539
204,924
1,719
207,088
1,285
145,809
VESSELS REGISTERED.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the
Amount of their TONNAGE and the Number of MEN and BOYS usually employed in Navigating the same, that belonged to
the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, on the 31st December 1825, 1826, and 1827, respectively.
—
On 31st Dec. 1825.
On 31st Dec. 1826.
On 31sl Dec. 1827.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
United Kingdom
20,087
2,298,836
146,703
20,469
2,382,069
149,894
19,035
2,150,605
130,494
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
508
28,505
3,773
499
29,392
3,665
489
30,533
3,701
British Plantations
3,579
214,375
15,059
3,657
224,183
14,077
3,675
279,362
17,220
TOTAL
24,174
2,542,216
165,535
24,625
2,635,644
167,636
23,199
2,460,500
151,415
Note
de novo
Office of Regr. Gen. of Shipping, Custom House,
T. E. WILLOUGHBY.
London, 22nd March, 1828,
VESSELS EMPLOYED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS employed in Navigating the same (including their repeated Voyages) that entered Inwards and cleared Outwards, at the several Ports of the United Kingdom, from and to all Parts of the World (exclusive of the intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland) during each of the Three Years ending 5th January, 1828.
Years ending 5th Jan
SHIPPING ENTERED INWARDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, From Foreign Parts.
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1826
13,503
2,143,317
123,028
6,981
959,312
52,722
20,484
3,102,629
175,750
1827
12,473
1,950,630
113,093
5,729
694,116
39,838
18,202
2,644,746
152,931
1828
13,133
2,085,898
118,680
6,046
751,864
43,536
19,179
2,838,762
162,216
SHIPPING CLEARED OUTWARDS FROM THE UNITBD KINGDOM, To Foreign Parts.
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1826
10,843
1,793,842
109,657
6,085
906,066
47,535
16,928
2,699,908
157,192
1827
10,844
1,737,425
105,198
5,410
692,440
37,305
16,254
2,429,865
142,503
1828
11,481
1,887,682
112,385
5,714
767,821
41,598
17,195
2,655,503
153,983
Office of Regr. Gen. of Shipping, Custom House,
T. E. WILLOUGHBY.
London, 22nd March, 1828,
INDEX
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
B
Beresford, Lord; His Explanation, 1315
C
Canning, Mr.; Provision for his Family, 1100
Catholic Claims, 344, 731, 767, 768, 1133
Corn Bill, 1333, 1518
Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill, 39, 109, 156
Corporate Funds Bill, 1743
F
Foreign Policy of the Country, 1709
G
Game Laws Amendment Bill, 279, 360, 365, 1600
Greece, 1709
Greek Prisoners of War, 899
I
India; Stamp Duties in, 1367
Ireland; State of the Population of, 239
L
Lunatic Asylums Regulation Bill 196
N
National Debt Bill, 1777
Night Poaching Prevention Bill, 365
P
Penryn Disfranchisement Bill, 816, 1443
Population of Ireland; State of the, 239
Portugal, 1315, 1709
Protests concerning Greece and Portugal, 1741
R
Roman Catholic Claims, 344, 731, 767, 768, 1133, 1214
S
Sale of Game Bill, 595
Scotch Parochial Settlements Bill, 1033, 1369
Scotch Peerage Bill, 1392
Scotch Small Notes Bill, 1597
Slavery in the West Indies, 1463
South American Piracy, 1312
Stamp Duties in India, 1367
T
Test and Corporation Acts Repeal Bill, 39, 109, 156
Turkey, 1709
W
Wool Trade, 237, 345
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Additional Churches Bill, 1556
Alehouses Licensing Bill, 855
Anatomical Science, 14
Annuities; Government, 49
Army Estimates, 1356, 1450
B
Banking System, 1526
British Shipping Interest, 1416
British Merchants Claims on Spain, 1697
Budget; The, 1652
Bull Baiting, 1121
C
Canadas; Civil Government of the, 300
Canning Mr.; Provision for the Family of, 681, 719, 846, 881
Canterbury; Archbishop of, his Bill, 1035, 1371
Catholic Association, 137
Catholic Claims, 375, 470, 596, 680, 1318
Chancery; Delays in the Court of, 51
Chester; Administration of Justice in the County Palatine of, 1
Church Briefs, 872
Churches Bill; Additional, 1556
Cities and Boroughs Polls Billy 728, 903
Civil Government of the Canadas, 300
Civil List; Pensions on the, 829, 1303
Corn Laws, 16, 141, 191
Corn Importation Bill, 208, 843, 900
Corporate Funds Bill 1297, 1643, 1647
Corporation and Test Acts Repeal Bill, 289
Currency, 190, 859, 980, 1054, 1380, 1526
Customs and Excise Laws; Penalties under, 262
D
De Bode, Baron; his Case, 1563
Delays in the Court of Chancery, 51
Dissection; Subjects for, 14
E
East India Trade, 1373
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, 779, 915, 1530, 1682
Emigration, 1501
F
Fraudulent Devizes, 367
Friendly Societies Bill, 13
G
Game Bill, 1364
Gaol Discipline, 718
Government Annuities, 49
Greece, 774
H
Humphreys, Mr.; 1524
Huskisson, Mr.; his Explanation, 917
I
Infants; Property in, 840
Ireland; Improvement of, 1036
L
Labourers Wages Bill, 903
Law of Evidence Bill, 350
Law of Real Property, 840, 1524
Liability of Real Property, 367
M
Military and Naval Pensions, 1645
Ministerial Changes, 904, 915
Misappropriation of Public Money, 1416
Miscellaneous Estimates, 907, 1123
N
National Debt Bill, 1704
Navy Estimates, 731, 813
New South Wales Bill, 1456
Nicholl, sir John; Conduct of, 1694, 1749
O
Offences against the Person Bill, 350
Ordnance Estimates, 1615
P
Penalties under the Customs and Excise Laws, 262
Pensions Act Amendment Bill, 846, 881
Pensions on the Civil List, 829, 1303
Petty Felonies, 716
Poor Laws, 880
Portugal, 1201, 1545
Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1694, 1749
Provision for the Family of Mr. Canning, 681, 719,846,881
Public Money; Misappropriation of, 1476
R
Real Property; Liability of, 368
Real Property; Law of, 840, 1524
Recovery of Small Debts, 876
Registration of Voters in Cities and Boroughs, 868
Roman Catholic Association, 137
Roman Catholic Claims, 375, 470, 596, 680, 1318
Rough, Sergeant; Case of, 724
S
Savings Banks, 1053, 1645
Scotch Parochial Settlements Bill, 371
Scotch Small Notes Bill, 1380
Settlement by Hiring Bill, 199
Shipping Interest, 1416
Small Debts; Recovery of, 876, 1475
Small Notes; Circulation of, 180, 859, 980, 1054, 1380
Smithfield Market, 1049, 1317, 1354
South African Natives, 1693
Spain; British Merchants Claims on, 1697
St. Mary-le-bone Vestry Bill, 1116
Stamp Tax in India, 1397
Subjects for Dissection, 14
Sugar Duties, 1206, 1373
Summary Convictions, 716
Superannuation Allowances Bill, 1640, 1682
T
Turkey, 774
U
Union with Ireland, 1605
Usury Laws, 727, 816, 1437
V
Voters in Cities and Boroughs; Registration of, 868
W
Wages, 260
Water; Supply of, to the Metropolis, 771, 1588
Wool Trade, 187
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Aberdeen, Earl of, 1315, 1724
B
Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 44, 184 1234
Bathurst, Earl, 1162 1474
Belhaven, Lord, 1392
Beresford, Lord, 1315
Bexley, Lord, 159,1777
Bristol, Marquis of, 1346
Bristol, Bishop of, 118
Bute, Marquis of, 1223, 1603
C
Calthorpe, Lord, 199, 288, 1467, 1604
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 1150
Carlisle, Earl of, 120
Carnarvon, Earl of, 366, 1199, 1443,1599, 1692
Chester, Bishop of, 42, 124, 132, 174
Clarendon, Earl of, 41
Colchester. Lord, 1214
Cumberland, Duke of, 185, 1197
D
Dacre, Lord, 1102, 1449
Darnley, Earl of, 185, 239, 259, 596, S99, 1166
Dartmouth, Earl of, 1199
DeDunstanville, Lord, 1448
Dudley, Earl of, 1105
Dundas, Lord, 1315
Durham, Bishop of, 162, 1174
E
Eldon, Lord, 39, 41, 43, 109, 111, 113, 126, 160, 166, 178, 1278, 1448
Ellenborough, Lord, 135, 349, 1352,1520
F
Falmouth, Earl of, 42, 134, 1237, 1691
G
Gloucester, Duke of, 1189
Gloucester, Bishop of, 131
Goderich, Viscount, 364, 1182, 1342,1522, 1602
Grey, Earl, 110, 111, 113
Grosvenor, Earl, 1115,1463
Guilford, Earl of, 120, 169, 1170
H
Haddington, Earl of, 1034 1228, 1370, 1393
Harewood, Earl of, 42, 238, 346
Harrowby, Earl of, 172
Holland, Lord, 44, 112, 156, 184, 186, 1709
K
Kenyon, Lord, 177
King, Lord, 1345
L
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 168, 361, 1133, 1292, 1367, 1519
Lauderdale, Earl of, 1334, 1396
Limerick, Earl of, 251, 1034
Lincoln, Bishop of, 123, 1190
Llandaff, Bishop of, 42, 133,136, 137, 159,179, 1198
Londonderry, Marquis of, 1104, 1198
Longford, Earl of, 253
Lord Chancellor, (Lyndhurst) 43, 48, 111, 133, 1246, 1447
Lorton, Viscount, 254
Lyndhurst, Lord,
see
M
Malmesbury, Earl of, 196, 237, 285, 347, 360, 1344, 1519
Manners, Lord, 1170
Mansfield, Earl of, 1392
Melville, Lord, 1034, 1368, 1369, 1395
Mountcashel, Earl of, 186, 259
Morley, Earl of, 1115
N
Newcastle, Duke of, 42, 130
Norwich, Bishop of, 344
P
Plunkett, Lord, 1258
R
Redesdale, Lord, 125, 186, 281, 349, 1354, 1523, 1602
Richmond, Duke of, 239, 345
Roden, Earl of, 121
Rosebery, Earl of, 1033, 1369,1393
Rosslyn, Earl of, 1520
S
Salisbury, Marquis of, 239, 366, 367, 1161, 1692
Seaford, Lord, 1109, 1468
Stanhope, Earl, 1522
Strangford, Viscount, 1313
St. Vincent, Earl, 1188
Suffield, Lord, 279
Sussex, Duke of, 1241
T
Tenterden, Lord, 367
Tuam, Archbishop of, 1151
W
Wellesley, Marquis, 1284
Wellington, Duke of, 41, 43, 167, 178, 238, 257, 346,900, 1100, 1286, 1316, 1333,1465, 1521, 1597,1733,1778
Westmoreland, Earl of, 1691
Wharnclifle, Lord, 239, 281, 348, 365, 367, 1690, 1692
Winchilsea, Earl of, 132, 161, 595, 1159
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Acland, Sir T. D. 298, 719
Althorp, Viscount, 28, 204, 685, 732, 758, 828, 834, 1326
Arbuthnot, Charles, 1490
Ashley, Lord, 855, 1411
Astoll, William, 1116, 1378, 1413
Attorney General (Sir C. Wetherell) 78, 270, 639, 730,825, 1036, 1371, 1587, 1760, 1762
Attwood, Matthias, 859, 866, 1079
B
Baillie, Colonel, 1119
Bankes, Henry, 698, 1387,1621
Bankes, George, 624, 853, 976, 1644
Baring, Sir T. 359, 1117, 1378
Baring, Alexander, 36, 89, 154, 342, 728, 741, 827, 865, 909, 1019, 1383, 1487, 1623, 1632
Baring, W. 222, 1323
Batley C. H. 896, 1526, 1652
Beaumont, T. W. 18
Benett, John, 29, 142, 201,845, 904, 914, 1122, 1355
Bentinck, Lord George, 697
Beresford, Sir J. 766
Bernal, Ralph, 206, 729, 762, 856, 1209, 1623
Bourne, Sturges, 202, 807
Bridges, Sir John, 680, 1364, 1559
Bright, Henry, 277, 728, 729, 828, 1212, 1443
Brougham, Henry, 13, 14, 101, 299, 670,972, 1331, 1413, 1499, 1526, 1627
Brownlow, Charles, 589, 1036
Burdett, Sir Francis, 375, 6S0, 771, 1095, 1120, 1318, 1525, 1558, 1562, 1588, 1596
Burrell, Sir C. 189
Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 1211, 1693, 1780
Byng, George, 18
C
Calcraft, John, 20, 29, 727, 736, 762, 839, 1560, 1623
Calvert, Nicholson, 204, 779, 799, 809, 827
Canning, Stratford, 686
Capel, John, 1647
Carrington. Sir E. 207, 357
Cave, Otway, 222, 1297, 1559, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. Henry Goulburn) 190, 276, 681, 731, 822, 831, 910, 980, 1124, 1127, 1128, 1206, 1213, 1307, 1437, 1438, 1453, 1529, 1557, 1562, 1640, 1645, 1647, 1652,1684,1685,1708
Chandos, Marquis of, 719
Chichester, Colonel, 639
Clarke, Butler, 658
Clerk, Sir George, 749, 1622
Clifton, Lord, 694
Cockburn, Sir George, 734, 752, 764, 815
Colborne, N. R. 203, 1365
Cole, Sir C. 766, 1529
Courter.ay, T. P. 13, 890, 1380, 1415, 1420, 1690
Cripps, Joseph, 192, 204, 824
Croker, J. W. 293, 759
Curteis, E. J. 191, 201, 762, 845
Cust, F. P. 896
D
Davenport, E. D, 12, 716, 718, 1054, 1437
Davies, Colonel, 606, 728, 731, 742, 815,1201, 1356, 1361, 1450
Davis, Hart, 1684, 1761
Daivson, George, 1040, 1123
Denison, W. J. 1057
Denison, J. E. 631
Doherty, John, 461, 544
Douglas, Keith, 1438
Duncombe, Hon. William, 529
E
East, Sir E. H. 205
Ebrington, Lord, 1332, 1391
Ennismore, Lord, 620
Estcourt, T. 371
Evans, Admiral, 637, 756,815
F
Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 846, 897
Fergusson, R. C. 26, 192, 194, 373, 717, 839, 1702, 1743
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 436, 588, 745, 1512,1605, 1631
Fitzgerald, Vesey, 739, 883, 1044
Foster, J.L. 141, 538, 807, 1043, 1059, 1440
Fremantle, Sir T. 904, 1119
Fyler, T. B. 260, 1643
G
Gascoyne, Isaac, 1416
Gilbert, Davies, 1462, 1644
Gooch, Sir Thomas, 153, 228
Gordon, Robert, 729,912, 1049
Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry,
see
Goner, Lord F. L. 465, 914
Graham, Sir James, 190,766, 992,1560, 1024
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 18, 190, 192, 195, 218,261, 597, 1207, 1379, 1415, 1423, 1686, 1743
Grant, Robert, 1583
Grattan, James, 1039, 1509
Grattan, Henry, 609, 1048
Gurney, Hudson, 289, 293, 1027, 1383, 1528, 1545, 1645, 1646, 1647, 1682, 1763, 1776
H
Hardinge, Sir H. 1359, 1450, 1615, 1628, 1642
Harvey, D. W. 82, 262, 729, S78, 892, 1036, 1442
Hastings, Sir C. 1302, 1759
Heathcote, G. 28, 188, 855
Heron, Sir Robert, 823, 826, 856
Herries, J. C. 278, 744, 1443, 1483, 1671
Hobhouse, John Cam, 13, 29, 907, 977, 1119, 1537, 1596, 1743
Hope, Sir A. 906, 1363
Horton, R. Wilmot, 331, 342, 544, 727, 739, 1501, 1623, 1634, 1689, 1780
Howick, Lord, 220, 743, 840, 1027, 1332, 1491, 1530, 1538, 1635
Hume, Joseph, 208, 339, 371, 372, 605, 738, 764 813,829, 838, 865, 878, 881, 904, 907, 911, 1035, 1119, 1124, 1126, 1128, 1131, 1210, 1358, 1361, 1363, 1371, 1377, 1380, 1409, 1450, 1462, 1526, 1557, 1561, 1627, 1637, 1642, 1667, 1694, 1695, 1696, 1709, 1743, 1749, 1762, 1775
Huskisson, William, 20, 28, 30, 35, 152, 156, 300, 343, 658, 702, 809, 810. 835, 917, 970,974, 1030, 1098, 1212, 1310, 1373, 1433, 1450, 1492, 1635, 1703, 1704, 1768
I
Inglis, Sir Robert Harry, 471, 1131
J
Jermyn, Earl, 1614
Jones, John, 728
Irving, John, 222, 1438
K
Keck, Legh, 847, 1302
Kennedy, T. 375
King, R. 141
Knatchbull, Sir E. 26, 207, 372, 761
L
Laboucbere, Henry, 316, 1631
Lamb, Hon. George, 356, 879, 1561
Lamb, Hon. William, 592
Leonard,T. 1355
Lethbridge, Sir T. 187, 719, 1326
Lester, B. L. 1742
Lewis, Frankland, 192, 843, 844, 902, 1014, 1126, 1365, 1646
Leicester, Ralph, 12, 141, 193; 203, 1556, 1667
Liddell, Hon. H. T. 896,1012, 1430
Lindsay, Colonel, 905
Littleton, E. J. 802, 1121, 1586
Lockhart, J. I. 1580
Lowther, Lord, 728, 1647
Lumley, J. S. 800
Lushington, Dr. 838, 875, 1372, 1557, 1696, 1754
M
Maberly, John, 728, 735, 745, 760, 814, 1018, 1622, 1630, 1644, 1664, 1708, 1743, 1763
Mackintosh, Sir James, 318, 548, 724, S84, 1122, 1205, 1397, 1416, 1450, 1524, 1545, 1689, 1697, 1704, 1779
Macqueen, P. 199
Mandeville, Lord, 295
Manning, William, 1391
Marshall, John, 1538
Martin, John, 296, 824, 1051
Maxwell, John, 372, 897
Milton, Lord, 187, 223, 687
Monck, J. B. 204, 261, 866, 881, 1131, 1561, 1643, 1670
Moore, George, 138, 455, 875, 1048
Morpeth, Lord, 60S, 724, 1330, 1626, 1634
Murray, Sir George, 715, 895, 1625, 1694, 1779
N
Newport, Sir John, 373, 730, 737, 874, 882, 1041, 1122
Nicholl, Sir John, 1695
Normanby, Lord, 1536
North, John H. 633, 729, 1455
Nugent, Lord, 854, 868
O
O'Brien, S. 1014, 1613
Owen, Sir E. 1621, 1630
P
Paget, Lord William, 588
Palmer, C. F. 748, 903
Pallmer, C. N. 1053
Palmerston, Viscount, 715, 719, 724, 962, 1362, 1441, 1538
Parnell, Sir Henry, 737, 750, 763, 1051, 1386, 1620, 1674, 1687, 1787
Peel, Right Hon. Robert, 12, 15, 27,92, 150, 194, 205, 225, 292, 293, 297, 350, 356, 358, 359, 567, 680, 712,719, 728, 772, 778, 801,810, 812, 854, 858, 864, 872, 875, 876, 879, 913, 944, 973,976,1044,1052,1065, 1128, 1130, 1203, 1205, 1323, 1356, 1366, 1388, 1475, 1496, 1513, 1525, 1533, 1542, 1544, 1552, 1594, 1610, 1626, 1638, 1644, 1696,1702,1762, 1764, 1765
Perceval, Spencer, 432
Philips, Sir George, 30, 38, 187, 728, 801, 1438
Phillimore, Dr. 894, 1119, 1372, 1562, 1585, 1696, 1761
Pigott, Graham, 193
Planta, J. 724
Portman, E. B. 17 39,150, 155 205 358, 844
Powlett, Lord W. 810, 1365,1558
R
Rancliffe, Lord, 62, 801
Rice, Spring, 140, 719, 847, 850, 1123, 1302, 1327, 1452, 1510, 1559, 1614,1644, 1766, 1767
Ridley, Sir M. W. 155, 187, 693,737,1028, 1125, 1129, 1463, 1626
Robinson, George, 23, 730, 826, 1421, 1440, 1630
Ross, Charles, 729, 730,1118, 1644,1652
Russell, Lord John, 296, 357, 1498,1535, 1631
S
Sandon, Lord, 295, 808, 1561
Scarlett, Sir James, 99, 719, 898
Sebright, Sir John, 824, 1622
Shelley, Sir John, 1365
Sibthorpe, Colonel, 191, 883, 1684
Slaney, R. A. 205, 856, 880, 904, 1513, 1537
Smith, William, 261, 278, 294, 356, 357, 826, 855, 1359
Smith, John, 15
Solicitor General (Sir N. C. Tindal) 419, 1374
Speaker, The (Right Hon. C. M. Sutton) 1764, 1765, 1766
Stanley, Hon. E. G. 23, 35, 334, 711, 804, 812, 975, 1495, 1543, 1563, 1626, 1629 Stewart, J. 1211, 1533
Stuart, Villiers, 531
Stuart, Wortley, J. 342, 712, 1132, 1364, 1463
Sugden, E. B. 85, 368, 828, 840, 842, 1439, 1541, 1557
Sutton, Right Hon. C. M.
see
T
Taylor, M. A, 51, 842, 1476
Tennyson, Charles, 780, 915, 1531, 1541, 1542, 1544
Thompson, C.T. 188, 727, 816, 898, 1390, 1431, 1742
Thompson, Alderman, 1050, 1317, J382, 1443, 1701
Tindal, Sir N. C.
see
Trant, H. 1412, 1645, 1684
Trench, Colonel, 1044, 1317, 1363, 1511
Twiss, Horace, 62, 842, 1463, 1572
V
Van Homrigh, P. 359
Vivian, Sir H. 1365
W
Waithman, Alderman Robert, 49, 260, 748, 800, 1355, 1540, 1556, 1561
Wallace, Thomas, 371, 654
Warburton, Henry, 14, 217, 341, 357,1378, 1454, 1463, 1512, 1596, 1635
Ward, William, 153, 187, 196,1671,1783
Warrender, Sir George, 906
Western, C. C. 155, 195, 276, 715, 718, 719, 900
Wetherell, Sir Charles,
see
Whitmore, W. 147, 843, 1209, 1213, 1375, 1391
Wilbrahatn, G. 1
Williams, Sir R. 727
Wilson, Sir Robert, 692, 774, 1561, 1685, 1703
Wodehouse, E. 194
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 878, 1355, 1556
Wood, John, 262, 742, 1556, 1559
Wood, C. 878, 974, 1365, 1539
Wood, Colonel, 202,1454, 1623
Wrottesley, Sir John, 728, 1062, 1122, 1451, 1453
Wynn, Right Hon. C. W. W. 355, 356, 715, 729, 813, 1325, 1372, 1405, 1538, 1539, 1743
Wynn, Sir W. W. 730, 1561
Y
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 735, 751, 1317, 1324, 1373, 1594
END OF VOL. XIX.